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

Randman writes:The example of deemphasizing Livingston's missionary motive (he was a missionary), and not teaching the Bible as a subject, nor theology, is all due to liberals wanting to discredit Christianity, perhaps out of fear of separation issues. Multi-culturalism has been used a s veiled attack against Christianity, which is why schools for years could teach the Koran, Hinduism or just about anything, except Christian theology.

Randman writes:Percy, I don't see a lot of evidence these Hindus are fundamentalists. They appear to be more modernists in respect to their religious traditions.
Furthermore, the reason the school system is accepting changing their history texts is not fundamentalism, but multi-culturalism and even a reaction against what has been perceived as a fundamentalist attitude. The whole notion this has something to do with fundamentalism is just very bizarre, but hey, maybe you think fundamentalists are overly tolerant people, so much so they are likely to change the facts to suit the opinions of other groups?

OP quote writes:In the 1970s and 1980s, history texts shied away from religion. "They didn't use the 'capital G' word," says Roger Rogalin, a publishing consultant. "They said the pilgrims gave thanks on Thanksgiving, but they didn't say to whom."

So you know nothing about school for the last 50 years then?, why would theology and religious history be necessary for students to learn about? what would the reformation teach them?, i'm sorry i wouldn't call it one of the most significant events in western history maybe religious history, i could name any number of things that affected the world more than that scizm
I wouldnt' call it fear of teaching christianity, but a balance of time, you know people would have to teach every religion, everyones views, and they have limited time to spend on one topic, people go to school to learn how to learn not just to learn things

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

Percy writes:Whose "secularist agenda"? The article just says that history books began shying away from religion in the 70s and 80s. It doesn't say anything about the reasons, and it certainly mentions no secular agenda. In fact, neither the word "secular" nor "agenda" appears in the article.

Thatcher writes:Recently there have been great debates about religious education. I believe politicians must see that religious education has a proper place in the school curriculum. The Christian religion - which, of course, embodies many of the great spiritual and moral truths of Judaism - is a fundamental part of our national heritage. For centuries it has been our very lifeblood.Indeed we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible. Also, it is quite impossible to understand our history or literature without grasping this fact.That is the strong practical case for ensuring that children at school are given adequate instruction in the part which the Judaic-Christian tradition has played in molding our laws, manners, and institution. How can you make sense of Shakespeare and Sir Walter Scott, or of the constitutional conflicts of the seventeenth century in both Scotland and England, without some such knowledge? But I go further than this. The truths of the Judaic-Christian tradition are infinitely precious, not only, as I believe because they are true, but also because they provide the moral impulse which alone can lead to that peace, in the true meaning of the word, for which we all long.

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

Percy writes:Naturally efforts like those of creationists to put religion into the classroom are opposed by secularists. But you have claimed that secularists have done and are doing the same thing as the religious groups described in the article of the opening post. These religious groups are bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and schools boards for favorable representations of their religions in history books. Do you have any examples of secular groups doing the same thing for their views?Let's get specific. Your big example earlier in this thread was the Reformation. Do you have examples of any secular groups promoting views of the Reformation not supported by scholarship by lobbying publishers and schools boards?

Jewish graduate student writes:Religion in the Academy
I am a graduate student in History at Indiana University. Since First Things has given continuing attention to the place of religion in higher education, I thought you might appreciate hearing from a sympathetic reader-one who is female and Jewish-concerning the blatant discrimination against Christianity and "religious motives" in academe, and especially in History departments.When I applied to IU (my abe: Indiana University) in 1991, I stated in my letter of purpose that I was interested in scholasticism and Church history, Reformation history, and a myriad of related subjects (e.g., medieval psychology, the Aristotelian tradition, the rise of the universities, etc.), which I believed fell within the discipline of history. Now after three semesters I am being told by my department that I need to transfer into some other department such as Religious Studies or Philosophy if I want to study the history of the Church or scholasticism, as these topics no longer fall within the discipline of history. "No one does that sort of thing anymore," they say.Looking at earlier catalogues, this was not the case several years ago, or even two years ago, when there were faculty in the History Department who could teach more general sorts of Medieval History courses, which included the history of the Church. Now all we get are courses on "medieval sexuality" and "medieval women's spirituality" taught from a feminist perspective in which the Church is the enemy. There has been no effort to balance the curriculum; semester after semester it is the same thing................ the faculty with whom I had hoped to study, who taught more traditional courses, had either already retired or were on the verge of doing so.These sorts of things are not so unusual, I now know, from talking to graduate students at other universities. ................the remaining faculty in my area actively discourage research in religious history and in what I call the "intellectual history" of the Western world. ........... while the catalogue says that the History Department "encourages interdisciplinary approaches," the reality is that, unless you want to do something on "medieval women" or "medieval sexuality," the department will not accommodate your interdisciplinary interests.Women's spirituality, lesbian nuns, eating disorders, "Jesus as mother," transvestisms, and a myriad of other more popular topics are deemed to be "on the cutting edge" by the professors here, who call this "intellectual history." But in these courses you never hear about the real intellectuals of the medieval period, since they happened to be theologians and male.In the literature and in history textbooks, religious motivations and idealistic intentions of historical figures, if male, are always rejected and replaced with more mundane and cynical explanations linked to "power" and personal gain. Humanism, for example, in contemporary scholarship is treated solely as "a money-making proposition," or as "a pathway to professionalism by the ruling elite," and the ethical and religious component of the humanist movement (Petrarch, Erasmus, etc.) is completely missed. Students are not taught that the Classics were once valued by society as a way of instilling morality and goodness in its citizens-everything now has to be depicted as part of some sinister plot or conspiracy.My department has recently decided that it isn't feasible to hire someone to teach Reformation history (replacing Gerald Strauss, who retired a few years ago). When I asked why an area as rich and as important as the Reformation would no longer be taught (or if taught on occasion, by someone whose expertise is eighteenth-century France), I was told by faculty members that the Reformation simply isn't fashionable any more............women's studies and Jewish studies courses are routinely cross- listed. Medieval Philosophy, without doubt a significant part of the intellectual history of the Middle Ages, will not be accepted here towards the History M.A. because it doesn't fit into the political agenda of the department.Since I am female and not a Christian, I do not run the risk of being labeled a sexist or a religious fanatic by demanding (not that it will do much good) that medieval history include Church history, or that Reformation history be taught, or for wanting religion to be at least considered as a possible motive in interpreting human action. And I have a 3.8 GPA so that no one can say that I have other motivations. . . .Emily Nedell
Bloomington, IN[

jar writes:your link does not support your assertion. What the student claims is that Religious Studies, Church History, are being taught as Religious Studies or Philosophy.

jar writes:How does this support secularization in anyway?

jar writes:Are you and other Christians willing to see the actual history taught the way it happened, to show both sides of the issue, the good and bad, the warts and wonders?

Percy writes:No one is questioning (or at least I'm not) that the country has become increasingly secularized. The article of the OP described religious groups bypassing scholarship to gain favorable treatment for their views in textbooks by lobbying publishers and school boards. Randman said secular groups do the same thing, and I replied, not once but many times now, that I have no idea what he's talking about and could he please provide some examples. So far he's provided nothing, his standard operating procedure. Holmes says he has some examples from another thread, perhaps he'll post them here.

Percy writes:There are no secular groups bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and school boards for representation of their special preferred viewpoints.

Asgara writes:I believe the search isn't for any secular lobbying group per se. Percy seems to be looking for a group that bypasses the regular science channels and goes directly to school boards and textbook publishers to push their view point.Defending the Faith

Percy OP Link Title writes:New Battleground
In Textbook Wars:
Religion in History

Buston U link writes:Unfortunately, most public schools have been guilty of what can only be called a cowardly avoidance of this aspect of life. For example, one study found that most textbooks never mentioned that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a minister, or that religion played a fundamental role in the Freedom Movement of the 1960s. There was no mention, in discussions of current American society, of evangelist Billy Graham, who has consistently been one of the most popular Americans for the last 30 years, or of the fact that more Americans attend religious services each week than attend professional sports in a year!