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

The article refers to two Hindu groups, and one of them is modernist in outlook and so they are not fundamentalists.But it would be a mistake to turn this thread into a discussion of labels. The issue isn't one of which group is fundamentalist in outlook and which isn't, but rather the disturbing pattern of religious groups lobbying textbook publishers and boards of education for changes more consistent with their religious beliefs. It's a question of whether we want secular scholarship overridden by religious sensibilities in the books used by school children. Perhaps we agree about this when it comes to history books.Multiculturalism is neither all good nor all bad, but where the article says this: This worries me a great deal. Historical accuracy cannot be sacrificed out of fear of offending someone. The article also quotes a portion of the California guidelines where it says: Noble goals, but also typical liberal feel-good folderol. Do they mean we should distort the history we teach in public schools? I think we probably agree that they shouldn't.You would like to blame multiculturalism, and I agree that such views encourage lending an overly sympathetic ear to the complaints of these religious groups. But what I found notable was the similarity of these group's methods to those of creationist groups. Rather than taking routes through scholarship to change what is represented in textbooks, they instead lobby textbook publishers and boards of education.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 01-30-2006 09:49 AM

Isn't this the result of secular groups and people first lobbying or suing or partnering with minority religions to litigate and force changes to the school system and textbook publishers? That's what happened. Secular groups or people, sometimes in tandem with non-Christian groups of people, lobbied and sued to force Christianity to be removed from aspects of the school's life, right?So the precedent is there.Why if it's OK for secularists to lobby to force changes to textbooks and history with reference to Christianity, is it not OK for the Hindus to do that with respect to other areas? What about whether we want religious scholarship overridden by secular sensibilities in the books used by school children? But it already has. Theology and religious history has largely been removed due to secularists pushing for that, arguing that it could engender separation issues, as such, people are miseducated. They don't know basic history, which has in a lot of ways been shaped in America and Western history by theology, specifically Christian theology. Heck, if the secularists let the truth be taught, no one would ever think secularists originated the idea and term "separation of Church and State."So you guys (lumping in you in with the secularists though maybe I should not) already have perverted basic history and the truth in order not to offend people. Why shouldn't the Hindus get a crack at it as well?

I can only guess what you're talking about. Are you referring to things like school prayer and posting the 10 commandments on school property? If so, the topic's about textbooks, not religious expressions on school property. If not, you'll have to provide some hint of what you're referring to. Nothing like this was mentioned in the article, so once again I don't know what you're referring to. Whose religious scholarship? Christianity's? Hinduism's? Buddhism's? Judahism's? Islam's? Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Concerning religious history, I believe Constantine's conversion, Martin Luther, the Reformation, etc., etc., are all still taught. What historical events of you thinking of? And theology has never been taught to any significant extent in public schools.--Percy

Percy, secularists have made sure that very little attention is paid to theology, the ideas in the Bible, and religious history. But theology, the Bible, and revivals have shaped Western history as much as anything else. Secularists though have used the threat of litigation to force education in these things in-depth out of the textbooks. That's why you may hear of the Reformation but basically not have any idea what it was about for the most part, and why you hear people, such as some here, credit secularism with the development of the theological idea of separation of Church and State, and why invariably secularists cannot understand that separation of Church and State is not separation of God from the State.So when I hear of secularists complaining that some Hindu group wants to distort history, I have to laugh since secularists have been doing the same thing for a very long time now.

Addressing the Reformation in less depth than you would like not the same thing as distorting the Reformation. What we're talking about in this thread is requests by religious groups to change textbooks to be more consistent with their beliefs but in ways that are not consistent with scholarship.--Percy

Percy, presenting things like separation of Church and State as a result of secularism, and equating separation of God from the State is a distortion of scholarship. You guys do the same thing in public schools. I don't see why anyone should be surprised that others would follow suit.

Sorry, can't parse this. Until you're specific I can't know what you're talking about, but if it isn't related to lobbying publishers and boards of education for textbook changes then it's a different topic.--Percy

Pretty easy to grasp, percy, but I will restate. Due to secularist influence on the teaching of history, certain myths are perpetuated, one is to overly credit the Enlightenment with the ideas of religious liberty and the concept and term, "separation of Church and State" which is a theological term derived from the great theological debates and struggles during the Reformation.Because theological education has been largely cut from history, students do not know that during the Reformation, one of the great rallying cries of one the 3 main religious divisions within Christianity, was "separation of Church and State", and furthermore do not know that Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and other areas advocating this idea directly stemmed from the writings of the Anabaptists, and indeed so did the enlightenment thinkers on this, as they heard the ideas of religious liberty from Christians advocating this, something that is historically verifiable.As a consequence, many long hours are spent, even here at EVC, with secularists, due to their rewriting and distorting history, claiming a definition of "separation of Church and State" other than what the term meant in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, and early 1800s. The term never meant that the State was to be separated from God, a sense of duty and acknowledgement of God or anything like that. It was merely an assertation of separation of ecclesiastical and civil affairs, but all under God. It is a specific and Christian theological term, not a secular term, and refers to a specific and quite narrowly focused and defined theology.But you guys (secularists) succeeded in presenting false views contrary to good scholarship and now seem upset that some modernist Hindus are trying to do the same.My question is why you think they too should not have a crack at distorting history just as secularists have had?

You say many interesting things. I had no idea that "separation of church and state" was one of the great rallying cries of the Reformation. And the idea that separation of church and state was never intended to be separation of God and state seems a fertile area for discussion.But none of this has anything to do with the topic. If you'd like to discuss the Reformation or secularist distortions of history then you should probably propose some new topics. But If you would like to argue that there are secular groups bypassing scholarship by lobbying publishers and boards of education for their preferred viewpoints just like the religious groups mentioned in the article, which is all I can find from you that pertains to this thread, then please proceed.--Percy

Percy, take the recent lawsuits against Intelligent Design being mentioned in the textbooks as an example. Any hint of religion causes litigation. It's been awhile, but there is a reason and I would think you would agree, that someone as educated as yourself didn't know the historical use of the term separation of Church and State during the Reformation.The history textbooks have largely been sanitized of religion. They may mention something like the Reformation, but they don't delve into the ideas surrounding it in a manner that conveys it's significance due to fear of in the process of explaining the theology of the various camps, the schools may be sued.That's why you don't hear too much of Livingston's motives as a missionary, and all sorts of things. Religion and Christianity is downplayed, and history distorted because that's what secularists wanted and were willing to use litigation to obtain.Now other groups are doing the same.Is that all that surprising?

So ID is a religious belief.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

and take for instance, the ku teacher who got beat up for placing religion where it belongs no i think they wouldn't because they have so much to teach in a semester, and what would delving into it deep teach students? by the way are we we talking college level or lower?
because teaching them deeply about it in high school would be pointless, and theres classes on subjects like this in college, so why would schools be sued?
if you mean the theology part then yes, history is not really about theology or religious teachings, unless say "these people believed in one god, this group believed in another" that would be history why teach this?, he wasn't known as a missionary, it would be a sideline in his life, unless you think only the christian part matters, how is it distorted really? because they don't talk about something hes not known for? considering the hindus have a different reason than what you are claiming secluarists have, yes
they want to make thier religion look better than it was, to lose the nasty background, it would be like the christians losing the crusades or burning people at the stake, or muslims trying to claim women have always been able to work or christians for that matter

Yes, I understood that as well. I considered them ALL uniculturalists.Multiculturalism is not "giving credence to the minority position". It is simply acknowledging different cultures. At best multiculturalists would have looked at these modern hindus and perhaps altered the books to read "some modern strains of hinduism reject polytheistic labels as well as a connection between religion and sexual inequality, and argue that their's is a more accurate view of historical hinduism but there is little evidence to support that position.Multiculturalism has to be a warts and all approach, as the word itself means diversity which may include disconnects and disputes. Uniculturalism is looking for the magic blend of harmony between all where we can agree to one viewpoint that doesn't overtly offend anyone.This was wholly about uniculturalism. To your credit my guess is the people involved would identify themselves as multiculturalists because they want to feel good about themselves and sound like they are supporting diversity. Their actions say otherwise.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to convey in written form. Another possibility is that your claim that "separation of church and state" was one of the major rallying cries of the Reformation is incorrect. If you'd like to contrast current interpretations of "separation of church and state" with those of the Reformation and before then you should open a new topic. This is only your opinion, and it is off-topic. If you'd like to discuss it then you should open a new topic. Now you're getting a little closer to being on-topic. Do you have any examples? Lawsuits to restore the original condition after successful lobbying of publishers and/or school boards by religious groups don't qualify, of course. You need an example of a secular group using litigation to bypass scholarship to have their own particular viewpoints represented in textbooks and/or school curriculums The other groups described in the article are not using litigation. They're lobbying publishers and school boards.You seem to be having trouble finding apples to compare with other apples. You keep saying that the religious groups described in the article are just doing the same thing secularist groups have been doing for years, but you haven't been able to provide an example of a secular group doing any such thing.--Percy

Buzsaw, I certainly had my doubts about you as a moderator, but I am quite impressed.I think you're doing a fine job in this thread.