Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father
-
24-11-2014 12:42pm#1Just read the following and you have to ask where will it end?
"Christian conservatives win, children lose: Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses.
On Friday the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 to approve the biased and inaccurate textbooks. The vote signals a victory for Christian conservatives in Texas, and a disappointing defeat for historical accuracy and the education of innocent children.
The textbooks were written to align with instructional standards that the Board of Education approved back in 2010 with the explicit intention of forcing social studies teaching to adhere to a conservative Christian agenda. The standards require teachers to emphasize America’s so called “Christian heritage.”
In essence, Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks that portray Moses as an influence on the Constitution and the Old Testament as the root of democracy.
Critics called the whole process into question after publishers posted a number of last-minute changes to the textbooks yesterday, leaving board members and observers without time to figure out exactly what was in the approved texts.
According to reports, scholars did not have an opportunity to review and comment on the numerous changes publishers have submitted since the last public hearing. Some of those changes appeared to have been negotiated with state board members behind closed doors.
Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller issued the following statement:
“What we saw today shows very clearly that the process the State Board of Education uses to adopt textbooks is a sham. This board adopted textbooks with numerous late changes that the public had little opportunity to review and comment on and that even board members themselves admitted they had not read. They can’t honestly say they know what’s in these textbooks, which could be in classrooms for a decade.”
In addition to Miller’s complaints about the process, the Texas Freedom Network issued a statement on today’s State Board of Education vote to adopt new social studies textbooks for Texas public schools, noting:
the new textbooks also include passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament. Scholars from across the country have said such claims are inaccurate and mislead students about the historical record.
Emile Lester, a professor of history in the Department of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of Mary Washington, claim the textbooks contain “inventions and exaggerations” about Christianity’s influence on the Founding Fathers and, by extension, the formation of American democracy.
Credible historians warn the misguided attempt to suggest biblical origins for the Constitution would lead students to believe that “Moses was the first American.”
Scholars claim the decision to include the biblical figure of Moses in social studies education is part of a concerted effort by Christian extremists to promote the idea that the United States is a “redeemer nation” – giving a divine justification for supposed American exceptionalism.
The proposed textbooks are deeply flawed, and have no place in a public school classroom. It is wrong and factually incorrect to teach Texas public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible.
Despite the efforts of Christian conservatives to pervert and twist U.S. history to satisfy their religious superstition, the fact remains Moses was not the first American, and America is not a Christian nation.
Children deserve the truth."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/11/texas-approves-textbooks-with-moses-as-founding-father/4
Comments
-
IIRC, Texas is also where many of the US's schoolbook publishers are based. This will have disastrous consequences across the USA.0
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »IIRC, Texas is also where many of the US's schoolbook publishers are based. This will have disastrous consequences across the USA.
Yeah, it is the state with the biggest and most powerful education board.
I also like the presumption that the US was founded along democratic lines, especially when the founding fathers (most likely to keep the Southern states in the tent) were open in modelling the constitution, and most especially the voting provisions thereof, on Republican Roman lines, a most decidedly undemocratic ideal.0 -
-
And yet, curiously, the Texas Freedom Network are not challengin the historicity of that claim.Brian Shanahan wrote: »I also like the presumption that the US was founded along democratic lines, especially when the founding fathers (most likely to keep the Southern states in the tent) were open in modelling the constitution, and most especially the voting provisions thereof, on Republican Roman lines, a most decidedly undemocratic ideal.
Are they being a bit selective, do you think, in the myths they object to and those they embrace?0 -
I suppose facts are over rated these days.0
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »And yet, curiously, the Texas Freedom Network are not challengin the historicity of that claim.
Are they being a bit selective, do you think, in the myths they object to and those they embrace?
Is The Texas Freedom Network in power, has it just managed to get a distorted, twisted version of American history approved for teaching in schools? The answer is no.
And yet the thing about this that you find worthy of comment is some possible hypocrisy among an institution that is fighting against blatant historical distortion? You're just trolling now, ignoring the undemocratic, mendacious activities of Christians because it doesn't suit your agenda to acknowledge them.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »And yet, curiously, the Texas Freedom Network are not challengin the historicity of that claim.
Are they being a bit selective, do you think, in the myths they object to and those they embrace?
Or maybe they were just concentrating on/distracted by the more obvious nonsense put forward. It also seems there where a lot of last minute changes that few, if any, people got to review. Press Statement from TFN:Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller had the following statement on today’s State Board of Education vote to adopt new social studies textbooks for Texas public schools.
“What we saw today shows very clearly that the process the State Board of Education uses to adopt textbooks is a sham,” Miller said. “This board adopted textbooks with numerous late changes that the public had little opportunity to review and comment on and that even board members themselves admitted they had not read. They can’t honestly say they know what’s in these textbooks, which could be in classrooms for a decade.”
Miller was critical of board Republicans for rejecting a common-sense proposal by their Democratic colleagues to delay adoption of the textbooks until Dec. 1 so that late changes could be vetted for accuracy.
The Texas Education Agency posted scores of pages of publisher comments and textbook revisions after the last public hearing on Tuesday. Miller said scholars did not have an opportunity to review and comment on the numerous changes publishers have submitted since the last public hearing on Tuesday. Some of those changes appeared to have been negotiated with state board members behind closed doors.
During a months-long process, publishers made a number of improvements to their textbooks. Those improvements included removing inaccurate information promoting climate change denialism; deleting offensive cartoons comparing beneficiaries of affirmative action to space aliens; making clearer that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War; and revising passages that had promoted unfair negative stereotypes of Muslims. Scholars and the general public had ample opportunity to review and comment on those revisions.
However, the new textbooks also include passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament. Scholars from across the country have said such claims are inaccurate and mislead students about the historical record.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »And yet, curiously, the Texas Freedom Network are not challengin the historicity of that claim.
Are they being a bit selective, do you think, in the myths they object to and those they embrace?
The most laughable tactic of supernaturalists is to reduce everything to the status of myth and then with a triumphalist flourish like a fifth rate magician declare " you might as well believe mine".0 -
I have to say, I'd be really interested in reading these bits:
Can anyone provide a link to the changes that the publishers apparently posted?passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament.0 -
Dear me. I seem to have touched a nerve.
I'm trolling? Seriously? In the first place, I haven't accused anybody of hypocrisy. For the record, I do not believe that the Texas Freedom Network are hypocritical, and have said nothing which could possibly justify you in concluding that I think this. It takes a fair bit of cognitive dissonance for you to make up this accusation against me and, in the same. post accuse me of trolling. Just sayin'.And yet the thing about this that you find worthy of comment is some possible hypocrisy among an institution that is fighting against blatant historical distortion? You're just trolling now, ignoring the undemocratic, mendacious activities of Christians because it doesn't suit your agenda to acknowledge them.
In the second place, I am not ignoring the undemocratic mendacious etc; I am participating in a thread which discusses it. And if you read my contribution in a less one-eyed fashion you would see that it endorses the views expressed by other here; I treat the claim that Moses is a founding father as a myth, and I make no criticism, explicit or implicit, of the TFN for rejecting that myth.
In the third place, I have to point out that it was not me that pointed to the myth which went unchallenged by the TFN; it was Brian Shanahan. Why are you not accusing him of trolling, and of imputing hypocrisy to the TFN?
The sarcasm would be more biting - or, at least, vaguely relevant - if anybody in this thread had said anything remotely like that.Cantremember wrote: »The most laughable tactic of supernaturalists is to reduce everything to the status of myth and then with a triumphalist flourish like a fifth rate magician declare " you might as well believe mine".0 -
Advertisement
-
Yawlboy's post contains a link to a post on the Progressive Secular Humanist blog which is hosted on Patheos. The PSH post in turn is liberally sprinkled with further links, but they mostly go to news media (the Daily Beast) or advocacy groups (Americans United for Separation of Church and State). There doesn't seem to be much primary source material online - either the offending textbooks, or the professional reviews/assessments of them by historians and educators.I have to say, I'd be really interested in reading these bits:
Can anyone provide a link to the changes that the publishers apparently posted?
I suspect this is at least in part because the textbooks are a commercial product and are copyright. The publishers hope - if they are approved by the Board of Education - to sell them in large numbers, and they are not about to put the text up online or allow others to do so. Also the textbooks may not have been formally published yet, pending approval, so while the Board of Education, reviewers, etc obviously have seen them they are not quite out there in public.
Most of the comments that you see attributed to historians in the reports seem to have been made not in writing, but orally, at a public hearing of the Board of Education. I don't know if a full transcript of the hearing is online.
There's a useful article here: it's an opinion piece rather than a straight report, and it's written by somebody commissioned by one of the advocacy groups. But he seems to be appropriately professional qualified - he's a history professor - and he lays out the issues coherently. FWIW, in his view the problem is not really the textbooks, or the authors, or the publishers; it's the criteria imposed by the Texas State Board of Education about what has to be covered if the books are to be approved for use in Texas schools. These, in his view, introduce inevitable distortions. In particular they require the textbook to address the influence of (among others) Moses on 18th-century republican thought and on the founding of the US. Once you require textbooks to address that then no matter how carefully the textbook is written it cannot avoid the impression that the influence of Moses was at least great enough to justify a mention.
In short, although the issue is in the news because of hearings over specific textbooks, the real issue is not the textbooks but the specifications set by the State for what the textbooks must address. And those specifications are online - here.0 -
Cheers! Found the particular requirements that seem to be under discussion here:
§113.44. United States Government (One-Half Credit), Beginning with School Year 2011-2012.
Particularly:
I'm guessing the issue then is how this requirement is implemented; for instance reading (C) my immediate thought would be Moses' influence is in delivering the 10 Commandments, effectively an early concept of a legal framework for an established non-familial society. It may (or may not) be as relevant as say the Code of Ur-Nammu, though you'd imagine Moses' laws would have been more familiar to the founding fathers, but could that not be construed as the intent, rather than Moses was a Founding Father of the USA? That said, naming Moses as an individual (rather than a character) alongside real individuals is a bit of a dodgy one...(c) Knowledge and skills.
(1) History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by ideas, people, and historical documents. The student is expected to:
(A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights, divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government;
(B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English common law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals;
(C) identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu;0 -
Well, it has to be said that neither the State-mandated standards nor (so far as we know) the new textbooks name Moses as a founding father of the US. I think what has happened is that a critic of the standards has said something like “they are tantamount to treating Moses as a founding father” or “students will come away with the impression that Moses was almost a founding father” or something of the kind. Hyperbole, perhaps, but probably justifiable hyperbole. But through the wonderful magic that is the internet today, in the twinkling of an eye this is transmuted into “Texas school textbooks name Moses as founding father!”
If you work hard enough, you probably can find some idea which is embedded in Mosaic law, and which passes into European culture from that source, and which is reflected in US political institutions. For instance, if I recall correctly Mosaic law requires that certain disputes be adjudicated in courts, by judges (and not simply resolved by decree of the ruler). And here we see an embryonic version of the separation of powers, a concept which of course is strongly reflected in US political institutions. And while a similar embryonic version might have been embedded in other ancient legal systems, it’s probably not unfair to say that its presence in the Mosaic system is more likely to account for us inheriting it. So, yeah, maybe there is a tenuous connection between Mosaic law and the shape of US political and legal institutions.
The question is whether it deserves special mention, over other historic contributions to legal/political thought - Justinian, Gratian, Grotius, etc. The answer, obviously, is “no”. Hell, there are other religious thinkers whose views on the proper exercise of civic power would be of more significance that this - Augustine, for example. Moses is picked not because his contribution warrants it, but for purely ideological reasons.
(And of course you're right to point out that the specification requires Moses to be treated as an “individual”. In reality the historicity of Moses is a matter of lively debate in biblical scholarship.)0 -
I'd imagine that a student writing about the influence of Moses upon the principle of laws in the US would have a very short essay. Only two of the ten commandments (Thou Shalt Not Steal; Thou Shalt Not Murder) are part of the US legal code, and of course those are from the first set of tablets that Moses was claimed to have brought down from Mt. Sinai, not the second set.
Even those two laws cannot in themselves be claimed to have been influenced by Moses, since 1) the historicity of Moses is in extreme doubt 2) laws against murder and theft existed long before Moses was claimed to have existed. They were in the Code of Hammurabi for example.0 -
There are some states in the US with laws regarding adultery too.0
-
There are some states in the US with laws regarding adultery too.
And...? None of the decalogue are about adultery. The closest you get is the one talking about "Thou Shalt Not Be Jealous of Thy Neighbour's Wife", which doesn't forbid adultery outright. It merely establishes thought crime - don't lust after someone else's wife, don't feel the emotion of lust.
I would also like to know the definition of these adultery laws - are they criminal i.e. if I'm in that state, married and sleep with another woman who's also married, do I get fined by the state, get jail time?0 -
It's Texas, what do you expect?0
-
Did someone change the ten commandments? The prohibition on adultery occurs in both ethical decalogues, in Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 according to the KJV... or are you just quibbling the definition of adultery?RikuoAmero wrote: »And...? None of the decalogue are about adultery. The closest you get is the one talking about "Thou Shalt Not Be Jealous of Thy Neighbour's Wife", which doesn't forbid adultery outright. It merely establishes thought crime - don't lust after someone else's wife, don't feel the emotion of lust.
I've never hear of "Thou Shalt Not Be Jealous of Thy Neighbour's Wife", though I have heard of "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbour's Wife" (Exodus 20:17 & Deuteronomy 5:21).
Anyways, I think you may be missing what I'd suggest is likely to be the point of including Moses as an individual whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents; many of the founding fathers had seminary or religiously influenced education in which Moses would have been portrayed as a seminal 'lawgiver'.
Whilst they might not have been aware of the Code of Hammurabi (the stele wasn't rediscovered until about 125 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed), there were definitely aware of Mosaic Law, so the Ten Commandments aren't likely to be the only influence that Moses had on the founding documents, though arguably the prohibition on stores trading on the sabbath in various States, State blasphemy laws, and even laws against perjury were influenced by the 10 Commandments. For instance, the committe designing the Great Seal of the United States had a proposed design from Benjamis Franklin depicting a scene from Exodus, showing "Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity." Thomas Jefferson suggested a depiction of the Children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night for the front of the seal. So those are two quite straightforward examples of Moses' influence on founding fathers, outside the 10 Commandments, right there.0 -
Moses also held out his staff and parted the Red Sea
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments
Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Brian Shanahan wrote: »Is there any evidence for these alleged incidents?
Duh. The bible silly.
MrP0 -
Whether the incidents ever happened or not is not really relevant in this context. If the story of the incidents, and the beliefs and values expressed in that story, were a formative influence on the US founding documents, then that's a legitimate matter of historical interest when it comes to studying the history of the US. This may be the case where or not the Exodus itself, or any particular detail of it, is a historical event.Brian Shanahan wrote: »Is there any evidence for these alleged incidents?
The issue, then, is not whether the Exodus happened, but whether the Exodus "informed the American founding". Answer: not to any very great extent, in my view, but that doesn't depend on the historicity of the Exodus.0 -
Judging by the content in this thread the title isn't reflective of what happened. Would anybody object to us changing the title?0
-
It is reflective of the kind of anti-theist knee jerk reaction A&A can occasionally fall prey to though... so perhaps worth keeping as a salutary lesson?0
-
Kind of negates the lesson if people aren't informed of the misconceptions.0
-
Then change the title to include an acknowledgement that it's misconceived? Correcting it to eliminate the misconception doesn't so much inform people about the misconception as conceal the fact that the misconception ever occurred.0
-
Cheers! Found the particular requirements that seem to be under discussion here:
§113.44. United States Government (One-Half Credit), Beginning with School Year 2011-2012.
..
Browsing through the syllabus, I am quite impressed by the depth of it. It includes all sorts of stuff about government, US power in the world, the free market, monetary theory/abandonment of the gold standard/ and the Great Depression, womens suffrage, race relations and civil rights etc. I'm not sure how many high school students will actually come out successfully understanding all that, but anyway...
As far as the Creationists are concerned, it is quite easy to spot their input. As if it wasn't obvious enough already, often when they have added in some little gem, or a favourite catchphrase, they put it in capitals for extra importance :pac:
Here's a few more selected quotes, including the aforementioned Moses one;(1)History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by ideas, people, and historical documents. The student is expected to:
(A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights, divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government;
(B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English common law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals;
(C)identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu;3(C) analyze social issues affecting women, minorities, children,
immigrants, urbanization, the Social Gospel, and philanthropy of industrialists(4) History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920. The student is expected to: (A) explain why significant events, policies, and individuals such as the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism, Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Sanford B. Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;6(A) analyze causes and effects of events and social issues such as immigration, Social Darwinism, eugenics, race relations, nativism, the Red Scare, Prohibition, and the changing role of women
The last one is probably the most pernicious. To my mind it seeks to undermine the separation of church and state, which is generally seen as being the intent of Jefferson and others, even if those exact words were not inserted into the constitution.7(F) identify how the American beliefs and principles reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution contribute to both a national identity and federal identity and are embodied in the United States today; and
(G) examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state."0 -
Actually, it’s not as bad as simply glancing at the text in red might suggest.
For example, “the laws of nature and nature’s God” is a direct quote from the preamble of the US Declaration of Independence, where it forms part of a justification for rebellion. In a history course, studying the American revolution, a consideration of what this phrase meant and why it was included seems to me perfectly proper. Note that in the syllabus it forms part of a list of ideas that had some bearing on the issue of independence; some are entirely secular (“inalienable rights”, “social contract theory”) and some are religious, but tend to support arguments against American independence (“divine right of kings”). I don’t see anything sinister about the inclusion of the religious ideas in this list; in fact, pruning the list to exclude religious ideas would be sinister.
Similarly, the role of American missionaries in projecting American profile, power and culture on a worldwide scale is significant - not so much in Europe, but certainly in Asia - and I can’t object to it’s inclusion.
I don’t see why you would object to the inclusion of social Darwinism, either. If students are going to study eugenics, the history and development of racism in the US, or American nativism, then the influence of social Darwinism, unpleasant as it may be, isn’t something that should be airbrushed out.
As for your assertion that an invitation to “compare and contrast” the Constitutional provisions on religion with the concept of “separation of church and state” is an attempt to undermine the latter, no offence, but that’s b*lls. The US constitutional provisions are one particular approach to the separation of church and state. Quite different, but equally valid, approaches to church-state separation are possible, e.g. in France, in Germany. “Compare and contrast” seems to me to be an excellent approach to bring out this distinction. Why did the Founding Fathers take the particular approach they did? Why have the Americans ended up with the form that they have today, and to what extent is that dependent on the particular wording in the Constitution, as opposed to the broad principle of separation? Those are perfectly valid questions, surely?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Then change the title to include an acknowledgement that it's misconceived? Correcting it to eliminate the misconception doesn't so much inform people about the misconception as conceal the fact that the misconception ever occurred.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
(Though obviously I didn't put that down in words.:) Wasn't meaning to propose a blanket erase.)
Something like a mod note at the top of the OP. Editing the thread title is awkward there's a character limit. Anyone adept with brevity got any suggestions?
0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to say I'm pretty skeptical of the notion that the points you've highlighted are the 'notions of Creationists'. Like it or lump it, Christianity, especially Protestantism, has been a significant factor in the development of the United States, and has had an enormous influence on the legislation & culture.As far as the Creationists are concerned, it is quite easy to spot their input. As if it wasn't obvious enough already, often when they have added in some little gem, or a favourite catchphrase, they put it in capitals for extra importance :pac:
For instance:
'including the laws of nature and nature's God'
Assuming this was a typo and should have read 'the laws of nature and of nature's God' this is lifted from the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, so I think the phrase itself is quite significant for a student.
'including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law)'
Can you really imagine that any other philisophical/religious traditions that had a greater influence on the founders?
'the Social Gospel'
was a significant political movement in the United States, and responsible for popularising the notion of public health services and compulsory education; not really an aspect of American history you'd want to omit because it sounds overtly religions (if not Creationist).
'and missionaries'
Did you know the missionary movement was the largest U.S. womens organisation between the 1870s and 1900? American missionaries were involved in social and political activity in Guam, China,Mexico and the Congo, and were a notable pointer of American imperialism at the time.
'Social Darwinism'
Arguably a significant feature in the advance of free market capitalism in the States... I'm not sure why Creationists might want to deliberately insert it into the curriculum, surely it's a bit of a Pandoras box for them?
'examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state."'
I really don't get what you're saying here. Comparing & contrasting the protection of religious freedom with the separation of church and state undermines that separation? I don't see it. Knowing (and more importantly, understanding) why religious freedom was so important to the founding fathers, and what that led to, can surely only reinforce a students understanding of the need the founding fathers saw for the separation of church and state? Understanding the interplay between the two I would have thought should help a student understand more about the functions of the federal government when it comes to upholding american principles and freedoms.The last one is probably the most pernicious. To my mind it seeks to undermine the separation of church and state, which is generally seen as being the intent of Jefferson and others, even if those exact words were not inserted into the constitution.
I think there was a bit of a 'jump on anything sounding religious' event here, which has led to something of an overreaction. It is a fact that the United States had a significant religious element to it's inception, and it informed much of the fabric of the current nation. Trying to excise that would be simple revisionism to no good purpose; history is what it is, we shouldn't try to change it to make it more palatable.
[EDIT] And Peregrinus has just made much the same points... sorry!0
Advertisement