1) The World is 6,000 years old—because the Bible says so. (Yeah, no.)
2) Carbon dating is an unreliable method (Not true.)
3) Moses inspired the Founding Fathers to establish a new government. (What?!)
4) The Founders Fathers were ardent Christians, and thus instilled Christian values into the Constitution. (Nope.)
5) The US was founded as a Christian nation and will forever remain a Christian nation. (Try again.)
6) Slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War—it was caused by “tariffs.” (Please, just stop.)
And no, these statements were not uttered in jest—in case you were wondering. Ok, so what? If individuals believe the aforementioned, farfetched statements, how does that directly impact my personal life? Let me explain: in the last few years, certain states, namely Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, have attempted—or have implemented—theological alterations to public school curriculum in order to insert a particular religious slant into state funded education. This trend, at least to the average observer, should be perceived as objectively adverse to rational thinking.
When delving deeper to understand the justification of curriculum alteration toward more religious based themes, one must look to conservative interpretations of America’s formation. The claim, to those that subscribe to the “America was founded as a Christian nation” philosophy, is, for the most part, a suspect assertion. For one, while the majority of America’s Founding Fathers self-identified as Christian, in various denominations, a few of the most influential Founders were deists. Now, what is a deist? Deism can best be described as:
“Deism combines a rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.”
In sum, according to deists, individuals should not be controlled by dogmatic religious principles; and moreover, scientific observation trumps theological explanations of the Universe–some historians have even gone so far as to say that a few Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists, a belief where rationalism is prioritized. Now, how does this relate to the belief that Christianity was a key determinant behind the construction of the US Constitution? The Founders were not uniformly Christian; therefore, a unified belief system was absent.
However, Constitutional clauses pertaining to the practice of religion, e.g., the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, are open to judicial interpretation, and based on Supreme Court precedents, are, in a sense, in competition with one another. Nonetheless, in Engel v. Vitale, the Court held that religious prayer in public schools, directed by administrators, was an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause, and therefore, not permitted in state run schools. (A year later, in Abington Township School Dist. v. Schempp, the Court ruled that school-sponsored Bible reading was unconstitutional.) From the Engel decision (decided in 1962), until now, the separation of church and state exists in public schools; but some conservative states, based on quirky curriculum alterations, appear to not understand—or consciously reject—the intentions of the established legal precedent (i.e., banning government sponsored worship in public schools).
Last year, the Oklahoma legislative committee voted to ban AP U.S. History as a consequence of the course not adhering to a positive interpretation of American history (i.e., centering on American Exceptionalism, a philosophy with divine historical origins)—this is, without a doubt, a frightening precedent. This is, to some extent, comparable to the Germans refusing to inform students on the atrocities committed by the Third Reich—so, why must American children be shielded to the tragic realities of American history: such as the Wounded Knee Massacre, the Cherokee Removal (the only time in American history where a sitting president, Andrew Jackson, defied a Supreme Court ruling), or the barbaric enslavement of African Americans. Is this due to the fact that these historical stains erode the “pristine perception of American history?” Of course it is. To conservatives, American Exceptionalism should be the dominant subject taught in American history; obedient, jingoistic children are far easier to subdue–to them, the Socratic Method and comparative analysis are disobedient forms of logical reasoning that will morally corrupt American children.
If anything, offering two sides to the story, whereby both positive and negative historical events are open to interpretation, gives students the ability to form reasonable perceptions. Disappointingly, Oklahoma has chosen to prevent ambitious students from taking college credit during high school, and even more worrisome, the state has outwardly rejected critical thinking in favor of an unbalanced, overly-nationalistic view of American history.
But this sheer ignorance does simply stop at Oklahoma’s borders: the State of Texas chose to dumb down its teachings on American history as well. One such alteration intended to deprioritize the role slavery had as being the main catalyst of the Civil War, and thus placed it behind “tariffs” and “political, economic and social factors on slaves and free blacks” (even though it was later stricken) under primary causal factors. However, any person with a solid comprehension of the underlying causes relating to the Civil War will likely identify slavery as the core issue; and yes, economic disparities—such as the South being largely agrarian, while the North, in contrast, was industrialized—between the two regions formed bitter resentment, but this perceived disadvantage did not arise due to “tariffs.” The expansion of slavery with the Kansas-Nebraska Act (a violation of the Missouri Compromise), Lincoln’s desire to preserve the nation (through legal mechanisms), and Northern resentment against the South’s use of expense free labor—three of the primary reasons for the breakout of the Civil War–all relate to the issue of slavery. Without slaves, the South would have its economic way of life, a cost-effective one, destroyed. You see, slavery is intertwined in virtually every causal factor. And please, do not give me the state’s rights excuse—which, in reality, is a euphemism for permitting states to restrict human rights.
History is analogous to the morality of a human being: throughout life, our decisions, both good and bad, shape our moral palette, presumably for the better. If our character is not tested, we, at times, may stray into practicing morally questionable behaviors—and the same goes for a nation state. A nation (i.e. its citizens), like a person, needs to understand its historical triumphs, as well as its historical stigmas; a country shapes policy, and structures its morality, around what it learns from its morally reprehensible mistakes. Without constructive self-criticism, we may, as a nation, repeat historical atrocities—this, however, can be prevented with a balanced presentation of key historical events, whereby our children are exposed to both aspects of American Exceptionalism, and of course: instances of American moral failure.
Can’t change the past but if you choose to forget then you are doomed to repeat sorry loose.
Exactly. Great point. 🙂
Pseudo historian David Barton and others have done their best to fabricate an alternate American history where in the founding fathers wanted a fundamentalist christian theocracy. To call this disingenuous, is giving the idea more respect than it deserves. The founders were part of, and products of ‘The Enlightenment’, which among other things represented a great pushback against the role of religion in government. The founders also knew their European history, and did not want to see a repeat of European religious conflicts played out in North America.
NO ONE has EVER denied that the climate changes.
People with a LEGITIMATE point do not need to lie to make it.
Oh, and in the history of man, America WAS a “singularity”, recognized by the entire planet, until FOOLS decided to rewrite reality, and MAKE America far less superior.
Enjoy the propaganda and false narratives. Those who’ve actually learned history no what the truth is.
Incoherent ranting of a clueless person, unable to actually point out an error. So if you have something to say, try to remember to include substance and intelligence— not withstanding that, we thank you for proving all of our points.
A lot of conservative thinkers don’t actually deny climate change.
Their stance is that the source of climate change has nothing to do with mankind’s actions on the planet, or that that effect is minimal.
All the scientific studies there are can not conclusively prove to what degree mankind is responsible for climate change. Nor can they show the rate of climate change.
To a lot of conservative thinkers, climate change is an inevitability. Our planet has gone through multiple cycles of ice ages and temperate ones, and extra hot ones that lead to new ice ages.
I think the problem on our parts to get these people on board is our inability to prove that we can show, stop, or reverse the effects of climate change through our actions.
While I understand this line of thinking, I disagree with it fundamentally for a number of reasons:
First of all, the only way we could obtain evidence on whether or not we can take the reins of climate change and purposefully guide it is to try. It’s impossible to obtain evidence of global reconditioning without a global effort…
Secondly, if I know doom is looming up ahead, I’ll do everything in my power to try and avoid it. Maybe I can and maybe I can’t, but that’s irrelevant. If I stay the course, I’m agreeing to doom. Whether or not you will win a fight shouldn’t be the determining factor in whether or not you do. Whether or not it is a fight worth fighting should be.
In the case of climate change, we have no idea whether or not we will win. There is no doubt, however, that preserving the planet’s ecosystem and by extension all of humanity as well, is indeed a fight worth fighting.
There’s a REALITY “out there” and thee’s legit EXPERTS who got relevant degrees, spend full time doing research.. they find answers,they get data. NORMALLY….. when such experts AGREE we do not instead turn to the QUACKS.
Here…. we ALSO got the stubborn dudes who NEVER took the classes, never did the research. They listen to propaganda generated by mostly Koch “think” tanks. Strange how those NEVER see fossil Fuel use as any problem.
This whole article is a crock of shite. Who ever wrote this really needs to consider suicide. preferably where nature will dispose of the rotting corpse so the authorities don’t have to waste their time dealing with it.
Your liberal agenda will fail. So long as the spark of liberty and freedom lives in the hearts of the good hard working Americans and immigrants like me.
To hell with your liberal agenda and propaganda.
But were any of the facts in the article wrong. And why when confronted with facts do stupidparty disciples scream Liberal. If you actually were capable of critical thinking you would attempt to undermine the article, find errors rather than simply trying to shoot the messenger.
Yes, AGW is wrong. According to the RSS we have plateaued for 18 years. Sea ice has doubled. And there is a concerted attack on the bill of rights using the guise of “anti-discrimination”. If there were real anti-discrimination motives behind any policy then why are scientists being sued for not agreeing? If this author believes so highly in settled science then why are lawsuits trying to limit the second amendment still happening. Why can th Feds use federal tax dollars as a cudgel to force states in line in direct violation of the 10th amendment?
See Ice has not doubled. The THICKNESS of the ice has shrunk = less overall ice = rising see levels. Have no idea what you are talking about re the 2nd amendment -but what ever you are prattling on about is addressed here: http://stupidpartyland.com/1/post/2015/11/irrelevant-second-amendment-video.html Again you are spouting on about the tenth amendment but I will respond by repeating myself regarding my comments on the 2nd Amendment
Second amendment sloganeering and bumper stickers. This is dead simple a) The 2nd amendment is not unambiguous, plus there remains controversy over the precise grammar that impacts its intentions, b) the Constitution by definition changes every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, and there have been such rulings and most importantly c) if any action taken by the Government is unconstitutional—then that is why we have the Supreme Court in the first place—so what the hell are they worried about. Like all things Stupidparty—it is simplistic sloganeering to rile up an uninformed fearful base.
Sorry pal but SCIENCE is not about your goofy emotions. REALITY has a prce tag. Ignore reality and you pay. It THIS cast the expenses would be HUGE.
Incoherent ranting of a clueless person, unable to actually point out an error. So if you have something to say, try to remember to include substance and intelligence— not withstanding that, we thank
a very good article and nice posts
always nice information and good story thinks for all friends…
The 2nd amendment is not unambiguous, plus there remains controversy over the precise grammar that impacts its intentions
I think the problem on our parts to get these people on board is our inability to prove that we can show, stop, or reverse the effects of climate change through our actions.
It is really and amazing post.
to generate public buy-in for the corporate-driven theory of education … and spread it across the community such that it eventually
very good article thanks for sharing
So have your told the 70% Christian USA that this is not a Christian nation?
Working on it.