-
Reopened for Business
April 26, 2013 | 95 comments
-
Bush and Boston
April 24, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Dubya’s Reemergence
April 18, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Lead Us Not Into Temptation
March 21, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Mean Old Gray Lady
March 31, 2012 | 3 comments
Among the Intellectualoids
How Dare You Teach Conservatism!
And in Texas, of all places.
Texas’s elected state board of education, back in March, had the audacity to instruct Texas book publishers as to the need for more philosophically conservative standards in the social studies curriculum. The Texas market is so large that textbook publishers generally take what Texas dishes out and put it appreciatively to their lips. The content of a textbook tailored for Texas can influence the content of a textbook adopted in, good heavens, Vermont or New Jersey. This makes the proceedings vital, not to say controversial.
When did I know the board had done essentially the right thing? The moment I picked up the Dallas Morning News and drank in the musings of a columnist who was, well, let’s just say beside herself.
First, this lady’s comparison of the board members to “your crazy great-uncle who thinks Martians are spying on him through a hole in the attic.” Then the weedwhacker buzz of indignation: “embarrass us, humiliate us,” “underqualified ideologues,” “same old blowhard talking points,” “indoctrination camp,” “idiotic nitpicking.”
Then there was the columnist for the Austin American-Statesman, loath to be outdone in the indignation sweepstakes: “usual antics,” “slashing and burning,” “demonstration of demagoguery, arrogance, ignorance.”
Ah, but the battlefield was a wide one, extending thousands of miles eastward. Thomas Frank, in a Wall Street Journal column, took primly disapproving notice. The New York Times editorial page, in an offering headlined, “Rewriting History in Texas,” saw evidence of a “disturbing intervention by the board’s Republican majority into educational decisions best left to the teachers and scholars who have toiled for almost a year to produce the new curriculum standards.”
All this against the backdrop of the national campaign to pry open America’s gullet for purposes of shoving down it the Obama plan for takeover of the health care industry! Talk about “arrogance.” A different kind, nonetheless, coming from a different point on the ideological compass.
It was ever thus with “progressive” commentators on…oh, practically anything you could think of. Pushback against instances of liberal insight and understanding is barbaric, got that? Conservative push-backers are typically yahoos if not non-Harvard-educated morons and creationists. Especially from the state that gave us George W. Bush.
No doubt the 10 Republican state board of education members who pressed the revised standards over the opposition of five Democrats sensed what was coming their way, once the discussion ended. They did it their way anyway. Hooray! Them there fellers, as we Texas yahoos conventionally say, separating the wisp of hay from the gap in our front teeth…them folks done a right smart of good. “We are adding balance,” explained the state board’s chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy, who unfortunately lost his renomination battle this spring to a soi-disant, non-embarrassing moderate. “…Academia is skewed too far to the left.”
Is it ever! The U.S. educational establishment is so firmly in the hands of, shall we say, the progressive element that it’s astounding these folk could feel tetchy and put upon. Yet they do. The problem they have is that, whereas their sort control the classroom and the faculty lounge, conservative voters rear their heads a couple of times a year, electing to the state school board people who don’t believe, reflexively, that Earl Warren or Robert Kennedy or even Barack Obama was God’s gift to the national intellect. Or that homosexuality and heterosexuality equate to each other. Or that we have to keep God off public premises lest He contaminate the unpersuaded.
THE SBOE’S WORK COMES comes in for a hard time from liberals because it goes against the liberal grain. Here and there the SBOE may have pushed unduly hard. One headline-making story had to do with the board’s rejection of a proposal to highlight the presence of a relatively small number of Mexicans who stood alongside the Texicans and Tennesseans at the Alamo. I myself wouldn’t have a hard time with that concession, especially in light of the state’s huge and growing Mexican/Hispanic presence. Still, this wasn’t, for liberal commentators, the truly combustible matter. There was — supposedly — worse.
For instance, the board’s vote to change the term “capitalism” to “free enterprise system” in the teaching of economics. Guess why. Because of the liberal propensity to disparage people who take an idea or an opportunity and blow it up into a company, with payrolls, benefit plans, yes, and profits. Liberals take corporate guilt money for their foundations, but basically they don’t like the idea of profit. They think, deep down, the government should decide who gets what — as with health care. The term “free enterprise” nicely and fittingly adorns our economic system. Why not use it as a protective device against, among others, liberal columnists?
Moreover, in the future, Texas demands textbook consideration of the intellectual achievements of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek — a timely demand, indeed, what with the resurgence in the Obama era of Keynesian-Krugmanite-redistributionist economics.
Naturally, liberal indignation soared stratospherically when the board got around to matters religious. The board decided that textbooks should make clear that strict separation of church and state was not the Founders’ original design but rather a conceit of Thomas Jefferson’s. Said one board member, David Bradley, with admirable pugnacity as well as accuracy: “I reject the notion of the left of a constitutional separation of church and state. I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
We all know what a successful attack on the separationist gospel could entail — entry into the schoolroom of the controversial notion that the Founding Fathers might have had some regard for God, or the Supreme Being, or whatever. Which they did, in fact, albeit in more nuanced degree than the heat of debate leads some on the “religious right” to suggest or proclaim. If the Founding Fathers weren’t Bible-thumpers-Diarmaid MacCulloch, the English church historian, in a new book calls the religion of their day “low temperature” — still they entertained respect for Christianity, especially as a prop of public virtue and morality.
Sorting it all out, as to meaning and intensity, can daunt in the face of secular liberal assumptions that religion is better understood as a divisive factor in public affairs (think evolution) than as a foundation for understanding, and acting upon, the human condition. The liberal assault on supernatural religion is perhaps the preeminent feature of modern times. That the public schools, where, in my own time, brief nondenominational prayer was an unexceptional feature of particular school days, should acknowledge the religious spirit is just too much for conscientious liberal commentators to bear.
About the Author
William Murchison, a Dallas-based columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books), is completing a biography of John Dickinson..
Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Murchison
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/19/how-dare-you-teach-conservatis
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.15.10 @ 11:59AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : How Dare You Teach Conservatism! [sp links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.15.10 @ 3:30PM
The American Spectator : How Dare You Teach Conservatism! capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.15.10 @ 5:47PM
How come I can’t view my verion wireless’s backup assistant contacts online? | Harddr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Brian Mc| 5.19.10 @ 6:58AM
I would rather my children had been taught in a one room schoolhouse in the late 19th century than the federal indoctrination centers of today; alas, too late. Thank God we were there as parents to offset the damaging affects of these institutions and our girls are bright enough to see both sides of any debate...not so the case for a huge porportion of the populace today, and so, the battle rages against the ignorant who pull a handle that correlates with a name they vaguely recognize.
Ret. Marine| 5.19.10 @ 7:33AM
I am one of those people that started off in a school in a small rural community of Conklin Mi. in a one room school house. I can tell you as best as my memory serves me, it was something to see. One teacher running around attending to children from 1-12 grade levels and doing it as thought it was just another day at the farm. It is true these were times of a different era. It was in the early fifties and folks did what was required of them to "teach" vrs. todays "indoctrinating". They also knew there were responsible to answer to their peers in the community. Not so much today, we have so-called teachers who don't so much teach as they conform to the agenda or loose their jobs. I sure am glad to remember and have lived the experience. It might explain how it was that later in my life I was able to serve my country (Active duty Marine) and run a sub chapter S Corp at the same time even though I at times, was absent from my CEO's position and responsibilities for a year in between tours. Yeah it's a crying shame that our fellow country men/ladies are getting to a point of "stuck on stupid" because they cannot see past their noses. Truely a shame that there are those who would rather have it my way or the highway mentality and all it does is disrupt the flow of The making of intelligence to our children.
Alan Brooks| 5.19.10 @ 9:25AM
"your crazy great-uncle who thinks Martians are spying on him through a hole in the attic"
Hawking thinks SETI might be provoking aliens.
Ret. Marine| 5.19.10 @ 8:27PM
Get back under your rock you heathen + + + +
Alan Brooks| 5.19.10 @ 8:38PM
"Get back under your rock you heathen"
So who is goofier (adjusted for his higher IQ)
Hawking or I?
Achilles Toejam| 5.19.10 @ 8:00PM
Brian Mc, right on man there is an awakening taking place a burgeoning rediscovering of our history and founding principles I only hope it's not too late. These people had control of the government indoctrination centers for so long they have developed a sense of arrogant entitlement.
The most egregious error that has taken place in education has been in the area of law, Blackstone and John Locke are out thanks to Christopher Columbus Langdell's influence at Harvard Law school in the late 1800s turning to case law and precedents and now we have the courts taking the role of the legislature and making law most of the socially destructive things that have come about in our country in the 20th century have been done by the activist courts.
Hopefully with this new grassroots movement we can again establish the true separation of powers and put the courts back in their constitutional role and their opinions are only that! Next time someone tells you "well the courts have spoken it's the law of the land," be it candidate or neighbor educate them that nowhere in our founding documents or written words of our founding fathers or Constitution is it ever contemplated that courts can make law, we've been hustled and the American people have been willfully ignorant but that's changing!
Curly Smith| 5.19.10 @ 7:33AM
If people want to bask in "instances of liberal insight and understanding" then they should move to Chicago and buy a vacation home in Detroit. Both cities are full of liberal insight... and little else.
march2,2011| 5.19.10 @ 8:36AM
Even the news agencies here in Texas are reporting that SOBE is trying to remove the contributions of minorities (and women) from the textbooks. It doesn't matter if that is the furtherest thing from the truth. Oh I forgot, when did truth mean anything to the MSM liberals.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.19.10 @ 8:47AM
David Crockett,
Like millions of other bright folks...said: "You can go to Hell, and I am going to Texas".
Folks,
Ya' gotta' understand; public school teachers have a mindset that ALWAYS says... "follow the rules, follow the rules, follow the rules".
The profession sucks up these kinds of non-risk-taker, fearful people like a sponge... due to the comfortable job security they have always been "given".
Sadly, many parents don't fill in the blanks of freedom when the kids get home from school.
Spike| 5.19.10 @ 10:00AM
Sadly, you are right!
There needs to be an awakening of Conservative thought in our homes, and passed to our children. I've attended a couple of Republican events this election cycle. The "old-guard" is, well, old. No disrespect. Our patriots, like Ret Marine above are becoming a minority. The vast middle (like myself) are mostly ambivalent. Who then, will pass on these principles to our children. Our schools? TV?
WAKE UP!
Sean| 5.19.10 @ 9:24AM
We really need to remove teacher certification requirements. This would break the back of the Schools of Education where most of the liberal indoctrination takes place. Make the requirement for teaching any college degree and a comprehensive test on the subject matter after graduation. Teachers on average are the lowest performing college students coming into and out of college. Also get rid of the Department of Education and the federal role in education.
On the front line in Sea-atoll| 5.19.10 @ 10:41AM
Sean:
You are on the right track, but missed the mark slightly.
Schools of Education teach - "education", a slippery, wiggly "soft" subject they do not understand, which has no core truisms, like math or engineering. So, they wander about and suck up the latest feel-good baloney to make themselves appear more capable (by far) than they actually are.
Instead of learning "education" teachers should be getting their BS or BA in the actual subject area that they will eventually teach - math, English, languages... whatever. Then, once they are themselves educated and degreed to the same standards as non-teachers, and only then, give them another year of training on how to teach others what they now know top to bottom, front to back.
Plus everything else you said, of course....
Sean| 5.19.10 @ 11:38AM
In most states the one year more of training for other than Education majors is already instituted for certification. The problem is the School of Education currently does the training. The training at most colleges consists of political indoctrination and left wing ideology that is why you have to get rid of the current certification process altogether. The alternative certification programs that some states have are flawed also. They conduct an oral interview where you are ask politically loaded questions to see if you fit in with the liberal view point on education.
Tony in Central PA| 5.19.10 @ 10:05AM
" Ironically, as the public schools extrude more and more of the best and brightest, liberals grow more and more jealous of their ascendancy over the schools, less and less trustful of calls to strengthen curriculum and performance ".
That sums it all up. Its the worst provincialism in human nature, " Its a trashheap, but its MY trashheap ".
doolittle| 5.19.10 @ 10:31AM
just reading Stanton Evans' book "Blacklisted by History"..the real, well researched book about Joe McCarthy..very different from the usual pap put out by the msm and their buddies. I'm old enough to recall the period, plus having been stationed in Germany during the period and seeing how the State Department acted in the early days of the Cold War..it's about time someone told the truth about McCarthyism. happy to see it mentioned in this article..READ THE BOOK
Stephen Zierak| 5.19.10 @ 10:47AM
Kudos to the Republican school board members in Texas! It's about time that responsible adults put an end to the PC version of American history. As a non-religious (NOT anti-religious) person, I find it ridiculous to omit the religious aspirations of the people involved in settling and developing America. When I was in school, the day started with a prayer, and you could participate or not. I find this much less "oppressive" than the cloud cuckoo land PC nonsense that is now imposed throughout the day on innocent students. We can't teach the 3 R's or real American history today, but boy can we enlighten the young-uns in bizarre sexual practices and how to best chant: barack hussein obama, mmm, mmm, mmm. I only hope the school board doesn't fold and really does start to bring back real education, and can maintain the support of the people in doing so.
Matt| 5.19.10 @ 1:28PM
Thank God that this argument is taking place in Texas, and not California or NY. Thank you Texas!
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 1:54PM
Murchison writes that the school books are now emphasizing the support of "Republicans" for the civil rights movement.
This is only a partial truth that amounts to a deception if not taught carefully.
It is true that many Republicans did support civil rights legislation; indeed, many blacks were stubbornly Republican because of the legacy of the Democratic Party in the South and its support of segregationist policies.
HOWEVER, Republicans who supported civil rights laws were by and large from the NORTHEAST. They were precisely the liberal Republicans whom the party has worked so hard to purge.
The author of this piece clearly believes he knows enough about history to make these kinds of judgments, so it should go without saying he knows the history of the massive change in American politics that took place during the early sixties. Goldwater's decision to vote against civil rights had enormous consequences, as did the Southern Strategy perfected by Nixon.
As prominent Democrats -- especially Kennedy and Nixon -- embraced civil rights they alienated white racists in the south who had been traditionally Democrats.
At the same time, blacks migrated from the Republican party to the Democratic party. They clearly saw which way the wind was blowing. White liberals also moved from the Republican to the Democratic party over this issue.
But, as Johnson predicted, the Democratic party "lost the South" -- and it was over CIVIL RIGHTS that the Democratic party lost it.
White racists moved to the Republican party, and they and their descendants constitute a large portion of what is now the Republican party.
So yes, Republicans supported civil rights legislation, but that was a different Republican party, and that was a different time.
This is why we don't want shallow ideologues -- like the author of the piece above -- dictating history standards. We need historians to decide these things, not political hacks.
Anommynous| 5.19.10 @ 5:05PM
"White racists moved to the Republican party..."
Hey Nate, I wasn't aware that Robert Byrd moved to the Republican Party. When exactly did this happen?
Purpleguy| 5.19.10 @ 5:18PM
Well, every party has to have one... name another 10. I can name 10 Republicans with no trouble
Anommynous| 5.19.10 @ 5:33PM
Do it.
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 6:29PM
Can you deny that pro-segregation southern whites fled the Democratic party for the Republican party in the 1960s?
Byrd is a leftover from the pre- southern strategy days. Any change has leftovers. If you think this one example somehow refutes the historical facts as I've laid them out, you really have low standards for yourself.
Again, that's fine for you. You can't sit in your attic and masturbate to Glenn Beck all day if you want. No one will care.
But there is a legitimate interest to be taken in educational standards, and no, I'm not willing to let a panel of blatant ideologues set those standards to reinforce narrow, racist political agendas.
JmsA| 5.19.10 @ 6:35PM
OK, purpleturd, just read that above regarding the Southern Manifesto in response to Nate's claim about the purportedly racist republicans.
JmsA| 5.19.10 @ 6:33PM
Nate:
Ever hear of the 1956 Southern Manifesto, opposing integration, and signed by 99 democrats and 2 republicans? How about segregationist, Senator William Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor, ever hear about him? By the way, Nate, do you happen to know the reason for the Republican Party coming into being? To abolish slavery, that's what.
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 9:24PM
YES -- and look at that date, JmsA: 1956.
The Southern Strategy began AFTER the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965. It was first used successfully at the national level by Nixon in 1968.
We're not talking about some Howard Zinn left wing looney stuff here.
This is established fact. The Republicans deliberately courted disaffected whites in the south who resented desegregation.
Look at the electoral map if you don't believe me, or buy a good history book!
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 12:49AM
You tell 'em Nate... these people refuse to listen to facts, but the more they live in their fantasy land with the Becks, Bachmans, and Hannitys the further they go out on the fringe, or should I say limb?
Removing Thomas Jefferson from the history books - Texas has gone nuts. But the hispanic vote will overtake the white vote in 10-16 years in TX, and then we'll see.
hydrophane| 5.20.10 @ 11:12AM
Nate, I have heard this crap so many times and I am sick of it. The Democratic party has ALWAYS been the party of the plantation. The plantation had as its certain theme the control of slaves. It was so important that when the bosses said, "Hey, BOY, sit down and shut up. We know what's best for you!" that the BOY actually did sit down and was beaten if he did not. The Democratic party of the 1850s and the 1960s is just the same in that regard. Whenever one of these ungrateful wretches dares to think greener grass grows outside the plantation, he still is punished severely. After all the plantation owners still know what's best for you! Anyone who doubts this, read Clarence Thomas's memoirs "My Grandfather's Son". There is a section about the Supreme Court nomination hearings where he realizes that the rich white Senate liberals are just like the plantation owners - they know what's best for him to think and how dare he think another way! When Star Parker and Bill Cosby dared to criticize the welfare system (PLANTATION!), they were roundly condemned.
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 1:57PM
error: I meant to write, "as prominent Democrats, particularly Kennedy and JOHNSON" -- not Nixon, although to be fair, Nixon -- who profited from the southern strategy -- did also sign into law good civil rights legislation, and his record on civil rights -- while complicated -- is not as bad as some believe.
Cole| 5.19.10 @ 4:05PM
Your generalization of the liberals is incredibly reductive and stereotypical. You're just as a big a hypocrite as the scary granola heads that make you pray to Glen Beck.
You say this isn't an issue of separation between church and state? Kids aren't even given the chance to learn in an environment free from the outside influence of religion. Education should be about receiving diverse viewpoints, I agree there, but it shouldn't be coming from ideologues desperate to save the homos from fire and damnation.
Also, for someone with a decent amount of insight, you — like much of the conservative establishment — continue to link the founding fathers to Christianity with absolutely no proof.
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches" - Benjamin Franklin
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.19.10 @ 5:32PM
Cole,
Sorry, bud. You are in the darkness and cannot see.
Our entire founding principles are based respectively on Micah 6: 6
....."but what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?"
And Jesus' core commandments:
"Love (agape') one another as I have loved you."
"Remember me when you break bread"
Sir,
Our founders could not even imagine you being so ignorant. Most of them learned to read utilizing the Bible. It was so ingrained in their consciousness, whether "Deists", or Christians, it actually went without even saying...that God Himself is the fountain of all our freedoms.
ITFossil| 5.19.10 @ 8:16PM
Ken,
Perhaps it's you who are in the darkness.
Or maybe I am. If you can point me to the documents in which this country's founders so much as considered Micah as a founding principle, or perhaps the ones in which Jesus's "core commandments" (you speak for Jesus?!?! ) were discussed and adopted as founding principles, then it will be proof positive that it's me who is in the dark. Otherwise...
ken (Old Texican)| 5.19.10 @ 6:49PM
(Shamelessly re-posted here from the blogs)
Mr. Antle,
In 1776, the "majority" of Americans were busy milking their cows and getting the crops in.
At its peak, how many soldiers were in Mr. Washington's army? (and what percentage of Americans enlisted or actively supported Mr. Washington?)
Sir,
let's face it. The MAJORITY never quite gets it.....at least until it is waaaaay too late.
As a native 6th generation Texan, I realize that I have an entirely different perspective than you guys in "civilized" country do......
...so what happens if the communists, (pardon the shorthand), by hook and crook.....prevail in November?
Many millions of fellow Americans do not believe our republic can survive 2 more years of communist reign, but have placed their hopes and efforts to turn things around at the ballot box in November, but what if we cannot?
Well...for one thing, American Spectator goes off the air.
So does Rush et al.
Do we productive persons just go off the grid?
Do we try to squirm around and try to make accomodation with the new reality of government control of every facet of our lives?
Do we bow our heads to tyranny like most of the human population of the earth always has?
Well,
I can speak fairly confidently that millions of us will not "go along and get along".
What is the old communist motto? "You have nothing to lose but your chains?"
How about ... "You have nothing to lose but your souls."
Between the communists here, (pardon the shorthand), and the islamic radicals, and the Chinese Klingons, we are under an existential threat.
Do you think umpteen thousand military vets who have literally shed blood for our freedoms will acquiesce?
Sir with all respect, have you put your life on the line for the "idea" of America?
Have you worked/lived in other parts of the world where life is worth the price of a bullet?
I, and millions of Americans have. We know the difference our unique republic has made. We intend to keep it.
God bless
Ret. Marine| 5.19.10 @ 8:34PM
Amen brother, Amen
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:00AM
Good Grief, what paranoia... maybe you should back your Governor's plan to secede ... go back to the Lone Star Government, create your slaves, and take your chances with the Mexican government to the South, and you can stop bitching about America, which you obviously don't love. Love it or leave it.
You have no respect for it's institutions or it's people (unless they agree with you). Man, talk about fringe. You see Communists everywhere - your drinking WAY too much Beck Kool-Aid.
If there were Communists in charge, do you really think you would have a chance? Are you that dumb? The entire Federal Government and most of the States are run by the Democrats, and you think if they were Communists you would EVER win another election, if that were true. That's just plain stupid trash talk, and you know it.
Do you know how many fought in Washington's Army .. do you? Do you know how many colonists there were? Who were the Tories? Who were the Rebels?
Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.10 @ 7:45PM
God Bless Texas!
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 9:32PM
And by the way, it is simply NOT TRUE that the Founders represented a monolithic Christian view as it would be understood today -- and whatever their views, they certainly weren't of the "fundamentalist" variety.
Take a look at Jefferson's New Testament if you don't believe me.
Many of the Founders were devout, no question. But their devotion was the devotion of intellectuals of the Enlightenment. To group them together under one religious banner is unfair and simply inaccurate from the point of view of history. Thomas Paine and George Washington simply did NOT share worldviews, nor did Jefferson and Adams, or Madison and Hamilton.
A kind of Christian piety animated much of their thinking, and probably much of their private devotions, but they were no 700 Club, and the Constitution most certainly makes it clear -- as much through what it does NOT say as through what it does -- that the Founders feared religious enthusiasms taking over the political process. (See the "religious tests" article.)
Again, the people who yelp the loudest about the Constitution and the Founders seem not to know much about these things.
Nick| 5.19.10 @ 10:04PM
Nate,
Why are you always trying, unsuccessfully, to re-write history?
First, you falsely claim that the Ft. Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, is not a terrorist.
Now, you are spewing lies about the Founding Fathers. Why are bleeding heart liberals unable to tell the truth?
How did you like my list of corrupt democrats, by the way?
Nate| 5.19.10 @ 10:34PM
I might be able to answer if you specified how precisely you think I'm attempting to "re-write history."
You need to learn how to make specific, clear points that have something to do with the topic under discussion. Or do you think your discovery that there is such a thing as corrupt politicians merits special attention?
Nick| 5.19.10 @ 11:56PM
Nate,
I believe you wrote something to the effect that Republicans were as corrupt as democrats, and that they refuse to resign in the same numbers.
I provided a long list of corrupt democrats that refused to resign.
Where's yours?
Nate| 5.20.10 @ 12:28AM
You mean other than Gingrich and Ensign, the two I repeatedly mentioned?
And by the way, you accused me of "re-writing history" but can't specify any part of what I've actually posted on this thread that does so.
Nick| 5.20.10 @ 12:37AM
Nate,
Yes, your two examples, as compared to my list of 21 corrupt democrats. Is that equal in your dim mind?
Here is the list, in case you forgot:
Barney Fwank
The Swimmer Kennedy
The Swimmer jr., Patrick Kennedy
Alcee Hastings
Charlie Rangel
Gerry Studds
Rod Blagojevich
William Jefferson, democrat, Louisiana
John Murtha
Bob Torricelli
Alan Mollohan
Eric Massa
John Conyers
Cynthia McKinney
Richard M. Dailey
Richard J. Dailey
Jesse Jackson, jr.
Rahm Emmanuel
President Dither
Shrillary the Hut
Bubba the pervert
I can find more, if you would like?
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:06AM
Nate - Don't waste your time on limp-dick Nick, he's just here for infotainment. He spews lies and cherry picks out of context whatever he likes to become fact, just as Fixed News and Rush Loudmouth does. He never has a cogent or lucid argument, and doesn't deal in facts. His "list" is such bs, it's laughable. He can't even spell Daley right, he's so intelligent.
He's not worth responding to, and I won't anymore ... he's not worth the typing.
Nick| 5.20.10 @ 12:13PM
Awwww!
PurpleJackass is trying to make a friend. Isn't that cute.
Notice the crude sexual reference, Nate.
This is to let you know which way PurpleJackass swings.
Hope two live happily ever after.
Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:41PM
No, purpleguy has pretty well nailed you...
Nate| 5.20.10 @ 12:32AM
Thomas Jefferson is one of the greatest figures in American history. To downplay his formative influence upon the founding of this country simply because he doesn't fit the image of a born-again Christian held by some committee in Dallas is a disgrace.
They're right, as far as it goes. Jefferson was no Christian in any sense we usually use that term. But that's no reason to raze him out of the textbooks. (Even if he did raze God out of the Bible.)
Excising the labor movement from 20th century American history is another absurdity.
Who ARE these people? Where did THEY study history?
My guess is that these are more Liberty University graduates peddling stuff and nonsense to suit some agenda they themselves hardly understand. What's next? Sarah Palin in charge of American foreign policy?
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:14AM
You are exactly right. Anyone who would remove Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence and the driving force behind the Bill of Rights, are ignoring their own history and why? To make a political point?
And, these would be the same people that would castigate the Germans for denying the holocaust or the Japanese for denying the rape of Nanking, as well as the same that would call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War Between the States" as if Civil War doesn't cover it. Just like that idiot new Governor of VA declares Confederacy Month, and forgets all about slavery, as if that didn't exist.
Now rewrite our history in their own image, as if they were the Almighty himself. That's loving America? I call it "leaving America" ...
Oh and one little tidbit - CA is now looking at their schoolbooks and if you think TX has a big effect on school books, wait until much bigger CA gets in the middle of this one. I wouldn't want to bet on backward Texas for this one.
falcon| 5.20.10 @ 9:20AM
You might want to read for yourself the relevant documents pertaining to the proposed new Texas social studies curriculum. You can download it from the Texas Register at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/tex.....6prop.pdf. In particular, read on page 26 of this document, in section 113.16 (b) (2) (B), where it states:
"(2) History. The student understands how conflict between the American colonies and Great Britain led to American independence. The student is expected to: (A) identify and analyze the causes and effects of events prior to and during the American Revolution, including the French and Indian War and the Boston Tea Party; (B) identify the Founding Fathers and Patriot heroes, including John Adams, SamuelAdams, Benjamin Franklin, NathanHale, Thomas Jefferson, the Sons of Liberty, and George Washington, and their motivations and contributions during the revolutionary period; and
(C) summarize the results of the American Revolution, including the establishment of the United States and the development of the U.S. military."
This section deals with fifth-grade social studies curricula.
No one is removing or talking about remvoing Thomas Jefferson from these history books. You might do well to read the facts, rather than regurgitate left-wing talking points.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 10:57PM
And, they want to remove the word "slave" from the slave trade and call it the "triangle trade". And, to show how Sen. Joe McCarthy was a hero in the Cold War, instead of the drunk, paranoid, Commie-behind-every-door reactionary that he really was - kind of like Glenn Beck...
falcon| 5.20.10 @ 9:22AM
And it shows your ignorance of the great state of Texas when you comment on "some committee in Dallas". The SBOE is located in Austin, the state capitol.
Where did you study history? Or, for that matter, geography? Public school?
tv | 5.20.10 @ 7:12AM
If this succeeds, it'll brainwash the whole country. Textbook providers will have to sell their books at a huge discount just to get the truth out, which loses them money, which will force them out of business in a few years/decades. Either that or Obama will have to sign an EO subsidizing the textbooks to prevent the Texas Textbooks from spreading, costing the government undue money. Either way, America loses.
falcon| 5.20.10 @ 8:43AM
"History is written by the victors." - Winston Churchill
For the last several decades, the progressive left has succeeded in rewriting history to its benefit, and our kids have been damaged as a result. Even a liberal should admit that facts are the most important thing in any discussion, because from facts opinions are derived. Opinions without facts are nothing more than smoke, and just as easily dispelled. Our kids won't have an intellectual leg to stand on unless we begin to reemphasize fact-based education, and the Texas SBOE is to be applauded for its efforts.
Nate| 5.20.10 @ 11:56AM
Churchill, of course, was WRONG.
History is written by the writers.
Austin, Dallas. Whatever. It wasn't really an important part of my argument. And I've HEARD a member of the committee debate on public radio with a critic and DEFEND the lowering of emphasis on Jefferson in the curriculum. No one said he was being entirely erased. And they ARE removing proper emphasis on the history of the labor movement in this country.
Nick| 5.20.10 @ 12:08PM
Nate,
"Austin, Dallas. Whatever."
Exactly. We all know facts don't matter to you. They never have.
Also, the only "proper emphasis" of the labor movement should be to expose its marxist beginnings.
Where's you list?
tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:36PM
Getting your Fox talking points down I see.
Suzanne Rhoades| 5.20.10 @ 8:00PM
Instead of spending millions on "new" history textbooks every few years (what a racket BTW) the students should be reading the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. Does some one have a problem with making them read the Constitution? Read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Read Frederick Douglas's Narrative of the Life of an American Slave. How do any of you know who Thomas Jefferson was? How did you find out? What are your sources? What's wrong with reading what the Founders themselves wrote? Whatever happened to the Constitution test? What is wrong with telling kids about the labor movement? It WAS part of a communist uptick in the 30s. Wiping it out of the curriculum or white washing the facts to make it seem non-communist are both wrong. What is wrong with letting kids know we have a constant clash of ideas in this country and we've had clashes of ideas since day one.
tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:34PM
Yeah baby, that's what I'm talking about! Let them read the founders words for themselves without the spin. Teach them to think critically for themselves instead of indoctrinating them...do we really want a nation of Stepford wives?
Tracy| 5.26.10 @ 12:29PM
Oh my god you people are all nuts. Just teach the truth and stop making stuff up to fit your religious philosophy ...
fdjk| 7.1.10 @ 3:40AM
beijing massage