Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father

Yawlboy

Just 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/

PopePalpatine

IIRC, Texas is also where many of the US's schoolbook publishers are based. This will have disastrous consequences across the USA.

Brian Shanahan

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.

ScumLord

Yawlboy wrote: »

Just read the following and you have to ask where will it end?

With america losing it's world power status because it's people don't have the proper education to run their systems without turning to a magic eight ball for guidance.

Peregrinus

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.

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?

shruikan2553

I suppose facts are over rated these days.

fisgon

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.

Mark Hamill

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.

Cantremember

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".

Absolam

I have to say, I'd be really interested in reading these bits:

passages that suggest Moses influenced the writing of the Constitution and that the roots of democracy can be found in the Old Testament.

Can anyone provide a link to the changes that the publishers apparently posted?

Peregrinus

Dear me. I seem to have touched a nerve.

fisgon wrote: »

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.

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'.

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?

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".

The sarcasm would be more biting - or, at least, vaguely relevant - if anybody in this thread had said anything remotely like that.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

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?

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 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.

Absolam

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:

(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;

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...

Peregrinus

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.)

RikuoAmero

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.

lazygal

There are some states in the US with laws regarding adultery too.

RikuoAmero

lazygal wrote: »

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?

DazMarz

It's Texas, what do you expect?

Absolam

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.

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?
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.

braddun

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 Egypt

Brian Shanahan

braddun wrote: »

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 Egypt

Is there any evidence for these alleged incidents?

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Is there any evidence for these alleged incidents?

Duh. The bible silly.

MrP

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Is there any evidence for these alleged incidents?

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.

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.

Turtwig

Judging by the content in this thread the title isn't reflective of what happened. Would anybody object to us changing the title?

Absolam

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?

Turtwig

Kind of negates the lesson if people aren't informed of the misconceptions.

Peregrinus

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.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

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

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."

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.

Peregrinus

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?

Turtwig

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?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

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:

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.
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."'

recedite wrote: »

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 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.

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!

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I meant.

(Though obviously I did 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?

How about:

Texas approves textboods with Moses as Founding Father [Mod: misconception]

Or:

Texas approves textboods with Moses as Founding Father [Mod: allegedly]

Cryptic, I know, but at least it alerts the reader not to take the header at face value.

recedite

I'll admit I didn't realise "natures god" was in the declaration of independence, which I suppose makes it more acceptable to stick in the document now, as a historical phrase. Nevertheless, I suspect it was dredged up because it suited the current evangelical agenda, and not because it was ever particularly significant. Its the kind of flowery language that would have been used to fluff up a preamble, before getting into the real nitty grittty.

Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress. Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)

On the importance of missionaries for projecting state power; for Ireland, maybe. The USA, not so much. Guam is projecting US power because of the US military presence there. Not because there were a few US missionaries there once. Without the military base, very few would have heard of it.

Social Gospel is like Moses and the 10 commandments. Those elements of Judaeo Christian law that are basic ethics, common to all mankind, are incorporated into modern US law. Not because they were revealed by one particular religion, but because they pre-date most religions, and are common to most religions.

I would say that the founding fathers of the USA such as Washington and Jefferson drew more on the same philosophies that inspired the French revolution, and perhaps other ideas going back to Plato's republic, which were generally secular philosophies.

"Social Darwinism" is a favourite catchphrase of Creationists, used as a means to discredit Darwin and evolution. Who has ever described themselves as a social darwinist? Certainly not Darwin.
Discussing it as part of the syllabus might go like this;

Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
Pupil; Eh, what?
Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
Pupil; What is it?
Teacher; Its the proof that Darwin was Hitler's atheist grand-daddy.

PopePalpatine

Funnily enough, you could probably attribute the phrase "social Darwinism" to the Republicans' social welfare policy, i.e. "further impoverish them all and let the free market sort them all out".

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.

Huh?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

First Amendment.



Edit:
This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress. Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)

Actually separation of church and state is explicitly verboten in the 1st Amendment, through the wall of separation clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

No state religion is an explicit separating out of religion and secular spheres. The principle was developed as early as 1878 within the Supreme Court which is the right forum (legally and constitutionally) for developing standards deriving from the constitution (even if, in recent years, they've decided that the best way to uphold the constitution is to use it as toilet paper {see recent rulings on the 2nd amendment, and reintrodcution of Jim Crow, ignoring the 14th}).

Oh, and "Nature's God" (does that even refer to yhwh?) doesn't appear within the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which was superceded by the Articles of Confederation (the first consititution) and the current constitution.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.

Where are they focusing on the fact that it is not specifically spelled out in the constitution? The curriculum requirement is that the subject matter should 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". It's not focusing on the fact that the principle of separation isn't spelled out; it's requiring a student to examine why there are are constitutional provisions that establish the principle of separation; and what that means in terms of the phrase. There's no directive to point out the phrase separation of church and state doesn't occur in the constitution, and deliberately leading students away from that fact would arguably be very poor education policy. I can't imagine what progress is rowed back on by pointing out the facts of what actually is in the constitution? It's not like if everyone believes really hard that separation of church is a phrase in the constitution it will magically appear.

recedite wrote: »

Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)

I don't think you've even come close to making the case that the document is any such thing; so far the only case you seem to be making is that some people want to engage in historical revisionism, as they seem very uncomfortable with students being aware of the role religion played in the formation of the USA.

recedite wrote: »

On the importance of missionaries for projecting state power; for Ireland, maybe. The USA, not so much. Guam is projecting US power because of the US military presence there. Not because there were a few US missionaries there once. Without the military base, very few would have heard of it.

I think you're missing the point; it's about history. The document is talking about the role of missionaries in the historical context of United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920. Not about who is 'projecting' power now. And back then, missionaries were a significant feature of Americas' involvement on the world stage.

recedite wrote: »

Social Gospel is like Moses and the 10 commandments. Those elements of Judaeo Christian law that are basic ethics, common to all mankind, are incorporated into modern US law. Not because they were revealed by one particular religion, but because they pre-date most religions, and are common to most religions. I would say that the founding fathers of the USA such as Washington and Jefferson drew more on the same philosophies that inspired the French revolution, and perhaps other ideas going back to Plato's republic, which were generally secular philosophies.

Would you say that's your opinion of what Social Gospel is like? Or just plain uncapitalised social gospel even?
I'm guessing that (in a curricular context), based on the clue that (as you said) they capitalised the name Social Gospel, they're probably more likely to be talking about the movement in American history by that name. Since they're talking about the history of the United States, I'd suggest that's a safer bet than 'when the Creationists added in some little gem, or a favourite catchphrase, they put it in capitals for extra importance'.

recedite wrote: »

"Social Darwinism" is a favourite catchphrase of Creationists, used as a means to discredit Darwin and evolution. Who has ever described themselves as a social darwinist? Certainly not Darwin.

Yes, some Creationists have used Social Darwinism as a fallacious argument. You surely don't imagine that's the sum of the subject though, do you? The theories themselves, their proponents, and the effect of the ideas on American society is a slightly broader subject than 'a means to discredit Darwin and evolution'. Particularly when you consider it as a historical subject, instead of a contemporary argument, which is the context it's being presented in here?

recedite wrote: »

Discussing it as part of the syllabus might go like this;
Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
Pupil; Eh, what?
Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
Pupil; What is it?
Teacher; Its the proof that Darwin was Hitler's atheist grand-daddy.

Sounds like a pretty dreadful teacher, don't you think? I know the American education system isn't highly rated by many Europeans, but I rather imagine it's more likely to go along the lines of:
Teacher; Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which sought to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.
(he's a lazy teacher and uses wikipedia on his phone a lot, but he does have the amazing ability to speak in hyperlinks).
Today we're going to discuss how Edward L. Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and others developed theories of social evolution as a result of their exposure to the works of Darwin and Spencer, and how their theories were used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism.
Pupil; Eh, what?
Teacher; Listen kid, either read your assignments or join the army, I don't care.
Pupil; Are you a creationist? I think you're trying to oppress me. My mom says I have a constitutional freedom from religion, and that's what makes my weight genetic. So you can't oppress me.
Teacher; Those are the words of a President in waiting if ever I heard them. The future of this nation is assured, I can retire now.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, some Creationists have used Social Darwinism as a fallacious argument. You surely don't imagine that's the sum of the subject though, do you? The theories themselves, their proponents, and the effect of the ideas on American society is a slightly broader subject than 'a means to discredit Darwin and evolution'. Particularly when you consider it as a historical subject, instead of a contemporary argument, which is the context it's being presented in here?

Can you tell me who these proponents are?
There have always been groups of people or tribes who sought to dominate other tribes and take their resources. One tribe goes extinct, the other expands. Or one class or caste dominates the others. We don't need a theory to explain that, nor do we need to conflate it with Darwins theory of evolution, which sought to discover and explain the biological mechanisms of the evolution of different species.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Huh?
First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

An established religion is one that is officially backed by the State. Arguably there is difference between not having an established state religion (such as the COE in the UK who have ex officio representatives in Parliament) and on the other hand enforcing a complete separation between church and state. In this grey area between the two, it might be argued by a creationist state governor that handing out christian literature in a public school is justified, or inflating the importance of Moses in the founding of the USA was perfectly acceptable. The governor might justify this on historical "christian heritage" grounds, in the absence of a specific law preventing it.
So we see the inevitable recourse then is for atheists and minor religions to support the likes of "satanists" to have equal exposure in schools, until the majority decides they would rather have no religion at all supported than tolerate "that sort of thing".

What I am saying is, there is a difference between allowing the state to endow all religions equally, and saying it cannot endow any. Even though both result in equal treatment for all religions.

A similar constitutional issue pertains here in Ireland, which has been exploited much more successfully by the dominant religions. Probably because our courts have tended to come down on the side of the religious when interpreting any ambiguity in the wording, whereas in the USA the courts have tended more towards the complete separation of church and state. France springs to mind as a country that enforces a complete separation of church and state, in that no religion is facilitated by the State, but all are tolerated.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Can you tell me who these proponents are?

Assuming you mean were rather than are , is the list from the erudite teacher in my post not suitable?

recedite wrote: »

There have always been groups of people or tribes who sought to dominate other tribes and take their resources. One tribe goes extinct, the other expands. Or one class or caste dominates the others. We don't need a theory to explain that, nor do we need to conflate it with Darwins theory of evolution, which sought to discover and explain the biological mechanisms of the evolution of different species.

That's interesting. But how would you apply it to an analysis of the causes and effects of Social Darwinism in American history?

recedite wrote: »

An established religion is one that is officially backed by the State.

Aren't you rather grasping at straws? An established religion is also one that has succesfully subsisted for some time. It is a religion that has been founded, a religion that has been instituted, or built, or brought into being on a firm or stable basis. But what does it matter what an established religion is?
The provision is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion. It is commonly held to mean that Congress cannot pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

recedite wrote: »

Arguably there is difference between not having an established state religion (such as the COE in the UK who have ex officio representatives in Parliament) and on the other hand enforcing a complete separation between church and state. In this grey area between the two, it might be argued by a creationist state governor that handing out christian literature in a public school is justified, or inflating the importance of Moses in the founding of the USA was perfectly acceptable. The governor might justify this on historical "christian heritage" grounds, in the absence of a specific law preventing it.

Arguably; do you think that might be why 'they' created a curriculum that requires a student to 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? It seems to me such an examination would reveal the difference between the two, and lead to a discussion (and potential understanding) of federal jurisprudence which has qualified the subject since. Such a student would then be sufficiently educated to discern the legalities of the permissibility of handing out christian literature, or the pernicious advancement of antitheist agendas at the expense of factual history.

recedite wrote: »

So we see the inevitable recourse then is for atheists and minor religions to support the likes of "satanists" to have equal exposure in schools, until the majority decides they would rather have no religion at all supported than tolerate "that sort of thing".

Actually, that is more relevant in discussing the 2nd provision; that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

recedite wrote: »

What I am saying is, there is a difference between allowing the state to endow all religions equally, and saying it cannot endow any. Even though both result in equal treatment for all religions.

I really don't think you should muddy the argument what what you imagine endowment could mean. The first Amendment doesn't speak of endowing religion at all. Regardless, the US Supreme Court has held (Everson v. Board of Education (1947)) that aiding all religions is no more permitted by the Amendment than aiding one religion.

recedite wrote: »

A similar constitutional issue pertains here in Ireland, which has been exploited much more successfully by the dominant religions. Probably because our courts have tended to come down on the side of the religious when interpreting any ambiguity in the wording, whereas in the USA the courts have tended more towards the complete separation of church and state.

That really is only the case if you imagine that there is ambiguity in the word 'endow'. Once you realise that the courts and english speaking world at large accept a dictionary definition of the word, rather than your personal construal, its use in the Constitution, clearly doesn't allow and hasn't facilitated any exploitation by religions. Not an argument I expect you to give up, but I'd suggest it's not one that relates to the US history curriculum either.


Anyways, after all that, you seem to be drifting from your assertion that by focusing in on the fact that the principle of separation of church and state is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly 'they' are focusing on this fact, and what progress you imagine 'these people' are trying to row back on?

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

Aren't you rather grasping at straws? An established religion is also one that has succesfully subsisted for some time. It is a religion that has been founded, a religion that has been instituted, or built, or brought into being on a firm or stable basis. But what does it matter what an established religion is?

recedite isn't grasping at straws. There is a specific meaning for 'established church'.

Both the Church of Ireland and the Church of England meet all the criteria above, but only the CoE is an established church - the CoI was disestablished in 1871.

It is notable that opposition to disestablishment has given rise to one of the longest words in the English language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

The provision is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion. It is commonly held to mean that Congress cannot pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Anyways, after all that, you seem to be drifting from your assertion that by focusing in on the fact that the principle of separation of church and state is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.
Perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly 'they' are focusing on this fact, and what progress you imagine 'these people' are trying to row back on?

You said it yourself above. The constitution of the US states that Congress may not establish a religion, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to enforce a wall of separation between churches and state.
As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.

Actually, as far as I can see it is very hard for a Supreme Court to overturn previous rulings of Supreme Courts on constitutional matters. Under the principle of stare decisis (tr: to stand by what is decided) which the US judicial system adheres to, it is extremely hard to overturn previous rulings, meaning there are only two effective options:
1) Change the constitution (which is pretty hard 3/4 of the 50 states have to pass the amendment).
2) The court can overrule itself. This generally happens only after a long delay, because the usual reason for the overruling is that there is a significant societal shift so that the previous ruling is either no longer valid or contrary to the rule of law.

While it could happen, there would have to be a significant shift in the polity of the US for it to happen with the "wall of separation" clause, such that, IMO, an effective theocracy would have to be set up prior to the decisions being reversed.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

recedite isn't grasping at straws. There is a specific meaning for 'established church'.

Well, offering his own definition of what an 'established religion' is to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.....; whatever definition you choose for 'established church' (and I note you are taking a step further away from 'established religion' with the word 'church') isn't all that synonymous with 'an establishment of religion' which is different to both an 'established religion' and an 'established church'.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You said it yourself above. The constitution of the US states that Congress may not establish a religion, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to enforce a wall of separation between churches and state.

Actually, what I said was

Absolam wrote: »

realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.

Except of course that previous Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned unless;
Congress changes the law and invalidates the decision (which in this case would require changing the First Amendment).
The SC rules on a new case which invalidates the previous decision. That's not impossible, but it is very unlikely that even the most fundamentalist Judges ever to sit on the SC since the Founding Fathers themselves would have a hard time 'interpreting' the language in such a way that the separation of church and state could not be seen as the intention.

All of the above, I imagine, is exactly the kind of critical thought the writers intended to provoke when they stipulated that the curriculum should include an examination of 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 a comparison and contrast of this to the phrase, "separation of church and state."
I still don't see how actually teaching students about this can perniciously seek to undermine the separation of church and state.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, that is more relevant in discussing the 2nd provision; that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Nobody was prohibiting the satanists from practicing their religion, so the 2nd provision is not relevant to what they are doing now.
They have successfully argued their case to put a "happy holidays" crib styled shrine in a state capitol building, and satanist colouring books in schools. They cannot be stopped from doing these things because christian sects are already doing the same.

Absolam wrote: »

I really don't think you should muddy the argument what what you imagine endowment could mean. The first Amendment doesn't speak of endowing religion at all. Regardless, the US Supreme Court has held (Everson v. Board of Education (1947)) that aiding all religions is no more permitted by the Amendment than aiding one religion.That really is only the case if you imagine that there is ambiguity in the word 'endow'. Once you realise that the courts and english speaking world at large accept a dictionary definition of the word, rather than your personal construal...

The basic constitutional provisions in the US and in Ireland are quite similar, but how society and/or the courts have interpreted them is different. The word "endow" is mentioned in the Irish constitution and "establishment" of a church is in the US text, but IMO the meaning, or the effect of it, would be similar.
That US case you linked to is a really good example. Taxpayers money was being spent on transportation costs for a religious owned school (not even on funding the school itself). The US courts stopped the practice. In the normal use of the English language, the state was "endowing" or subsidising the school.
Yet here in Ireland, where the State is not allowed to "endow" a religion, it would be perfectly normal for the state to fund a bus to a religious school, as well as funding the school itself, and even some staff whose main function is to promote religion. In an Irish Supreme Court case,[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] "Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education[/FONT][/FONT] 1998" the plaintiff complained that when the State paid the salaries of school chaplains (priests) it was endowing the religion. The court ruled against the plaintiff.

Why the difference in interpretation? IMO the courts represent society to certain extent. In the USA there are many religions and many ethnic groups. If any one group was favoured they would only be in the minority, and the majority population of the various others would mobilise against them.
In Ireland we are less diverse, and so we are far more susceptible to "the tyranny of the majority".

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Well, offering his own definition of what an 'established religion' is to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.....;

Look, you have already been politely corrected on this. You didn't understand what the phrase means. Now you have been told, yet you still persist in your wrongness, and also you attempt to insult me while doing it.

Here's what happened to the CoI when it was disestablished in Ireland, and was no longer the state backed religion. Being the religion of a minority, it found itself in an untenable position. Perhaps the CoE is now effectively in that same position.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Nobody was prohibiting the satanists from practicing their religion, so the 2nd provision is not relevant to what they are doing now.

Ah now... 'exercising' isn't 'practicing' is it? We surely need less muddying, not more..

recedite wrote: »

They have successfully argued their case to put a "happy holidays" crib styled shrine in a state capitol building, and satanist colouring books in schools. They cannot be stopped from doing these things because christian sects are already doing the same.

Well, they cannot be stopped from doing so because they cannot be prohibited from freely exercising their religion, just like the christian sects who do the same. Hence 2nd provision. The first provision would be relevant if the state were aiding the satanist religion, or aiding the christian religion, or aiding both.

recedite wrote: »

The basic constitutional provisions in the US and in Ireland are quite similar, but how society and/or the courts have interpreted them is different.

To be clear;
The Irish Constitution prohibits the State from endowing religion, and the US Constitution does not.
The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the Irish Constitution does not.
I don't think that society and the courts are interpreting similar things differently here; they are quite manifestly different things.

recedite wrote: »

The word "endow" is mentioned in the Irish constitution and "establishment" of a church is in the US text, but IMO the meaning, or the effect of it, would be similar.

It's an interesting opinion, but I daresay a fairly singular one. Leaving aside that on the one hand you say the effect of these is similar, and on the other hand you say that both society and the courts have interpreted them differently (thereby creating different effects), why don't you show us the Supreme Court jurisprudence from both States that demonstrates how each provision has been tested and resulted in the same judgements?

recedite wrote: »

That US case you linked to is a really good example. Taxpayers money was being spent on transportation costs for a religious owned school (not even on funding the school itself). The US courts stopped the practice. In the normal use of the English language, the state was "endowing" or subsidising the school.

Hmm. You know the SC ruled against Everson in the case, and the funding was upheld, don't you? I think you chose a poor example for your assertion.
Did the SC rule that the school was being endowed? More specifically, did they rule that it was an endowment of religion and prohibited by the Constitution? I don't think they did. Firstly it was parents being reimbursed; not the school (or the religion). The court didn't say that any religion was being endowed by the reimbursement, it said that the reimbursement aided the children in a substantial way to secure religious training and teaching, but that this did not violate the constitution because it was separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function. So whilst they weren't at all concerned with whether the State was unconstitutionally endowing a religion, they did decide that providing state financial aid to students receiving religious education did not violate the First Amendment (as binding on the State via the Fourteenth Amendment), which (effectively) prohibits State aid to religions.
BY the way, endow also has a different meaning to subsidise. Though subsidise didn't apply (with regards to the school) either.

recedite wrote: »

Yet here in Ireland, where the State is not allowed to "endow" a religion, it would be perfectly normal for the state to fund a bus to a religious school, as well as funding the school itself, and even some staff whose main function is to promote religion. In an Irish Supreme Court case,"Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education 1998" the plaintiff complained that when the State paid the salaries of school chaplains (priests) it was endowing the religion. The court ruled against the plaintiff.

Well firstly, I need to challenge your assertion that a chaplains 'main function is to promote religion'. Would you like to post a link to the chaplains job description where this must surely be right at the top if what you're saying is true?
Secondly, the SC ruled that the principle of non-endowment of religion found in Article 44.2.2 does not prohibit state funding of denominational schools. Do you think that maybe your interpretation of the word 'endow' might actually be at fault?

recedite wrote: »

Why the difference in interpretation? IMO the courts represent society to certain extent.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there was no difference in interpretation whatsoever. Both Supreme Courts ruled on completely different constitutional provisions in completely different jurisdictions.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Look, you have already been politely corrected on this. You didn't understand what the phrase means. Now you have been told, yet you still persist in your wrongness, and also you attempt to insult me while doing it.

Really? You offered a definition of an established religion.
I offered a number of others.
Hotblack Desiato offered a definition of antidisestablishmentarianism, which is relevant to the concept of an 'established church' in the United Kingdom.
I pointed out that offering your own definition of what an 'established religion' is in order to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.
So, which phrase do you think I don't understand? 'An establishment of religion', 'established religion', or 'established church'? After that we can talk about your argument.

recedite wrote: »

Here's what happened to the CoI when it was disestablished in Ireland, and was no longer the state backed religion. Being the religion of a minority, it found itself in an untenable position. Perhaps the CoE is now effectively in that same position.

Fascinating. And it is relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state how?

Peregrinus

The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is Thomas Jefferson’s. It appears in a letter he wrote in 1802 (when he was President of the US); he uses it to explain the effect of the non-establishment and free exercise clauses in the First Amendment. (The First Amendment had been in force for about ten years at that point.) And Jefferson’s phrase has been explicitly adopted by the US Supreme Court in rulings on the question. So, as far as US constitutional law goes, there is no gap or “grey area” between the First Amendment and the separation of church and state; the latter is simply the consequence or effect of the former.

As far as political theory or critical history goes, of course, you can make a distinction. You can argue that the first amendment doesn’t achieve a true separation of church and state. People who object to, e.g., the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, or the words “In God We Trust” on US coinage (both of which the Supreme Court has authoritatively endorsed as consistent with the First Amendment) will often make this argument, as will people who object to, e.g., educational spending which might find its way to religious schools (like the school bus issue already mentioned).

In short, arguing that the First Amendment falls short of achieving separation of church and state and accordingly that the US doesn’t have full separation of church and state, isn’t solely the preserve of creationists; you’re just as likely - in fact, more likely - to find that argument being advanced by progressives in the US.

Either way, it’s a legitimate subject for inclusion in an American history syllabus; to what extent does the American polity give effect to the enlightenmen principles that inspire it? I honestly think recedite is jumping at shadows in detecting the hands of the creationists here. It’s noteworthy that the advocacy groups who have objected to other elements of the syllabus from a progressive standpoint haven’t, so far as I am aware, taken exception to this bit.

recedite

The satanists (or perhaps the secularists, acting by proxy) are doing more than "practicing their religion" they are setting out their stall in state buildings and schools. Allowing the use of state property for this purpose is a (small) breach of the separation between church and state. It would not be tolerated in France.

There is rarely 100% separation anywhere. There are degrees of separation.
At the bottom of the scale, a situation such as we had in 19th C Ireland in which people were forced to pay tithes to support an established religion which very few even agreed with. This is undoubtedly the principle type of injustice which both the US and Irish constitutions sought to prevent.

Then, much further up is the modern UK; technically the monarch is still head of an established church, but in practice it has evolved into a parliamentary democracy with strong equal rights legislation, and with the CoE reps in the House of Lords having little or no real power left.

In the middle ground, Ireland, which funds religious indoctrination through the schools, justified on the grounds that it will fund all religions equally.

The US is a bit further up the scale; they will not fund any religion directly, but have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions, by giving them access to public buildings and helping with school transport. Now that same policy is coming back to bite them, because the satanists are asking to be facilitated in the same way.

Then you have France, which would be invulnerable to this strategy of the satanists, because they have not been facilitating the main religions by granting the free use of publicly owned buildings and schools. On the other hand, France is sometimes criticised for being overly restrictive, by refusing to allow pupils in state schools to wear any "conspicuous" religious gear, such as headscarves.

Jefferson himself was a complex character. He was probably more aware than most of his contemporaries that there was more to "the separation of church and state" than merely preventing the establishment of a state endowed religion. But he could only go so far with his own ideas, bearing in mind that the vast majority of citizens were extremely religious at the time.
He was also very keen that private banks would not control the money supply as they did in Europe.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately the US ceded control of the money supply to the Federal Reserve in 1913, which is a private/public conglomerate.
Also he was a major slave owner, which complicates his idea of liberty.
It would be interesting to guess (but impossible to know) which changes to US society he would be most happy with, and which he would most object to.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The satanists (or perhaps the secularists, acting by proxy) are doing more than "practicing their religion" they are setting out their stall in state buildings and schools. Allowing the use of state property for this purpose is a (small) breach of the separation between church and state. It would not be tolerated in France.

Wasn't it 'exercising' rather than 'practicing'? And were they actually setting out stalls? Or did they simply say they intend to distribute materials in the coming school year? As part of the passive distribution policy of the school board perhaps? Leaving aside the (rather substantial) difference, the passive dissemination of religious material is (currently) permitted by the Florida school board. Are you saying that such permission is in your opinion a breach of the separation of church and state, or that such a permission is in fact illegal in the US? My suspicion is that, given the obviously litigious nature of the participants in this particular situation, if anyone imagined for a moment that this dissemination was foul of the legal separation of church and state, a court case would already be in full swing. If, however, it's just your 'interpretation' of what the separation of church and state should mean, that's obviously a different thing from the historical separation in the US.
And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?

recedite wrote: »

In the middle ground, Ireland, which funds religious indoctrination through the schools, justified on the grounds that it will fund all religions equally.

Tut tut. Hardly a factual statement, now is it? Ireland has neither said that it funds religious indoctrination, nor that it funds all religions equally. That would be your 'interpretation' again.

recedite wrote: »

The US is a bit further up the scale; they will not fund any religion directly, but have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions, by giving them access to public buildings and helping with school transport. Now that same policy is coming back to bite them, because the satanists are asking to be facilitated in the same way.

Gosh, you changed that tune without even a blush! You've gone from 'the US Courts stopped that practice' to 'have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions' without a pause... bravo!!
But.. the Satanists aren't asking to be facilitated in the same way. Nor has anyone stopped them doing what they've said they're going to do either (yet).

recedite wrote: »

Jefferson himself was a complex character. It would be interesting (but impossible) to speculate on which changes to US society he would be most happy with, and which he would most object to.

Of course it would be even more difficult to speculate if pupils weren't encouraged to 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.". Because then students wouldn't have the facts to hand that would inform their speculation.

Peregrinus

I don't think the question of different notions of separation of church and state is a simple line from "most separate" to "less separate"; it's a bit more nuanced than that. As you rightly say, religious groups can be given access to public schools in the US, whicih would not happen in France. On the other hand, France provides public money to church schools, which doesn't happen in the US. So in which country are church and state more separate? It's not the case the France takes separation of church and state more seriously than the US, or vice versa; it's that they have differing conceptions of exactly what that means, or should mean.

I think it's a mistake - or, at any rate, it's not the whole truth - that the US founding fathers' motivation for favouring church and state was to avoid injustices like people being compelled by law to pay tithes to a church that they did not belong to. In fact a large part of their motivation was to secure the freedom of churches from state influence and interference. Many of the US colonies had been settled by people who left England because they didn't like the way the state was directing and controlling the church. ("Too Romish.") They didn't at first object to the principle of state control; just to the particular way it was exercised. But over time they came to a realisation that state control over churches was always liable to be abused, and that state support for churches was inherently corrupting of the purity of the church. Hence the attraction of the separation of church and state was that it would secure the freedom of the churches from state intervention. When Jefferson wrote his famous "wall of separation between church and state letter", he was in fact writing to the Danbury Baptist Association who were concerned that the State of Connecticut, which didn't at the time have a freedom of religion clause in its constitution, was minded to take the view that freedom of religion was a matter of policy, not fundamental principle, and that their freedom was dependent on continued political goodwill towards them. With his "wall of separation" comment Jefferson was not seeking to marginalise them or to exclude them from the public square or confine them to particular areas or activities, but to reassure them that the federal government would do no such thing.

With that background, separation of church and state in the US is obviously going to play out with a strong emphasis on religious liberty, and the rights of churches to conduct their affairs free from state intervention. That's why, e.g., equal opportunities legislation often contains carve-outs for churches, synagogues etc; the non-establishment clause prevents the state from directing the affairs of churches, because establishment isn't confined to the payment of money; it includes assuming control over church affairs and church government.

France doesn't have the same historical background; hence separation of church and state plays out differently there. The French have no compunction about funding religious schools; nobody is obliged either legally or practically to attend such a school, and funding them does not infringe anybody's religious liberty. State aid to churches is not a problem; it's built into the system. All church buildings in France erected before 1905 in fact belong to the state, and are provided by the state to churches for use in public worship. How very un-American!

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Wasn't it 'exercising' rather than 'practicing'?

Whats the difference?

Absolam wrote: »

And were they actually setting out stalls? Or did they simply say they intend to distribute materials in the coming school year?

Both of the above. The stall will be set out over the Christmas period in the Florida State Capitol building

...the Satanic Temple's display (described as "an angel falling into a pit of fire") will take its place under the rotunda December 22-29. Horns up for the First Amendment.

source

Absolam wrote: »

the passive dissemination of religious material is (currently) permitted by the Florida school board. Are you saying that such permission is in your opinion a breach of the separation of church and state, or that such a permission is in fact illegal in the US?

I'm saying its a breach of the notional "wall of separation between church and state" which I contend is quite an ill defined and porous wall, and therefore a breach is not necessarily illegal.

Absolam wrote: »

And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?

The two are not quite the same thing. I agree the former is a foundation for the latter, but the building of this wall of separation is an ongoing project. And there are those, such as the creationists, who want to dismantle the wall as quickly as others are building it.

Absolam wrote: »

Gosh, you changed that tune without even a blush! You've gone from 'the US Courts stopped that practice' to 'have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions' without a pause... bravo!!

I'm happy to admit I misunderstood the verdict at first. From what I can see, it was something of a pyrrhic victory anyway, because it only scraped through with a 5:4 majority, and that was back in the arch conservative times of 1947. And as a result of the close vote, it spurred numerous other cases pushing a secular agenda. If the same case had been heard more recently, the majority vote might have gone the other way.

Absolam wrote: »

Of course it would be even more difficult to speculate if pupils weren't encouraged to 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."

Yes, there is a value to the debate itself. But as with most debates, there is a side that seeks to use the debate to further its own agenda. That agenda is to water down the separation between church and state, and to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt. According to this theory, individual states (and they always seem to be the southern states) are free at state level to promote the religion associated with their heritage, and the federal govt cannot interfere with them.
IMO its not altogether different to the notion they put out in the 1960's Alabama when the governor had state troopers out in force to prevent black students attending a whites only college. Kennedy had to federalise the National Guard and deploy them (in opposition to the state police) in order to show the governor who was boss.

Peregrinus thinks I am jumping at shadows; well maybe, but maybe not. Here's an example of the agenda I refer to.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think the question of different notions of separation of church and state is a simple line from "most separate" to "less separate"..

I didn't say it was a simple line, but as your post illustrates, it is something of a grey area, with various shades to be seen in different countries.