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

Back to your old tricks again Nosey, using your mod position to harass people you disagree with?Rev responds with total BS and you allow it. I tell him to deal with the facts I presented or shut the heck up, and you censure me?I decided to respond according to the rules and demand he respond factually or quit making false characterizations.Why did you not censure Rev and demand he stick to the facts and analysis in the thread? You cannot seem to bring yourself to censure rev for his misbehaviour, but feel fine attacking someone you disagree with?This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:26 AM

It's inaccurate history. I suppose we could argue what does it matter if we know and learn history at all. History only matters if it is true, and if connects ideas with events. The idea here was his missionary zeal stemming from a devout, zealous Christian upbringing. The side effect of this was the incredble courage and compassion from his Christian beliefs opened up Africa. In other words, it was something besides a desire to explore that really made Livingston so effective as an explorer. He learned the languages in Africa (very smart man), loved and respected the people there, and through that love wound up "discovering" a Continent if you can count European discovery as discovery.One of the ironies is perhaps his work didn't help change perceptions of Africans as he hoped, and maybe there were unintended consequences.It's really a great story all the way around, and has beautiful complexities. If you are going to leave out the Christian stuff, why mention Livingston at all?This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:49 AM

Thanks and thanks to percy, for letting me post. It is hard to keep the peace, and maybe I just need to visit here less oftenIt does strike me as inherently unfair for evos to start a thread stating it is fundies creating history rewrites, and then when I point out that secularists have been doing this, it is now all of the sudden some wild conspiracy theory.imo, all of the evo posters that have used derogatory language in claiming I am asserting a conspiracy theory should be censured. The thread is about history textbook rewriting. I have addressed this thread in a factual manner. My opponents have not, and moreover have insinuating that even claiming history rewriting is a wild, paranoid conspiracy theory.So what we have is evos can say, without merit imo, that fundies are causing history textbook rewrites, and they should be treated civilly and with respect, but if anyoen argues that secularists actually sanitized textbooks of certain references and emphasis on Christianity, that is a wild, paranoid conspiracy theory.This illustrates, imo, the fundamental hypocrisy of many of the evos here, some of whom such as jar are moderators, and I think the issue will keep coming up as long as some of these guys are mods. They see nothing wrong with accusing me of advancing a paranoid conspiracy theory for pointing out how LIvingston's missionary zeal was cut out of history, but think it is perfectly reasonable for them to assert the craziest, most paranoid conspiracy theories around, such as claiming Christians want to establish a theocracy and ruin science and history education, and they use their mod status to deliberately intervene and attack posters critical of their stance in a hypocritical manner, imo.

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?

The mindset you display is somewhat amazing. For example: How could you possibly come up with something so confused? First, the Hindu group appears to be a modernist group with respect to some of their religious traditions. So they are not fundamentalists by any definition of the term.Secondly, fundamentalism is often criticized not for being too open to other points of view, but for being too closed. The idea that fundamentalists are so tolerant and open to different perspectives that they would rewrite facts for other belief systems is bizarre, and misguided to say the least.Third, you dodge my quoted point entirely. You guys are the ones that came up with a theory advancing history rewrites, which by the way occurs in liberal dominated education. So the idea of historical revisionism is not a paranoid theory, oh, except if anyone points out secularists doing it. Your hypocrisy is apparent to all here.As far as history, it is well-known fact that public schools do not teach the level of theology and religious history necessary to understand basic history due to fear of teaching Christianity. Take the Reformation. It is probably one of the most significant events in Western history, with 3 primary sides and subsets within them, and 3 distinct theological differences defining and shaping that debate. Schools do not educate people about what those ideas were, and as such leave students about as igorant of the Reformation as if they had never heard of it at all.

Well, I view it as secular fundamentalism as well, but I think the minute I would call securalism as often being a form of fundamentalism that there would be a knee-jerk reaction debating the definition of fundamentalism or some such.But in general, I do think the attempt to impose one's worldview on the rest of the nation is essentially what secularists have been trying to do.

Holmes, I wasn't saying the Hindus are multiculturalists. The educational system, not the Hindus, are actually the ones involved with writing and using textbooks. They are the multiculturalists, and thus are giving credence to the minority position. Whether right or wrong, that's why different groups are being listened to.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

You never heard of the ACLU and it's lawsuits against school districts?

It's probably hopeless buzz. Percy is just going to deny reality, and claim no knowledge of secularists' attempts to take religion out of education....actually, looking down a little, I see he already did that, as expected.

Percy, secularists took the Bible out of the curriculum, as Holmes stated, and control the textbooks printed, and the result is religion is deemphasized in the curriculum. I am sorry you are too boneheaded to admit that. It's not even an arguable point.As far as current lawsuits over textbooks, the secularists have mostly won already, but we did see them suing over the recent ID language. In general, secularists use the law and threats of litigation to slant teaching to benefit the promotion of their beliefs. My point is considering how secularists use the law to slant textbooks, I can hardly see where you are justified complaining about Hindus doing the same.This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 02:08 PM