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

quote:

---

You seem to be having trouble finding apples to compare with other apples. You keep saying that the religious groups described in the article are just doing the same thing secularist groups have been doing for years, but you haven't been able to provide an example of a secular group doing any such thing.

---

*sigh*Why should randman waste his time, Percy?Can't you google?

Randman claims that secular groups have been doing for years what these religious groups are doing now, which is trying to get their particular historical viewpoints represented in textbooks by bypassing scholarship and instead lobbying publishers and school boards. I can't even guess which secular groups or efforts Randman is referring to, so if you can help then please google away!--Percy

Hi Schraf. Thanks for the kind and encouraging remarks. I try to do the job fairly, prayerfully and carefully.

As I've shown, your own OP study acknowledged that history books were being revised to more of a secularist agenda in fairly recent decades. (linked below from my message 99). Surely religious fundies weren't advocating and implementing these revisions, were they? Who would you say were responsible for these?http://EvC Forum: Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Whose "secularist agenda"? The article just says that history books began shying away from religion in the 70s and 80s. It doesn't say anything about the reasons, and it certainly mentions no secular agenda. In fact, neither the word "secular" nor "agenda" appears in the article.Randman claims the religious groups mentioned in the OP are only doing the same thing secular groups have done. Which secular groups? What changes did they pressure for? When?I guess I've asked this enough times now that I'm entitled to draw some conclusions from the lack of response. The reason there are no groups to point to is because gradual secularization is a result of diffuse forces driven from many different quarters, including but not limited to the increasing presence of other cultures and religions in our society, and the judiciary's increasingly clear stance on the separation of church and state. You won't find a secular bogeyman pressuring publishers and schools boards because he is both everywhere and nowhere. The country is responding to forces that are under no single group's control.--Percy

I grew up in the 50s, thus attending public schools through most of that decade and the 60s. Certainly, society was becoming more secular; certainly, racial and religious minorities were no longer content to accept the omissions and whitewashes which had characterized textbooks in the past.I must say, we never had any doubt who the Pilgrims were Thanking: and we knew the God they were thanking was neither Catholic nor Jewish, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain.If the focus of history textbooks shifted away from the dominant sect's perspective, does that mean secularists must have been lobbying for the change?If so, does that mean that prior to that change, religious folks must have been lobbying for the previous focus on religious history?No, because the homogeneity of secular and religious authority achieved that end without any need for such concerted actions as pressure groups or litigation.The use of the words "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist" is unfortunate in this thread, since, as Holmes has pointed out, the efforts described in the article were not fundamentalist--the Hindus were not attempting to impose or valorize the beliefs or practices of ancient Hindus, but were rather attempting to whitewash aspects of Hindu antiquity they found...not useful.But I don't recall any secularists organizing to pressure textbook publishers to alter texts so that secularist history would look better, though there was considerable societal pressure to address some of the excesses and abuses committed by a Christian nation and then swept under the rug, e.g., genocide practiced against native peoples, and colonialism masquerading as righteous, God-willed "Manifest Destiny."Percy's request is fair and reasonable: Where are the instances of secularists pressuring textbook publishers to distort or edit history to make their own history look better?I endorse and join his challenge: supply one instance where American secularists lobbied to edit textbooks to prettify some bit of secularist history.Good luck.Edit: To get rid of the misspelling in the subtitle!2nd Edit: To get rid of MY misspelling in the subtitle!This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:10 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:31 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:32 PM

Madelin Murray O'Hare, of course, spearheaded the removal of the Bible, which was used extensively in all American schools for over a century since the colonies from the public schools . The American Humanist Assn, an atheist organization has worked to secularize every area of society. Secularist minded activist judges have had a part in secularizing America.I would assume that these folks as well as the ACLU have had a part in textbook revisions.Hardly any students are aware of the New England Primer, full of Biblical text, which every public school child began their education with for over century beginning with the colonies.Even Thomas Jefferson sanctioned the Bible and Watts Hymnal in all the public schools under his admin.I've just begun to research on this, but I understand that very little is noted in recent history books about the founding fathers of America, most of whom promoted Christianity in the school curriculum.Margaret Thatcher, in a speech to the Chruch Of Scotland General Assembly in 1988 said the following regarding religion agenda in the schools. I assume she, in her speech, was referring to the schools of England and Scotland. The effect Madilyn O'Hare, her organization, and other like minded folks had on removing the Bible and prayer from public schools had a ripple effect on removing other reference to God in the textbooks. How so? As the students progressively received less and less Biblical influence, they in turn, as they grew up, grew more secularistic in their thinking and willing to accept and promote revision of the school curriculum. This is how I see it.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Buzz, the question was revision of history. Reducing the references to a specific religious text in a time of multiculturalism is an issue which could be discussed somewhere else.The issue here is what revisions to history have been pushed to make "secularists" look better.

The thing is is buz, really when you start trying to give equal balance in the texts for all religions, the pryer domininent religion is going to lose priority and control, if all there were was christians in this country you might have something which i'm sorry but this wouldn't be useful to teach students anymore which ones, i doubt most of them you mean we have to have god in everything?, why? why should the christian god be counted? should we not include allah and zeus and thor too?
{abe as percy said whats this have to do with the topic anyway?, lets discuss it but not here}This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-01-2006 01:23 AM

quote:

---

Randman claims that secular groups have been doing for years what these religious groups are doing now, which is trying to get their particular historical viewpoints represented in textbooks by bypassing scholarship and instead lobbying publishers and school boards. I can't even guess which secular groups or efforts Randman is referring to, so if you can help then please google away!

---

Sorry Percy.When I wrote: ,I was repeating what randman has said to me in one form or another when he and I get to the place in a given debate where I ask him to support his assertions and he doesn't think he needs to.In fact, he at that point demands that I do his research for him.I was just recognizing that this is the place that you and he have reached in your discussion and was just inserting randman's predictable next step.

This has been pointed out already, but you're addressing the wrong issue. Randman claims the increasingly secular perspective of history books is due to secular groups doing the same thing as the religious groups in the article, namely bypassing scholarship by lobbying publishers and school boards to make changes more favorable to their own particular viewpoints. The example Randman used was of the Reformation to be more favorable to them? Can you provide an example of any secular group lobbying for a change in the way history books address the Reformation? Or of any significant Christian movement? The crusades, perhaps? Constantine's conversion?I can easily imagine a secular group going to court to remove from the public school curiculum any history book that described Noah's flood or the Last Supper as actual historical events, but that's not the kind of thing we're talking about here.The gradual secularization of history books and school curiculums in general is not due to secular groups lobbying publishers and school board for special treatment for their particular beliefs. It is only a reflection of the gradual recognition that in order to be fair to all religions you can favor none.Christianity once held a favored postion within the governmental institutions of the western world because it was almost everyone's religion, but a government that favors Christianity cannot be fair to Jews or Moslems. In fact, as history has shown over and over again all across Europe, a Christian government that favors Protestants cannot even be fair to Catholics, and vice versa. Favoring no religion is the only possible avenue for a government intent upon fairness.--Percy

quote:

---

Buz: The effect Madilyn O'Hare, her organization, and other like minded folks had on removing the Bible and prayer from public schools had a ripple effect on removing other reference to God in the textbooks. How so? As the students progressively received less and less Biblical influence, they in turn, as they grew up, grew more secularistic in their thinking and willing to accept and promote revision of the school curriculum. This is how I see it.
  —buz

---

The implicated point I was trying to convey is that removing the Bible from the schools, had the effect of revising of the history of the nation in that much of that history involved early founders, patriots and statesmen who were Biblicalists. So that aspect of their lives, their writings, speeches and activities would tend to be removed from the historical curriculum as the ripple effect secularized the thinking of those responsible for the publishing of later textbooks. The net result would then be to artificially secularize history by eliminating significant aspects of it.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

Buz.I happen to think that sacred studies should be part of a general publlic school curricula. see Message 1But don't we need to teach all of the history as it really happened. Don't we also need to teach all of the horrific acts committed in the name of Christianity as well as the good influences? And when looking at other religions, don't we also need to include both the good and the evil?If we are going to teach the history of religion (and since religions do play such an important part in forging civilizations I think it's important) don't we also have to teach the fact that the Crusades were an act of naked aggression against a relatively peaceful community, that the Christian religion drove us to destroy the history, culture and even language of millions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You never heard of the ACLU and it's lawsuits against school districts?

It's probably hopeless buzz. Percy is just going to deny reality, and claim no knowledge of secularists' attempts to take religion out of education....actually, looking down a little, I see he already did that, as expected.