Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

Hi Buz,We've been over this ground before. I said pretty much the same thing in a reply to you earlier in this thread, check out Message 125.No one is questioning (or at least I'm not) that the country has become increasingly secularized. The article of the OP described religious groups bypassing scholarship to gain favorable treatment for their views in textbooks by lobbying publishers and school boards. Randman said secular groups do the same thing, and I replied, not once but many times now, that I have no idea what he's talking about and could he please provide some examples. So far he's provided nothing, his standard operating procedure. Holmes says he has some examples from another thread, perhaps he'll post them here.--Percy

Sorry, I can't see any connection to attempting to influence school curriculums or textbooks, except indirectly at best. The issue you raise seems more closely related to stem-cell research, also affected by moral issues. Conflicts between moral concerns and scholarship are a different issue. Once again, I suggest you take it to the appropriate thread. In the meantime, let me refresh your memory about the Forum Guidelines:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

​

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

'Nuf said?--Percy

Holmes never stated any such thing. His posts in this thread are Message 140 and Message 148 if you'd like to actually read them. As I said earlier, since I'm willing to correct your incorrect characterizations of what I'm saying as often as you make them, I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by repeating them.As I've explained several times now, and as I just finished explaining to Buz again in Message 146, no one is denying, especially not me, the increasing secularization of our society, including public education.You seem to be having difficulty keeping straight what we're discussing. You asserted that secularists are doing the same thing as the religious groups described in the article of the opening post. These religious groups are bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and school boards for representation of their preferred viewpoints. Do you have any examples of secularists doing the same thing? Of course secularists will go to court to counter the results of bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and schoolboards for representation of religious viewpoints in science class. But do you have any examples of secular groups bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and schoolboards for representation of their own preferred viewpoints? You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide a single example. The fact of the matter is that what finds its way into textbooks is the prevailing views of scholarship, and that scholarship is increasingly secular. But there are no secular groups out there lobbying publishers and school boards for representation of views that are contrary to prevailing views within scholarship.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-07-2006 02:44 PM

But is there any similarity to what these religious groups are doing, which is to ask for is distortions of current scholarly understanding in textbooks for public schools. Are the secular groups you're talking about requesting that science be distorted in technical papers? I doubt that very much.I think what you're talking about is which scientific findings are given the imprimatur of government. I don't know anything about the groups involved in this dispute, but I would have guessed that the side trying to force moralistic sensibilities on scientific findings would have a healthy non-secular, i.e., religious, component.--Percy

You're like an error factory! Reading ahead I see that this statement has already been thoroughly rebutted, so I won't bother rebutting it again. You're once again wrong. In this case, prevailing scientific views made their way into textbooks in the manner that they usually do. There was never any court case forcing the Biogenetic Law into schoools.Are you ever going to make any claims that are actually true and which you can support? This is not a case of you making tiny errors while we're being picky. You're making fundmental errors concerning a significant event in American history, and then you're making up things that never happened.I'm sure the secularization of America is viewed with concern and sadness by Christian conservatives, but fabricating stories about secular misdeeds isn't the answer.--Percy

There is no controversy within science. The controversy is within school systems and inside courtrooms. If they want to teach this controversy then it belongs in a social studies course.The point I've been making is that your claim that secular groups are doing the same thing as the religious groups described in the article of the opening post is incorrect. There are no secular groups bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and school boards for representation of their special preferred viewpoints. Well, how is one to respond to this except to say that this perspective would appear to represent a regrettable lack of conscience and a lack of compulsion against making repeated scurrilous and false accusations, and goes against Christian principles of honesty and integrity. You just make it up as you go along, I guess. Secularists were not pushing the Biogenetic Law into schools. The Biogenetic Law made it into textbooks when it was a prevailing view within biology.Futhermore, the opponents of evolution in Dayton, Tennessee, knew nothing of the Biogentic Law. The extent of sophistication of their understanding of evolution is reflected in their concern about the harm to faith from teaching we were all just monkeys.--Percy

No, I couldn't agree that secularist pressure is being exerted. What I've said is that the influence of secularism is diffuse because it is everywhere. The prevailing views within any field are what gets taught in school, and right now those views are predominantly secular. Secularists aren't exerting pressure for their views because they don't have to - their views are dominant. They are *writing* the textbooks. They have no need to lobby publishers for their views because they're employed by the publishers.That's the real reason why Randman's charge that they're using the same means as those religious groups is ridiculous, as well as his charge that they're using legal means. They don't have to use these techniques to get representation for their views - their views are already represented.--Percy

I can't find any mention of Luther in this thread other than this post from you. It isn't in the link you provided in Message 145, either. So let me say this. Any history book which includes a treatment (not a mention, a treatment) of Martin Luther and fails to mention his role in the origin of protestantism is producing a sanitized and distorted account. Do you actually have an example of this?Just to be absolutely clear, if you produce a passage from a chapter on socialism in the 20th century that says, "Some attitudes about social responsibility trace back to Martin Luther," then this is not an example of what you're looking for.You need a passage from a history book that in the chapter or section on Martin Luther describes him as a social reformer and fails to mention his role in the schisms of Catholocism.--Percy

The link is from the International Association for the Promotion of Christian Higher Education, not from BU. It contains an article by a Dr. Glenn of Boston University that was presented at Dordt College, which is a Christian college. The article was also supposed to have appeared in the August 2004 issue of Pro Rege, a quarterly publication of Dordt College whose website says, "the purpose of this journal is to proclaim Christ's kingship over the sphere of education."In other words, saying the link is from BU is misleading because it gives Dr. Glenn's opinions a secular weight they simply do not have. Dr. Glenn's webpage says that he has been an ordained minister since 1963.In other words, I'm not at all surprised by these words from an ordained minister speaking at a Christian college.King is usually referred to as the Reverend Martin Luther King, so of course he's a minister. I expect textbooks refer to him the same way. I lived the 60s, as did you, and King's achievements were in civil rights, not religion. He used black church's as organizing centers for his civil rights activities, not as places of worship, not that he didn't give a good sermon. He was a great leader, but his PhD thesis in theology was plagiarized from an earlier thesis.--Percy

McVeigh was a self-confessed agnostic who was raised Catholic and accepted last rites administed by a Catholic priest before his death. His motivation for the Oklahoma city bombing was the federal action against the Branch Davidian Christian group in Waco, Texas. I think people will have to decide for themselves whether he was Christian or not.--Percy