School Books Rewritten in Texas

[Idaho]

Texas Schools Rewrite US History (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)


Cynthia Dunbar does not have a high regard for her local schools. She has called them unconstitutional, tyrannical and tools of perversion. The conservative Texas lawyer has even likened sending children to her state's schools to "throwing them in to the enemy's flames". Her hostility runs so deep that she educated her own offspring at home and at private Christian establishments.

Now Dunbar is on the brink of fulfilling a promise to change all that, or at least point Texas schools toward salvation. She is one of a clutch of Christian evangelists and social conservatives who have grasped control of the state's education board. This week they are expected to force through a new curriculum that is likely to shift what millions of American schoolchildren far beyond Texas learn about their history.

...

What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.

Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Interesting.

I can see that American schools may not always present what everyone considers a balanced view of history, and I do think that the American claim to seperate Church and State is somewhat fallacious historically speaking. However, this is an attempt to instill a very particular Christian doctrine in children, and possibly white Supremism as well.

[Ice]

Texas Schools Rewrite US History (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)



What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.

Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?

It's Texas... I mean what do you expect? I never believed all the hype about Texas until I met my cousin for dinner one night. The guy is a professor at Texas Tech, and he reassured me that Texas is... well as unique as people say.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.

I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.

[Strike For The South]

It's Texas... I mean what do you expect? I never believed all the hype about Texas until I met my cousin for dinner one night. The guy is a professor at Texas Tech, and he reassured me that Texas is... well as unique as people say.


Wreck'Em Tech!

As per the topic. We aren't all crazy but these kind of people are the ones who get pissed off enough to run for the local school board.

I would also like to point out these people are probably good for nothing carpetbaggers/East Texans

[Kadagar_AV]

Texas Schools Rewrite US History (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history)



What I find disturbing about these nutjobs is that they see rationalism as a 'side' which should be equally counterbalanced by their 'side' - making stuff up and presenting history how you would have wanted it to be, rather than an enquiry into how it probably was.

Is there generally support for this kind of thing over there?

That is the general problem discussing an issue like this with a religious nutjob. Their assumption that if you have two ideas, you should meet in the middle. However, sometimes they are just plain wrong, and schools / media / whatever should not blur this to a grey mass.


Example:

Religius nutjob>>> The world was made in four and a half days only last week and then god also created the animals and us humans.
Scientist>>> Uh, actually the world is billions of years old and evolution is what got us here.
Religious nutjub>>> Ok, you can the children your stuff if I can teach them mine! Deal?
Scientist>>> *facepalm*

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't see anything new here...

Schools are always going to be used to push whatever sort of agenda the people in charge want, screw the reality. Scottish history consists of watching Braveheart and learning about William Wallace fighting teh evil English, then nothing happens for the next 500 years or so because that would cause sectarianism with the religious wars etc. Then we learn about WWII, and the Nazi's (huzzah!) of course came straight out of the gates of hell, the whole Second World War happened because Hitler was a bad man, never mind studying why Nazism actually developed the way it did.

And then there's religious education, where they tell you about hippie Jesus, how Muslims are all actually really nice and tolerant, blablabla.

Some of it is just social engineering, although being realistic, some things really are too complicated to teach children about properly. Most children can't be expected to understand the complex debates about the role of states rights in the American Civil War, economic factors etc... so they say it was just slavery (and maybe it was, but children won't know the ins and outs etc).

Although this woman sounds like she is going too far with her own agenda.

[A Nerd]

I've heared of text books being 'altered/improved' to benefit certain demograpics or political leanings. History is a prime example. Sounds like the Ministry of Truth if you ask me.

[jabarto]

This has been going on for months, I even made a thread for it when it first came up. I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false. The others are bad, of course, but those two really seal the deal.

[Brenus]

History is an image a society wants to present to itself for its own benefit.
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…

History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering

[Ironside]

PJ, from that list:


the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as driven by Islamic fundamentalism.

One amendment requires that students be taught that economic prosperity requires "minimal government intrusion and taxation".

There are strands where the free enterprise system fits appropriately but they have stretched the concept of the free enterprise system back to medieval times. The president of the Texas historical association could not find any documentation to support the stretching of the free enterprise system to ancient times but it made no difference.

Should class as enough distortion to be falsifying history. Some other points depends on presentation if they're falsifying history. So they are swinging their agenda heavy handed.

You do seem to have unusually heavily politized history books. I'm guessing it's partially because you do have a large minority that has a long history in the US and that they weren't marginalized like Europe's Jews and Romani. Is there any in depth stuff on the Indians?

Anyway thought of this and found it very fitting.

Lord's Believers
(+2 support, +1 probe, -2 research, -1 planet)
+25% bonus when attacking other factions
No research the first 10 turns.

Very obvious that this faction is based on these people. (And for those not having played SMAC, the bonus to support and attack bonus is due to religious fanatism, probe bonus as they are single minded, -2 research self-explained. -1 planet is more game theme oriented (chosen planet), but still a bit fitting).

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false.

How is the importance of the free market laughably, objectively, and demonstrably false? Are you saying that the free market as a concept is false, or that highlighting its importance in the development of the nation is somehow false?

And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.

[Skullheadhq]

And please define a "Christian nation", as you understand it.

Republican Utopia?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This has been going on for months, I even made a thread for it when it first came up. I think the worst things are the emphasis on the imporatnce of the free market and the idea that this is a Christian nation. Both are laughably, objectively, and demonstarbly false. The others are bad, of course, but those two really seal the deal.

I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.

I fail to see, however, how anyone could credibly deny the importance of the "free market" to US history. While it is true that no nation has allowed (or could allow) a completely unfettered marketplace, the USA has approached that condition far more closely then have most other polities. Can you argue that we are not a true "free market" society? Of course, as there have always been regulations etc. that have influence marketplace interaction. Can you argue that the "free market" wasn't all that important? I think any such argument would be fatuous.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.

I agree. Some seem to see any mention of Christianity as playing any part in the shaping of the nation as having some sort of theocratic intentions. Maybe Mrs. Dunbar (the only board member the Guardian decided to highlight for a story about the Board's decisions) does feel that way and maybe she doesn't, but the actual changes do not seem to reflect such a goal.

Every president has been a Christian, most other politicians and policy makers have been Christian, and the vast majority of the nation's populace has always been Christian. I think those facts can exist along with the very important concept of the separation of church and state in America's history books without creating any cognitive dissonance among students. Trying to erase Christianity from textbooks is a true example of agenda-driven revisionism.

[jabarto]

I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

For the most part, you're right. This, however, just isn't true. Our legal traditions derive from Engish law, which in turn derived from Viking law, which was cribbed from Germanic law. Our legal traditions have more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than they ever did with Christianity.


I fail to see, however, how anyone could credibly deny the importance of the "free market" to US history. While it is true that no nation has allowed (or could allow) a completely unfettered marketplace, the USA has approached that condition far more closely then have most other polities. Can you argue that we are not a true "free market" society? Of course, as there have always been regulations etc. that have influence marketplace interaction. Can you argue that the "free market" wasn't all that important? I think any such argument would be fatuous.

I should have phrased that better. It's not so much that the free market wasn't important, because it was. The problem is that people think the free market was solely responisble for giving them what they have, and that's what's wrong. Sure, they didn't say that aloud, but we're talking about Texan conservatives here; do you really think they're going to give socialism and state intervention the proper due for making our country what it is?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For the most part, you're right. This, however, just isn't true. Our legal traditions derive from Engish law, which in turn derived from Viking law, which was cribbed from Germanic law. Our legal traditions have more to do with naked face-painted barbarians than they ever did with Christianity.

While I agree that the ancient custom of weregeld was a large component of common law -- at least regarding torts -- there are simply too many laws that codify doctrines from the ten commandments and even (usually quite selectively) the Levitican proscriptions to ignore the influence of the Hebraic tradition, and too many doctrines that draw indirectly on canon law as well (not to mention the whole latinist character of US law). In addition, there is a bit of influence from the Brehon tradition in English law as well, not just the Skanda-Germanic. Moreover, while your point has a good deal of merit regarding the Law, the cultural influence of the Christian tradition on the USA simply cannot be minimized.



I should have phrased that better. It's not so much that the free market wasn't important, because it was. The problem is that people think the free market was solely responisble for giving them what they have, and that's what's wrong. Sure, they didn't say that aloud, but we're talking about Texan conservatives here; do you really think they're going to give socialism and state intervention the proper due for making our country what it is?

I think socialism has had more of an impact in our reactions (and sometimes over-reactions) thereto. Will the conservatives of Texas give it short shrift? Possibly. Regrettably, we've got 518 years of continuous Euro-American history that is directly relevant to the present, to say nothing of the contributions of the Amerinds and tangential impacts like those of the Norse (and others?). Since we're talking a survey of history that has to fit into two textbooks of 400 pages or less, little or nothing will get a complete discussion. Since editing must occur, some "agenda" influence is inevitable.

It's important to teach the High Schoolers to become critical consumers of information -- at least to the extent that they do not CHOOSE to wallow in ignorance.

[LittleGrizzly]

Then we learn about WWII, and the Nazi's (huzzah!) of course came straight out of the gates of hell, the whole Second World War happened because Hitler was a bad man, never mind studying why Nazism actually developed the way it did.

Whilst we didn't study the development of nazism per say we did do quite a bit of work on the treaty of versailles and the inter war years (great depression, currency change, hitler made chancellor and finally the riechstag) unless the scottish history you did pushed out the inter war years and versailles, although I did do some welsh history (merthyr rising) maybe theres more scottish history to study as Wales has basically been a small part of England for hundreds of years

Those believers were hardcore on AC, would always find they would be my main competitor as the Spartan faction, she didn't seem to be to big on diplomacy either she would reject even the most lopsided deals...

To those who are saying obviously there is going to be an agenda one way or the other as theres only so much you can teach... then why replace what you have with rubbish like.... the israel palestine conflict is fueled by islamic extremism. If you are going to go into a topic you have to present the different sides of the argument, in my history class on ww2 we learnt about the reasoning behind the conflict different events and how they played out to lead us to WW2. If they were just going to come into the class tell us the germans were aggressive nazis we were the good guys and then just us some basic deatils of the conflict (D-Day, fall of france, stalingrad ect.) we would be better off not being told anything...

Infact I don't think history should be about teaching conclusions, obviously sometimes there is right and wrong, black and white, but there is so much more grey out there. Teachers should tell you what happened leading up to whatever evenbt your studying but you should make your own conclusions on the evidence. If your teachers just comes out and says Islamic extremism fuels the israeli-palastinian conflict your not giving him a little bit of the puzzle (well you may be but not as far as he's concerned) you have given him the answer, for him to ever come to his own conclusion now he has to reject the original one that was forced on him and assess the evidence for himself. Sure lots of clever people will go back and look at all the events and make thier own conclusion, but even among the most intelligent people in society if they have no interest in that area they may accept something wildly inaccurate as fact as they were taught it, so most people who pay little attention but turn up on voting day.... they'll only have the conclusion they were given back in school

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't understand. When you only have 200 to 300 pages in which to condense 234 years of a nation's history (plus the events and circumstances that lead to its creation), you are going to have to be selective in what makes it into the history books. Using ideology to influence what makes it in and what does not is not a new practice. For example, most American history books these days ignore or minimize crucial historical events in favor of minority studies. I always thought it was funny that in my 8th grade history book they would have biography sections for American heroes, and George Washington's was no longer or more in depth than George Washington Carver's. Overall, the American history books I have encountered have used selective history to paint an overall negative view of our history and emphasize many minor events way out of proportion to their importance at the expense of actual major historical events that shaped the nation.

I think the article is mixing what these people (actually only one Board member and one advisor) believe with the actual changes they have proposed, which are really quite minor. For example, the article makes a big deal about the horror of Christians influencing history texts. However, America has always been a majority Christian nation, and many of the most influential Americans have been driven by deeply held Christian beliefs. I don't know what is so wrong with American students exploring the role Christianity played in the development of the nation. It doesn't mean they have to be Christian, or that non-Christians are somehow less American. It is no worse than portraying the Underground Railroad as a major American historical event. Everyone's views of what parts of history are important are ideologically driven to a certain extent, and until they start actually rewriting history (having Texas conquer Mexico or some such), instead of simply choosing slightly different elements of it to emphasize, I'm not too concerned.

America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

History is an image a society wants to present to itself for its own benefit.
That is why the same event describe by the different protagonists will differ.
So every person involve in writing History wants his/her side seen as good, even if it wasn’t…

Actually, Historiography is about trying to make sense of the past, that it used to push an agenda is merely a by-product of human nature. Nor are you correct to say that all history attempts to show the historian's own side as positive. Two examples of the latter pitch are German history of the Second World War and the British history of Colonialism. Any history has a bias, because any person has a bias, but Historiography is not about pushing a particular viewpoint above all else.


History taught in Classrooms is more construction of Identity with Role Model and Heroes than real history.
I have an English Colleague who can with a strait face tell me that England was never defeated. When I do answer that is why Philadelphia is still English, he just avoid answering

True to an extent, but your English colleague clearly didn't pay attention in his history classes, as such a perverse view has never been taught in English schools. The closest you might come to that in the English educational system is the Churchillian cult of "We Won the War" in the 1950's during the post-Imperial period.

Generally speaking, history is a perspective of the past constrained within the available facts.

[Centurion1]

i dislike ancient history textbooks. It bothers me that sub-saharan africa gets as much notice as western europe and east asia. Yes, they ar eusually ignored and need to be learned about but there just isnt enough important stuff about the region as compared to the ME, Asia, Europe before colonization.

Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.

[Megas Methuselah]

Oh and we learned about native americans in US history for about 6 straight years in middle school.

We didn't. Pretty amazing, considering how important we are in contemporary Canada. A study of the treaties should be an absolute necessity in the school system.

[A Nerd]

Native Americans are often overlooked. I learned most of what I know about them from the 1950's American Western and Last of the Mohicans. I know, it's pretty sad.

[Centurion1]

Are you guys kidding me your not that much older............ That is like all we did for most of grade school.

sorry megas but i can only learn about one thing for so long.

[A Nerd]

Native Americans as far as what I can remember from school were: interactions with colonials (Jamestown, Plymouth), slight reference to French and Indian war, trail of tears (one paragraph), Custer. My history classes seldom made it past 1865 before summer vacation. One may want to discount Custer from my class room learnings actually. This is New England though, perhaps they thought we should learn 'more important' things?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Why would we be kidding you? I know many Org members are from the USA, but that doesn't rule out the possibility one might hail from such regions as the UK, or France, and thus have a different perspective on it? I know there are many teenagers on this board but on the flip side we have many people raised before the WWW, too?

[Centurion1]

i was speaking specifically to nerd and megas. both of whom are not that much older or from outside north america.

[PanzerJaeger]

America's not a nation, thankyouverymuch.

I will not submit to your stubborn refusal to recongize commonly accepted references, sir.

What do you call the United Mexican States in every day conversation? :nice:

[Megas Methuselah]

The mob and its press only call it a nation because the idiots don't know the difference between a nation and a state. I expect more from you, PJ. :smile:

[Kadagar_AV]

I agree. Some seem to see any mention of Christianity as playing any part in the shaping of the nation as having some sort of theocratic intentions. Maybe Mrs. Dunbar (the only board member the Guardian decided to highlight for a story about the Board's decisions) does feel that way and maybe she doesn't, but the actual changes do not seem to reflect such a goal.

Every president has been a Christian, most other politicians and policy makers have been Christian, and the vast majority of the nation's populace has always been Christian. I think those facts can exist along with the very important concept of the separation of church and state in America's history books without creating any cognitive dissonance among students. Trying to erase Christianity from textbooks is a true example of agenda-driven revisionism.

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think the argument is that we have a secular government but that our culture and laws are heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some, as with Ms. Dunbar see this as defining us, in practice, as a Christian nation. Most would suggest she's over-stating things a notch. You are correct in that any "objective" assessment would note that we are not a theocracy on any level and that our Constitution actually makes the assumption of governmental power by some theocratic cabal almost impossible, barring some form of theocratic revolution.

I'd agree (though I suspect Ms Dunbar would not). However, my understanding is that the biggest influence the Judeo-Christian tradition had on the foundation of the United States was the horror of European religious divisions. Therefore, the Founding Fathers -whilst men of Christian faith and morals - took steps to ensure freedom of religion.

It is true that they saw this as freedom of Christian conscience but when the more extremist religious proponents rise up to proclaim the US a "Christian" country, they tend to assume a monolithic Christianity (specifically theirs). Thus Roman Catholics or other denominations which have no truck with creationism, for example, do not seem to be included.

The founders of the United States knew all about Christian schism and how it nearly destroyed the Europe their forefathers had fled from. Sadly, the religious fundamentalist persuasion is exactly contrary to the very freedom of conscience that allowed America to bloom.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

Historically, everyone in the cultural West was Christian, at least nominally. The same was true in America, Britain, even Sweden I'm afraid. This is still much more true in America than in Europe.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The founders of the United States knew all about Christian schism and how it nearly destroyed the Europe their forefathers had fled from. Sadly, the religious fundamentalist persuasion is exactly contrary to the very freedom of conscience that allowed America to bloom.

The whole dream of the USA was a sectarian* society, where you could go to your own littly colony and built your own society, the "shining city on a hill" as the dream was.

* The term 'sectarian' here being used in the sense it was historically, which meant effectively the different sects separating themselves from each other in society (as opposed to hatred between them as it tends to mean today). This was one of the big dynamics in the whole British Wars of Religion, with the Scottish Presbyterians calling the Puritans an "army of sectaries" (I think that was the term, IIRC), because its large numbers of Quakers and Anabaptists wanted to live in their own little communities, without any overarching established church.

Of course, the Puritans and thier associated political ideologies are what made the USA, and so the fundamentalist persuasion is very much compatible with the values of the original settlers and to a large extent the founding fathers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

Which of the three did you take issue with?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Source?

The right wing gains much from this claim, you want to back it up? From what I have read you seem to be wrong, but I will accept the facts you speak of if you can produce them.

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents (http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html) as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm) of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline (http://www.google.com/search?q=usa+religious+demographics+history&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=lCT1S5P1HZKMtAOAy8WIBQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEgQ5wIwCg) perspective.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents (http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html) as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm) of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline (http://www.google.com/search?q=usa+religious+demographics+history&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=lCT1S5P1HZKMtAOAy8WIBQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEgQ5wIwCg) perspective.

those stats don't add up, about 5% of the total Christians population claimed (76%) in 2008 is unaccounted.

[Skullheadhq]

Dutch Reformed -> 2 presidents but 0,1% of the population.
Catholic -> 1 president but 24,5% of the population

How funny, never knew this.

[drone]

Dutch Reformed -> 2 presidents but 0,1% of the population.
Catholic -> 1 president but 24,5% of the population

How funny, never knew this.
Presidential candidates of the Roman Catholic persuasion are not trusted by the electorate. The theory is that we don't want our executive to be a Papist lackey taking orders from Rome.

It took a bootlegger's son to break the seal for Catholics, and it didn't turn out so well.

[Centurion1]

Until I run............ Thenwe got two catholic presidents

[Kadagar_AV]

This source provideds information on the religious affiliations of US Presidents (http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html) as well as links to such assessments for other government figures. It cannot, of course, offer evidence as to the depth of their faith or its relevance to their policies save anecdotally.

Consider this assessment (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm) of current religious affiliation, and this gives some timeline (http://www.google.com/search?q=usa+religious+demographics+history&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=lCT1S5P1HZKMtAOAy8WIBQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEgQ5wIwCg) perspective.

I would argue that the early presidents, founding fathers additionaly so, were secularists first and foremost. It has even been argued by far greated minds than mine, that several of them were atheists, paying lip service.

Remember that the US of A was not founded as a christian nation, no matter how much todays right-wing winds blow.

Take the treaty with Tripoli as an example, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Kind of fun reading this with modern eyes, no?

Ironic how a nation founded in secularism today is one of the, if not the, most religious countrys. A scientific study has shown that the spining corpses of the founding fathers could be used as a alternative energy source, George Washington alone has been calculated to be able to fully suply the energy needs of an average town.


I could of course also point at Jefferson, or how about this quote:

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise... ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.

Not the words of a Christian, now is it?

Or Benjamin Franklin: Lighthouses are more useful than churches, sure, he was a deist, but it is not a great leap of faith to imagine he today would have been atheist. Christian however, he defianetly was not.


However, main point would be, no matter if they all were atheists, deists or christian they had one thing in common - secularism!

[Lemur]

Ironic how a nation founded in secularism today is one of the, if not the, most religious countrys
There's absolutely nothing ironic or unexpected in that result. If anything, the codification of a religion with the state is bad for the state, but more importantly bad for the religion. Just imagine if, say, Lutheranism were legally aligned with George W. Bush, and had its prestige and status tied to him politically. Or imagine if Episcopalianism were paired up with Barack Obama.

The separation of church and state is what has allowed and encouraged the U.S.A. to be one of the most religious nations on the face of the Earth. How this connection escapes both Europeans and American fundamentalists is beyond me.

[Kadagar_AV]

There's absolutely nothing ironic or unexpected in that result. If anything, the codification of a religion with the state is bad for the state, but more importantly bad for the religion. Just imagine if, say, Lutheranism were legally aligned with George W. Bush, and had its prestige and status tied to him politically. Or imagine if Episcopalianism were paired up with Barack Obama.

The separation of church and state is what has allowed and encouraged the U.S.A. to be one of the most religious nations on the face of the Earth. How this connection escapes both Europeans and American fundamentalists is beyond me.

I said ironic, not unexpected ;)

And I do believe your analyzis is correct.

A common hypothesis is that the US became what it is just because of the secularism, as you said. It created an open playing field, or a "free market of religion" if you so will.

Different religions in a way became enterprises , churches rivalled for the congregation, if for not other reason than the money it brought. Thus came to be the same hard-sell, aggressive techniques seen in todays commercial world. This created something of a mania among the less educated.

Sweden is the opposite example, with a set national religion. Complacency of the church in Sweden has over the years lead to religious people being met with scorn if they dare confess their belief in the first place.

[Centurion1]

OK so do we all agree Sweden sucks? ..........OK good now onto more pressing issues

:clown:

[Kadagar_AV]

OK so do we all agree Sweden sucks? ..........OK good now onto more pressing issues

:clown:

That is rude, even with the clown.

It is just two very different cultural attitudes, trying to co-exist on this earth.

The scorn a religious person would be met with in sweden just about equals the scorn an atheist is often met with in some parts of the US. So please do not claim some national moral victory here.

In sweden, an openly believing christian could never be elected. *
In USA, an openly atheistic person could never be elected. *

Two sides of the same coin.



* "never" meaning not in the near future.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why do people still make this dichotomy between secularism and Christianity?

[Pannonian]

Anyway thought of this and found it very fitting.

Lord's Believers
(+2 support, +1 probe, -2 research, -1 planet)
+25% bonus when attacking other factions
No research the first 10 turns.

Very obvious that this faction is based on these people. (And for those not having played SMAC, the bonus to support and attack bonus is due to religious fanatism, probe bonus as they are single minded, -2 research self-explained. -1 planet is more game theme oriented (chosen planet), but still a bit fitting).

I revisited SMAC recently, and found it just as addictive as it was back when.

[Kadagar_AV]

Why do people still make this dichotomy between secularism and Christianity?

Because one of them wants to teach that some being that requires a whole lot of faith to believe in created this world, whereas the other go by, you know, stuff we know without voices in your head?

Don't get me wrong, maybe Christians doesn't hear voices in their heads urging them on, but instead take silence as approval of their ideas. What do I know? You might explain :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because one of them wants to teach that some being that requires a whole lot of faith to believe in created this world, whereas the other go by, you know, stuff we know without voices in your head?

You can be a secular Christian, or a secular atheist. Secularism is nothing to do with what you believe, it's just about separating church/state.

In Christianity, unti until the past century or so, there was pretty much a direct correlation between how secular you were, and how hardline you were in your religion views. Moderate Protestants didn't mind having an established church, yet the crazy Anabaptists etc were as secular as you get.

[Centurion1]

Kadagar it was a complete and pure joke and I believed that the smiie would help you realize this. Its obvious your trying to carry your anger to me in your thread but ill rise above it as I did when I tried to hold nothing against you after your crude comments to mrd

[LittleGrizzly]

Kadagar it was a complete and pure joke and I believed that the smiie would help you realize this. Its obvious your trying to carry your anger to me in your thread but ill rise above it as I did when I tried to hold nothing against you after iyour crud comments to mrd

*must try harder*

[Louis VI the Fat]

History is always subject to present norms.

This doesn't mean that anything goes. One does not decide that Jesus installed the free market in Texas in 1845. Complete historical relativism is a dead end.



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


SMAC is awesome!

[KukriKhan]

I don't know how it's in Sweden but schoolbooks are hidiously biased here as well. All hail Gorbatjov for ending the cold war, and Kukri it was really cold of you to butcher each and every Vietnamese village you could find. USA EVIL IS YOU

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

Naughty, naughty.....

Go deliver some mail or something.

[Louis VI the Fat]

* several posts * Kadagar, did it not occur to you that this thread is the same subject as your Swedish article in your thread? :beam:


S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.I would've given my left arm for this post to have been mine.

Still in a class of cool all of your own.

[Kadagar_AV]

Louis, yeah, I don't know what I was thinking..

It is however scary of what media wrote is true, so, is it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, yeah, I don't know what I was thinking..

It is however scary of what media wrote is true, so, is it?I think it is true, and yes, it is a worrying development. All history is subjective, but there are clear gradations.

One can have the content of schoolbooks be decided by faceless professional bureaucrats, or by lay parents. Both have obvious downsides, dangers. In this Texas case, the danger of the latter is shown.



I somewhat appreciate America's direct democracy. Again, in this thread, an example is shown that I did not even knew existed. Like directly elected law enforment, it can result in peculiar results. But, this is the choice America has made - a staunch attachment to the idea that people should govern themselves directly. As so often, what's good about a country is directly related to what's bad about a country.

[PanzerJaeger]

S.E.A.U.R.

SouthEastAsianUrbanRenewal.

but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.

Well done, sir! :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I somewhat appreciate America's direct democracy. Again, in this thread, an example is shown that I did not even knew existed. Like directly elected law enforment, it can result in peculiar results. But, this is the choice America has made - a staunch attachment to the idea that people should govern themselves directly. As so often, what's good about a country is directly related to what's bad about a country.

A fair critique.