“It is appropriate to teach the right of free speech, but it is also incumbent to teach the responsibilities accompanying free speech; that of accuracy, civility, truth and good taste.”
—David Barton
If any question remains about the religious and political motivations of certain members of the Texas Board of Education, one need only read the words of their social studies curriculum experts.
Rev. Peter Marshall (one of their appointed academic experts), for example, wants to restore America, according to the Web site of his Massachusetts-based ministry, “to its Bible-based foundations through preaching, teaching, and writing on America’s Christian heritage and on Christian discipleship and revival.” He also believes that Hurricane Katrina, Watergate, and the Vietnam War are the result of divine wrath.
As part of his curriculum review for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills process, Marshall issued an assessment of a Grade 5 history section in which students are asked to “describe the accomplishments of significant colonial leaders such as Anne Hutchinson, William Penn, John Smith, and Roger Williams.”
Marshall, along with his fellow reviewer David Barton, did not believe that students in the public education system should learn about Hutchinson:
Anne Hutchinson does not belong in the company of these eminent gentlemen. She was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn’t accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble. (emphasis added)
One of the original Puritans, Hutchinson disagreed with some of the scriptural teachings of the religious leaders and began hosting her own Bible study classes in her home. For this crime, Hutchinson was placed on trial and banished from her community. Later, she and her exiled family were killed in a Siwanoy attack.
“This is a prime example of somebody who believed in religious freedom and was persecuted for that,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Certainly, there can be legitimate debate regarding the amount of prominence Hutchinson should receive in the Texas educational system. But describing a woman kicked out of her community for wanting to worship God in her own way as “making trouble” reveals much about what Marshall and his supporters really think about the principle of religious freedom.
The irony, of course, is that these are the same men who argue forcefully that educators must do a better job at teaching this nation’s Christian heritage.
“This is a guy talking about freedom of religion as part of the history of the United States,” said Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network. “And what happened to Ann Hutchinson is why separation of church and state is so important. And now they want that example taken out of the standards.”
“It’s a perfect example of censoring ideas you don’t like and distorting history to feed an agenda.”
Panel Leaders
Just as a handful of the 15 members of the Texas Board of Education tried to hijack the educational review of the state science curriculum this past year (attempting to stack the panel of experts with anti-science activists and intelligent design advocates like Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute), the same board members are now trying to repeat the process with the social studies curriculum.
The outcome of these hearings will be used by publishers to determine what goes into their textbooks. As the second-largest bulk purchaser of textbooks in the country, Texas determines what students learn not only in Texas, but in many other states, where districts purchase the same versions.
The board members have appointed six experts, and, the choices appear carefully crafted to be fair and balanced to differing views: one side representing a commitment to sound education, and the other side representing an agenda of religious far-right extremism.
In addition to Marshall, who holds a seminary degree from Princeton and has no background in social science, they include:
David Barton, whose company, WallBuilders, helped spawn a cottage industry based on the concepts that “separation of church and state is a myth” and that our nation’s founding fathers wanted America to be a theocracy, governed by Christian principles. A self-styled historian, Barton only has an undergraduate degree in religious education. And Daniel Dreisbach, a professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington DC, who earned a law degree and a doctorate of philosophy in politics. While unlike Marshall or Barton he does at least boast some credentials, Dreisbach also believes “separation of church and state is a myth.”
On the other hand, the three other board members, Jim Kracht, professor of teaching, learning, and culture and also of geography at Texas A&M University; Jesus Francisco de la Teja, professor and chairman of the history department at Texas State University-San Marcos; and Lybeth Hodges, professor of history and government at Texas Woman’s University, all provide the panel with solid mainstream advanced academic credentials and educational experience.
In their expert reviews, Kracht, de la Teja, and Hodges offer reasonable suggestions for curriculum updates; while the other three offer suggestions that reveal a bizarre political agenda of extremist ideology and biblical exceptionalism.
For instance, Barton (former vice-chairman of the state GOP, and a Republican National Committee operative) said that Texas children should no longer be taught about “democratic” values but “republican” ones. “We don’t pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands,” he wrote.
“It’s a little ‘R’ and a little ‘D,’” Quinn said. “But they’re not fooling anyone.”
Both Barton and Phillips recommended that César Chavez (labor organizer and civil rights leader) and Thurgood Marshall (the nation’s first black US Supreme Court justice who, as a young attorney, successfully argued the public school desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education) be removed from textbooks because they aren’t worthy role models for students.
Perhaps most concerning, Barton also stresses the teaching of the Declaration of Independence and wants to see the state standards stipulate that the document is synonymous with the Constitution.
It’s interesting to note that nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to God; but in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson refers to a creator, as well as “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”
From this, Barton says we can adduce—and children should therefore be taught—the five following principles: 1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature; 2. There is a Creator; 3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights; 4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual; 5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the governed.
Barton goes on to write that these five points are key to what he calls “American Exceptionalism”:
Students must understand that American Exceptionalism is the result of the five distinctive ideas set forth in the first three lines of the Declaration and subsequently secured in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Separation?
There is a confounding literal-mindedness to Christian fundamentalism. Just as the Bible is the inerrant word of God, there is the oft-quoted remark: “Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say ‘Separation of Church and State.’”
But AU’s Boston believes experts such as Barton, Dreisbach, and Phillips are being less literal-minded and more disingenuous.
“They use it deliberately because it has superficial appeal to people who just don’t think things through,” he said. “The polls have never shown great Constitutional literacy in this country, right down to knowing the rights spelled out in the First Amendment.”
“So the facts be damned,” Boston said. And he added:
They have a purer form of knowledge that transcends facts; they believe they are on a God-given mission to bring those facts into the public sphere. There is a power to being told that you belong to a special class of people whose history has been oppressed by a malevolent force. That this great glorious Christian history is being suppressed by atheists.
Fair and Balanced
At the end of last month, the social studies advisory team began the arduous process of culling through the expert reports—separating the agenda-driven items and the code words from the sound pedagogical-based suggestions.
The appointed reviewers will then write draft curricula based on the recommendations, and present them to the Board of Education. In August, the board members will begin the first round of hearings to review the proposed changes.
“I don’t see at all that we will divide into factions,” said new board Chairwoman Gail Lowe, seemingly rather disingenuously, in a recent newspaper interview. Lowe was one of two board members who appointed Barton to the panel of experts.
A Young Earth Creationist like her predecessor, Lowe was recently appointed by Gov. Rick Perry. She replaced Don McLeroy after the state Senate declined to confirm him following his outrageous behavior during the science standard debacle in which he argued for creationist language.
During an impassioned speech, as he tried to get creationist code words into the science standards, McLeroy said, “Somebody has to stand up to the experts!”
In a previous newspaper interview, McLeroy had warned that social studies would be even more controversial than the science hearings.
Strangely, this kind of extremism seems to have become the “conservative viewpoint.” In many news accounts, including a Fox News piece by Steve Doocy and Tucker Carlson, the panel of experts is described as three conservatives and three liberals. Doocy, in characterizing the advisory panel, held up his fingers to emphasize the balance, an issue that particularly irks Texas Freedom Network’s Dan Quinn.
“This is not a debate between left and right,” Quinn said. “This is a debate between radicalism and the mainstream.”
“What they’ve done is the same thing they did with the science experts,” Quinn added.
“They’ve packed the panel with ideologues whose politics they agree with. It’s three ideologues and three mainstream academics. But they’ve moved the debate so far to the right that they make it sound like this is a panel of traditional conservative Republicans and Democrats.”
It’s a strange notion that a conservative viewpoint is one that no longer supports the idea that we are a country founded on a principle of religious freedom.
It’s even stranger that members of the media now describe the conservative position as one that argues America is a nation founded on a rigid theocracy in which a woman banished from her community for disagreeing with her religious leaders is guilty of simply “making trouble.”
“All this plays into the idea that if you don’t like this,” Quinn said, “then you’re a leftist who hates Christians.”
Tags: creationism, education, social studies, texas
Jesus Christ outranks any political agenda, so should there be a seperation of church and state? the christian church is entirely more important than any state. Everyone on earth should bow to Jesus, not science. He is the only way to heaven, He is the way , the truth, and the light.
Wake up america, and stop tolerating everything. Science can explain alot of things, but not everything.
Does Jesus' importance to you give you the right to rewrite history? What's done is done, as they say. You can't put words into the mouths of the Founding Fathers, no matter how much you may wish to do so.
For example - Jesus was a Jew. Even if you were anti-Semitic and greatly disliked this fact, would you have any right to ignore or try to change it?
Then move out of my democracy and found a theocracy.
As a Christian, I do not want anyone else defining my faith for me through the apparatus of the state. I can't imagine why you do. Christ was pretty clear on Palm Sunday that His was not a secular, wordly kingdom. If you don't know that, you don't know your Bible, and you might want to get a firmer grasp on it before you start making it into laws for other people.
Um... what?
Oh dear. My apologies, nuclear.kelly. I was replying to the same thread as you were and hit the wrong "reply" button. Sorry!
Actually...looks like I did respond to "the church."
Not quite sure where the confusion lies, then.
Got it - you were responding to what I was responding to, instead of responding to me. Problem solved. :-)
Before I follow advice from "anonymous," they should know that it is "a lot" and not "alot." I refuse to be educated by an uneducated bible thumper. Go read some books (beside the bible), and then get back to me.
I know of no reason to think that anything you've said is true. Your faith in your religion gives no no right to try to impose your religion onto others. Theocrats, whether Christian, Muslim or Hindu or something else are all just as bad.
Unfortunately, the Christian taliban is here in the USA.
Please look up the definitions of the following: theocracy, republic, democracy. There's a reason why the Christians who founded this country chose a democratic republic rather than a theocracy. There is a reason why they were careful to say "God" and not "Christ" in the Declaration of Independence. Goggle "Iran" for further clarification. Would you still say there shouldn't be a separation of church and state if the church in power represented a different faith?!?
You are seriously pathetic and simple minded to type something like that. Basically, you have dumbed down your existence to the point that you are a child. BTW - your Bible is nothing more than a comic book.
There should be separation as it was originally intended, which is that the government not interfere with religion. Freedom of religion relies on non-interference from government. However, the government has always been and should always be influenced by religion, because religion is the best source of objective moral teachings that transcend men's personal opinions. Subjective morality is really no morality at all. Government exists to uphold morality, because morality is a set of axioms that can be factually shown to be necessary for good order in society and for societies very survival. We would have anarchy if our government did nothing to prevent immorallity such as stealing, murder, perjury, bribery, etc. Government exists to promote justice, right over wrong, and it is not subjective, but objective, and the source almost exclusively relied upon for that objective truth in this country has been the Bible. Our founders clearly recognized the importance of religion influencing government because without it we would have another form of tyranny, of might making right, and that is tyranny of the majority. We need moral principals that transcend whatever the latest popular notion is, and we find that in age old religious teachings such as that in the Bible. Don't confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion, because they are diametrically opposed. Without religion you have no guarantee of freedom, you are at the whim of the masses.
First, learn how to spell "separation." Second, you need to remember that Christ said that "My kingdom is not of this world" -- meaning, it won't be established or maintained by violence and coercion.
The fact is we are a republic, not a pure democracy. That is part of the brilliance of the Founders' creation. The original fathers never intended to strip religion away from state, only not to have an official national denomination. One of their first acts was the Northwest Ordinance, whose purpose was partly to teach scripture and religious principles.
Go ahead and strip Christianity from our culture and institutions, and despite the promise of total freedom see what you get. Hint: it's not going to be pretty. For a preview, take a look at the French Revolution.
As a product of Texas public school education, I was fortunate enough to have these individuals in my curriculum. To say that they are insignificant is highly incorrect. These men and women were critical thinkers who are examples of hope and dream; why would one claim that they are bad role models? They fought for their rights or were exiled for their beliefs. Without people like them, many advances in this country would not have been achieved.
My family had to leave France in 1681 because Louis and the Catholics were going to kill them. My ancestor was one of the founding fathers of New Rochelle, NY. He didn't need to alter school books that contain historical facts to believe in G-d. He only needed a country where the family is free to practice our religion. It made no difference what the neighbors believed as long as they weren't violent to their protestant friends. School is school and church is church. If you need to pray in school you need to attend a religious school.
The suppression of labor by big businesses and their government goons did not make my high school history books.
I've always seen that graphic identified as Mary Dyer, who was hanged on Boston Common for preaching Quakerism. She was one of four Quakers executed for heresy in Boston.
That David Barton, one of the country's foremost Liars For Jesus®, has been speaking of "accuracy, civility and truth" is a threat to irony meters everywhere.
I too recognize this as an illustration of Mary Dyer (Quaker and a friend of Anne Hutchinson) who was hanged in Boston for persisting in her heretical missionary work. The Library of Congress identifies the print in this manner:
Mary Dyer led to execution on Boston Common, 1 June 1660
Color engraving.
Copyprint Nineteenth Century
Courtesy of The Granger Collection, New York
...So does Wikipedia with the addition that the artist is unknown.
We have truth in lending laws but apparently some do not want truth in education. I wrote to the Texas Board of Education in response to a news release by a "humanist" group which asked the board to not mention Christianity in history. I quoted documents ranging from the First Charter of Virginia of 1606 to the Texas Constitution which all mention God. Whether you agree with the Christian belief or not, it is factual history. Lauri Lebo's article seems to accomplish the very thing she eschews - suppression of fact because of beliefs.
I disagree - this editorial isn't promoting suppression of Christian history (or any history). It does, however, point out that allowing your personal or political viewpoint to determine what is "left in" or "left out" of history (as it is taught) is unacceptable. In your case, the push of the group to censor Christian history was wrong; in this case, the push of the group to censor Cesar Chavez is wrong.
I thought I understood the controversy until I read the comments. Is it about spelling or telling the truth? What we are seeing in our country is satan trying to make the "The Church" just like our Government and not the other way around. The truth will be determined by those in charge at any given moment. The only time there will ever be a "Chritian Government," anywhere, is when Christ returns. No fallen human being will ever create a "Christian" nation. The person who thinks they can make another person a Christian by passing legislation, or teaching lies to our children, is a fool.
Exellent comment. I guess they think they can legislate christianity. This does seem more like a work of evil under the guise of Christian good.
Really people? For one thing, changing the info in a textbook is not going to erase the facts from history, so why waste the time and resources to do so? And for another, reading these comments makes me want to avoid the church at all costs, you people are EXTREMISTS and you terrify me. I am not an atheist but no one has ever shown me that the church can be trusted with anything. When the church takes over the government and dictates the laws we will fall into another dark age and be set back hundreds of years because you people are afraid of the truth and change and improvment and the knowledge that God doesn't control anything. It's called FREE will/choice for a reason. GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!
Someone should point out to Barton and Marshall that Anne Hutchinson was important enough for the state of Massachusetts to place a statue of her conspicuosly in front of the state capitol. There is also a statue there of Quaker martyr Mary Dyer. Also, Driesbach is out of step with most historians and the Supreme Court if he scoffs at the basic US constitutional principle of separation of church and state, our main defense of religious freedom.
-- Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty (arlinc.org)
All this talk only underlines the many reasons Jesus didn't get involved in political hubbub. As a worker in the educational system, and as a Christian, I find it appalling that we think we should "change" historical facts to support any one side. Truth is truth. The kids are smart enough to see through all the hype, just ask them.
What a wonderfully volatile conversation! Water everywhere and not a drop to drink...
GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1st PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A., "It is impossible to rightly govern the World without God and the Bible." "Do not let anyone claim tribute of American patriotism if they even attempt to remove religion from politics."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, 3rd PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A., "The 1st amendment has created a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall, it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
JAMES MADISON, 4th PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A., "We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government ... not in the Constitution... (but) upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments"
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 6th PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.A.., "From the time of the Declaration of Independence, the American People were bound by the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they all acknowledge as the root of their conduct. We all came together to obey the word of God."
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I didn't want to let these quotations and your false assertions go unaddressed. However, it takes a good bit of time and energy running down quotes that don't exist. (Especially when you do not provide any links or resources.) Here's what I was able to confirm: At least two of the quotes (George Washington and James Madison) have been used in the past by David Barton and which he now acknowledges are unsubstantiated. But please don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. http://tiny.cc/llOtV
Also, the quote by Thomas Jefferson, I can only assume this is based on his letter to the Danbury Baptists, although nowhere in the letter is there a quote remotely hinting at a “one-directional wall.” Again, please read the letter for yourself: http://tiny.cc/Kg0hE
As for the John Quincy Adams source, well, you got me. Although, as pointed out to me by Joe Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, it’s a strange quote coming from a man who was a Unitarian. Still, I can’t find a reference to it anywhere, asserting whether it is true or false. Perhaps Mr. Anonymous, you could provide a reference to where you found the quote, so that we might be able to read its context for ourselves.
Most sincerely,
Lauri Lebo
This whole website tries to rewrite history! Separation of church and state was never about removing religious beliefs from government, but about keeping government out of religion.
Wasn't it mainly about preventing a government-sactioned (in other words, official) religion? In which case, it actually goes both ways.
I think it speaks volumes that Christians resort to false quotes attributed to the nation's founders, then when they're called on it, they just keep right on asserting what they originally failed to prove.
I find great humor in the fact that many of my fundamentalist friends want to turn the US in to a "Christian Nation", but are appalled at nations that are based on a different religion (theocracies). It's perfectly fine for them to disrespect people and governments in the middle east, and support radical groups trying to bring Christianity into those regions. But if we were to setup the Christian nation they suggest the US would be no different than Iran or Turkey, save the flavor of religion enforced by the state.
Happily it will never happen, mainly because they (the right wing nuts) can't agree on some of the basics. Want proof? Ask a group of Christian nationalists if the state should mandate baptism. When they all answer yes, ask them how that baptism should be preformed, then step back and watch as they fight among themselves. There are whole separate denominations based on how one should be baptized.
The concept of the separation of Church and State is one that was clearly detailed by several of the founding fathers in letters to each other, both before and after separating from England. It's there to protect the State from religion in general, and more importantly to protect religious groups from each other. There's nothing wrong with taking a common religious dictate (e.g. "Thou shalt not kill"), proposing a law (Title 18 USC), and getting the House and Senate to pass it. There is something wrong with saying "My religion says this is wrong, and I as a result am judge, jury, and executioner based on my interpretation of my religion." Which is exactly what the leaders of every theocracy in the world essentially are saying.
In the US system there's a lot of political mess, and not everyone is totally happy with every result. But there are checks and balances in place to weed out stuff that's not for the common good, something lacking in most theocracies. You want your state to be able to legislate morality? Go for it. But don't be surprised when your kid gets arrested while traveling in another state 20 years from now for shaving his beard because the local population was mainly Muslim and passed local sharia morality laws.
>But if we were to setup the Christian nation they suggest the US would be no different than Iran or Turkey, save the flavor of religion enforced by the state.<
A minor quibble - Turkey is one of the few majority-muslim countries which is NOT a theocracy but has a secular government - like ours is SUPPOSED to be!
My take is this - religious freedom necessarily includes freedom FROM government coercion, promotion, endorsement, discouragement or denial of any specific religious tenet. Even 'generic' religions tenets like 'God exists'. (which gets into tricky questions like 'is Buddhism a 'religion' even though it doesn't have a deity?')
Who wants the government to officially endorse the idea of reincarnation?
Not me.
Who wants the government to officially endorse Zeus as the King of the Gods?
Not me.
N_J
Changing history textbooks (and, eventually, science texts) reminds me of my Uncle's words about this very subject. My Uncle, in the 1970s, was an important and admired member of the U.S. Government and an Advisor to the President. At a family reunion, he told us to be steadfast in recognizing that Christian Fundamentalists have every intention of taking over the American Government.
The Fundamentalist Movement began as far back as the early 1970s (and possibly before that). This Movement has slowly built steam and power, and now have made quick gains, even into the 21st century. My Uncle also was sent to China several times during that same time in the 1970s. His comment about China was: "Let the Sleeping Giant lay quietly and do not disturb it."
At the time, we were young and couldn't conceive of the possibility that Fundamentalism could take hold so strongly, nor could we believe that China would "wake up" so strongly. Now, we are old, and now, I am sorry to say, we realize that my Uncle was "dead on."
We must ever remain alert to fearful possibilities, and find a way to resolve these dilemmas. The United States must remain a country that continues the rights of freedom of expression and the freedom to practice our own religion without government dictates or interferences.
Online Porno Izle ||
AM FOTOLARI ||
Liseli PORNOsu ||
Liseli Lezbiyen
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.