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

I grew up in the 50s, thus attending public schools through most of that decade and the 60s. Certainly, society was becoming more secular; certainly, racial and religious minorities were no longer content to accept the omissions and whitewashes which had characterized textbooks in the past.I must say, we never had any doubt who the Pilgrims were Thanking: and we knew the God they were thanking was neither Catholic nor Jewish, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain.If the focus of history textbooks shifted away from the dominant sect's perspective, does that mean secularists must have been lobbying for the change?If so, does that mean that prior to that change, religious folks must have been lobbying for the previous focus on religious history?No, because the homogeneity of secular and religious authority achieved that end without any need for such concerted actions as pressure groups or litigation.The use of the words "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist" is unfortunate in this thread, since, as Holmes has pointed out, the efforts described in the article were not fundamentalist--the Hindus were not attempting to impose or valorize the beliefs or practices of ancient Hindus, but were rather attempting to whitewash aspects of Hindu antiquity they found...not useful.But I don't recall any secularists organizing to pressure textbook publishers to alter texts so that secularist history would look better, though there was considerable societal pressure to address some of the excesses and abuses committed by a Christian nation and then swept under the rug, e.g., genocide practiced against native peoples, and colonialism masquerading as righteous, God-willed "Manifest Destiny."Percy's request is fair and reasonable: Where are the instances of secularists pressuring textbook publishers to distort or edit history to make their own history look better?I endorse and join his challenge: supply one instance where American secularists lobbied to edit textbooks to prettify some bit of secularist history.Good luck.Edit: To get rid of the misspelling in the subtitle!2nd Edit: To get rid of MY misspelling in the subtitle!This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:10 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:31 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 01-31-2006 09:32 PM

They seem quite different to me, Percy.To gain relief in court, the plaintiff would first have to demonstrate that the text at issue falls under the purview of the law (e.g., violates the establishment clause) or violates other Constitutional or statutory proscriptions (e.g., discrminates on the basis of race, religion, etc.). To any of these challenges, the defense claim of factuality or scholarly consensus would (or at least should) be effective.The opening post described efforts to use lobbying to press for changes that were contrary to either historical record or good scholarship or both.An effort that depends largely on political pressure appears substantively different from an effort that depends on the law to support one's case before an impartial judge and/or jury. The difference between the two seems as large as that between reasoned debate and shouting.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Point taken, Percy.Ideally, then (well, just a little less than), Randman should point to cases where secularists went to court to force counterfactual changes in textbooks to pretty up their own history.My inner idealist dies hard.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Hi, Buz.I sympathize with the lady--she didn't understand that an academic department's course listing does not mean every course will be taught within an M.A. rotation. In fact, even courses listed within a specific semester catalog will not run unless sufficent numbers of students register for the course.Universities truly are marketplaces of ideas. Departments will not run courses that consistently fail to fill. There is no secular conspiracy there. Nor will academic departments gladly cross-list with other departments--their departmental access to university funding, staffing, and other resources depend on their courses filling and running, not another department's.Even without considering the above points, I'm not surprised that a Medieval Philosophy course would not be accepted toward an M.A.--there isn't much room for "electives" with an M.A.She could, of course, still take those courses in other departments; there is absolutely no bar to doing so. She'd have to work a little harder and longer, of course. I'm sure Philosophy and Religious Studies departments offer many courses in her area of interest: interdisciplinary does not mean accepting any other course from any other department towards one's own departmental standard. It does mean that her graduate advisor would help her coordinate any extra-departmental work with her History Dept. efforts. When you want something that is less demanded, you generally have to work harder for it.The law of supply and demand, the invisible hand of the marketplace--that's all that is happening here. I would think a conservative would applaud those market functions. She may be "female and not a Christian...[and so] not run the risk of being labeled a sexist or a religious fanatic" but she certainly has an axe to grind, eh?There are market forces in education, and they have inconvenienced her. There are also thousands of universities and history departments in the U.S. with diverse interests and areas of specialty: she didn't do her homework.BTW, a 3.8 GPA for a graduate student is no great shakes--C's are generally considered catastrophes, and B's are a caution.DISCLAIMER: I.U. alumnus.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

It's important to make it clear that the Tenn. v Scopes trial involved a teacher charged with a criminal offense for teaching the theory of evolution.If it was a test case, then I guess it was a creationist test case.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Whaddya mean, "No"?The State brought charges--you can just say, "It is true the State brought charges," Rand (it won't hurt) without adding "I believe" as though it were possible that you are mistaken. It is a fact.The State of Tennessee brought charges against a teacher for teaching a scientific theory. Personally, I would think any right-thinking American would reject that kind of unconstitutional law; nonetheless, the teacher didn't file suit in court. He was indicted.Nobody forced the State to pass a law against a scientific theory, and nobody forced the State to bring charges. Rather, the apparatus of the State was used by religious office-holders to prosecute science they disliked because it challenged their religious beliefs.They won a conviction. They won the appeal.How does this translate to secularists using the courts to force anything on anybody? Your example doesn't hold water.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Wrong again, Rand. You can keep saying that until you are blue in the face, but it was religious folk who were using the law and the court in this case. A defendant isn't "using the law"--he has no choice but to plead guilty or mount a defense.Haeckel is not the question; Haeckel is only your chronic non-answer.The question is this topic is clear: you have waved it aside so many times now that you must know it intimately.So try again: tell me how scientists used the courts to force evolution into textbooks.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I dunno what he meant, Paul, but Martin Luther was no social reformer, that's for sure. I've read some scholars suggest that he helped create a general climate of reform, but he told the serfs who hoped for a better deal to shut up and obey their lords.Whatever church reforms he favored, he wanted to maintain the social status quo the Church rested upon.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

There is a great deal of reasonable commentary in the article you linked to, Buz.For example: Unfortunately, the author did not cite the study making the claims about U.S. textbooks' handling of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Billy Graham.So we are left wondering how many textbooks neglected to mention MLK altogether, and how much coverage (if any) those textbooks devoted to "the Freedom Movement of the 1960s." We cannot even determine when and where the study was done, how many textbooks were examined, etc.We might reasonably ask if the textbooks describe the history of the evangelical movement without naming any individual; is that an egregious omission? If they did mention Billy Graham, did they mention his infamous role as an anti-Semitic Greek chorus to Nixon?Based on the antipathy toward MLK that persists among whites, esp. in southern states, I am especially curious about how many textbooks mentioned either man only in passing with few details, or mentioned neither, and how both correlated with region and local political climates. Did they, for example, cover MLK's opposition to the Vietnam War and other U.S. military adventures, or his increasingly sharp questioning of class structure in the U.S.?Textbooks shy away from controversial figures because they are published by for-profit corporations. Both MLK and Graham were polarizing figures who were both tremendously popular among some, and passionately hated by others. Both men have checkered records, one as an evangelical who echoed some of the worst prejudices of his time, the other as a philandering minister.If you know where the original study can be found, I would be most interested in reading it.DISCLAIMER: B.U. alumnusThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-08-2006 01:43 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-08-2006 01:44 PM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------