Guns, God, and The Atlantic Triangular Trade...US & World History the Texas Way

The Coffee Shop
1

A kinder, gentler, conservative view of US & World history:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/are-conservatives-in-texas-rewriting-history/736/

Texas School Board member Cynthia Dunbar, states it so eloquently when she opens up a school board meeting with an invocation that referred to the U.S. and its history as a “Christian land governed by Christian principles.”

For now Thomas Jefferson is in but his words, “separation between church and state” have one of our founding fathers of The United States on the Texas School Board watch list.

Breaking News…The Texas School Board has just decided to amend the “Atlantic Triangular Trade” language to the “trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryan-monroe/how-texas-school-board-tr_b_586633.html

2

So Muslims were the predominate religon during our forming as a nation and we based our laws on the Koran? Buddhist? Hindu?

And you dont think that the laws that we live under had anything to do with the basic principals of the Judeo-Christian belief system? So I am guessing Europe, where most of the white folk we had back then were from, was not nearly 100% christian and that they may have brought some opinions with them from across the pond?

The “Separation of Church and State” crowd is funny since most of them in their anti religious fervor forget it was about the government no forcing everyone to practice a particular religion.

3

One of the people who commented at the fine tax payer funded PBS site actually has some sense.

This is what happens when we allow people other than educators to choose textbooks. This is Dover all over again.”
After a teaching career of over thirty years, I can tell you that the vast majority of teachers, in both public and private schools, are liberal. Does this mean that they are the ones who should choose textbooks? Absolutely not. History is the unbiased and accurate telling of past events, past thinking and the recounting of the development of ideas and thought, and never, ever the purview of interpretation by those in any current culture -the culture of the 1950s, the 2010s or the 2100s. New information about any fact (events, thoughts, etc) in the past may be discovered and reported as such but history, by definition, cannot be changed.
**
Liberal thinking has dominated social studies for many decades now and has brought new, imperfect and biased interpretations of history. Conservative thinking has often done the same.
To criticize the current decisions of the Texas SBOE as made by fundamental extremists is a sweeping and in demonstrates in itself a sweeping bias against anything but a liberal position.
There are likely to be elements of the curriculum as has been passed by the Texas SBOE which which I, as a conservative, disagree. I haven’t read the curriculum but will comment on one frequently stated criticism about which I have read. That is the rewriting of the slave trade as the ‘triangular trade’, which is a correct statement. But to minimize or eradicate the most important aspect of that ‘trade’ which was the slave trade is a huge and insupportable and, I believe, a mistake.
**
To minimize and dismiss the importance of Christianity as a factual element of the thinki**ng and practice of those who settled in and developed the United States is equally wrong and yet that is has been the practice of those who want to dismiss and minimize (and might want to eradicate) its impact and important also do a huge disservice to history.
As a retired physics and chemistry teacher and a lifelong avid student of the history of as many cultures as I can handle, I am very much looking forward to reading the new curriculum with (despite being a conservative Christian -but not a rabid, extremist unforgivably, ultra, beyond the pale conservative Christian as some liberals would love to paint me) as clear and unbiased approach as I can muster!
**
Bill Channon
**
**

4

The “Separation of Church and State” crowd is funny since most of them in their anti religious fervor forget it was about the government no forcing everyone to practice a particular religion.

I’d say it’s fair to characterize me as being anti-religious (though certainly not anti-religionist). But my desire to maintain separation is as much for the benefit of the religious Americans of all faiths as it is for the non- or anti-religious to be unburdened by state sponsorship or endorsement. Our motives are not all that different; some are just more willing than others to protect the others’ interests, or, more precisely, able to recognize that they’re actually one and the same.

5

The “Separation of Church and State” crowd is funny since most of them in their anti religious fervor forget it was about the government no forcing everyone to practice a particular religion.

I’d say it’s fair to characterize me as being anti-religious (though certainly not anti-religionist). But my desire to maintain separation is as much for the benefit of the religious Americans of all faiths as it is for the non- or anti-religious to be unburdened by state sponsorship or endorsement. Our motives are not all that different; some are just more willing than others to protect the others’ interests, or, more precisely, able to recognize that they’re actually one and the same.

I am not a religious person at all but to deny “Christian land governed by Christian principles” is just denying facts and history. It does not mean we have a national religion or that schools are forcing kids to practice a certain religion.

6

What exactly does the term ‘Christian land’ mean?

And, ‘Christian principles’ aren’t unique to Christianity. That happened to be the predominant religion, but if you want to be precise, calling them ‘principals embraced by the Christian religion’ would be more historically accurate and perfectly appropriate, in my opinion.

7

What exactly does the term ‘Christian land’ mean?

And, ‘Christian principles’ aren’t unique to Christianity. That happened to be the predominant religion, but if you want to be precise, calling them ‘principals embraced by the Christian religion’ would be more historically accurate and perfectly appropriate, in my opinion.

Stop splitting hairs. You know what is meant by it as does every other sane person. All religions have some things in common but there is no denying which one the majority of the early settlers followed and what our system was based on.

No need for PC ‘principals embraced by the Christian religion’ because its completely unnecessary except to the most hardcore PC goon. The way its worded is accurate and fine. And thats coming from someone who had school prayer in elementary school and never once prayed or got upset about it.

8

I presume the wording was chose specifically for accuracy, and not born of pursuit of an agenda. So why not be accurate about it? I’ve never heard the term “Christian land,” and can’t make heads or tails of what that means or why it should be included in a history textbook. No one disputes that Christianity shaped, and continues to shape, our nation. But that’s vastly different from calling the United States of America a Christian Nation. We can be accurate without offending reasonable people, and the unreasonable among us will find opportunity to be offended no matter what wording is chosen.

I don’t think it’s PC to use that language just because it’s nontraditional. I think it’s more accurate than to call them Christian principals, when they’re neither exclusive to, nor borne from, the Christian religion itself. History books should, above all, be historically accurate, regardless of how people choose to view the language. On that point I think we can agree.

9

I still love my state. I still love my state. I still love my state.

10

Yes we can agree on that but why do you continue to so overly concerned that religions share some of the same values. That has no bearing on the facts and history.

The were and are Christian principles and just because they might be shared principles does not change the fact that in this country they came from that particular religion.

Would you suggest that history books also take out references to countries that were founded on Muslim or Buddhist or Shinto or any other religions principals since they have things that are similar? Of course not, or at least I hope you wouldn’t. You can use the specific name and not go PC crazy with it by calling it “Eurocentric Judeo-christian belief system” or some other goobly goop . Somehow I managed to figure it out by about third grade so it cant be that difficult.

If we are agreeing that history is the important thing than why do you think it is necessary to split hairs. Lord, text books would be 2000 pages if we had to go into such great detail in order for one out of every 10 million kids not to get the wrong idea and think that God came down and formed the country with his bare hands or in order not to insult some nut job atheist ( not saying all are nut jobs by any means) parent.

11

“The “Separation of Church and State” crowd is funny”

If they’re “funny” then the America is a Christian country crowd is downright scarey. As I understand it, seperation of church and state was a fundamental principle in the original constitution. The fact that Texas wants to virtually erase Thomas Jefferson from the history cirrculum is a bit bizzare to say the least.

12

“The “Separation of Church and State” crowd is funny”

If they’re “funny” then the America is a Christian country crowd is downright scarey. As I understand it, seperation of church and state was a fundamental principle in the original constitution. The fact that Texas wants to virtually erase Thomas Jefferson from the history cirrculum is a bit bizzare to say the least.

Do you understand what seperation of church and state means. Not as the liberlas would want you to beleive but as people just like Jefferson wanted it to be.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

His ( Jeffersons) purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it.

Saying we were founded on Christian principles does not establish a national religion or force anyone to practice it. It simply states a fact.

13

His ( Jeffersons) purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it.

The roots of secular government go far deeper than just a political token to throw at the Danbury Baptists. It’s insertion in the Constitution traces back to the Founding Fathers’ reading of John Locke, who had the much deeper belief that government had no business meddling in the internal life of an individual. An idea I’d think many modern conservatives could appreciate, given the lack of trust of government.

Ms. Dunbar’s turn of phrase “governed by Christian principles” is problematic. If she means “governed” metaphorically to mean that the most of our leaders are guided by Christian principles, then it’s OK. If she means it literally, then she’s dead wrong.

My personal take on it is she’s saying the Constitution is nice and all, but - wink, wink - we all know that we really answer to a higher authority, and it’s important we teach our children the correct order of things.

She scares me just as much as Muslims who want to convert governments to sharia law. Government action claiming divine origin is usually frightening.

14

Yes we can agree on that but why do you continue to so overly concerned that religions share some of the same values. That has no bearing on the facts and history.

The were and are Christian principles and just because they might be shared principles does not change the fact that in this country they came from that particular religion.

I’m not concerned at all with the fact that most religions share the same set of values, but if we’re talking about language meant to educate, there’s nothing wrong with stating it precisely: our nation was founded by both believers–most of whom were Christian–and non-believers, who recognized the need to keep Church and State separate as a means of protecting both, and the liberty of its citizens. The principals on which the nation was founded were obviously shared by both our Christian and non-Christian founders alike.

I don’t see how that language could cause offense, or be viewed by any fair person as historically inaccurate. Except for the Deists, of course, who most certainly won’t find mention of their religion in any discussion of the Founders in the proposed text.

If we are agreeing that history is the important thing than why do you think it is necessary to split hairs. Lord, text books would be 2000 pages if we had to go into such great detail in order for one out of every 10 million kids not to get the wrong idea and think that God came down and formed the country with his bare hands or in order not to insult some nut job atheist ( not saying all are nut jobs by any means) parent.

I guess I don’t see it as splitting hairs to object to ambiguous and loaded phrases like “Christian land,” whatever that may mean. There’s an agenda at work here, I think it’s fair to say. And I’m sure you’re aware of the national implications of what Texas chooses to print in their textbooks.

15

His ( Jeffersons) purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was intended, as The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it, to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it.

The roots of secular government go far deeper than just a political token to throw at the Danbury Baptists. It’s insertion in the Constitution traces back to the Founding Fathers’ reading of John Locke, who had the much deeper belief that government had no business meddling in the internal life of an individual. An idea I’d think many modern conservatives could appreciate, given the lack of trust of government.

Ms. Dunbar’s turn of phrase “governed by Christian principles” is problematic. If she means “governed” metaphorically to mean that the most of our leaders are guided by Christian principles, then it’s OK. If she means it literally, then she’s dead wrong.

My personal take on it is she’s saying the Constitution is nice and all, but - wink, wink - we all know that we really answer to a higher authority, and it’s important we teach our children the correct order of things.

She scares me just as much as Muslims who want to convert governments to sharia law. Government action claiming divine origin is usually frightening.

Agreed as that would go against everything the founders wanted to stay away from.

16

I’m having a hard time understanding why this is so controversial.

Seems like there is lot’s of “confusedness” about what the Founding Fathers wrote.

17

This might help, from the Indie:

The slave trade was in fact the “Atlantic triangular trade”. Capitalism, with all its negative connotations, should in future be referred to as the “free enterprise system”. And don’t even think about buying into the theory of evolution: children must instead be taught that God created Earth using a euphemistically-titled technique known as “intelligent design”.

It may sound like the backdrop to a comedy sketch, but these are instead the guiding principles by which teachers in America’s second-largest state will be forced to go about the business of education, according to critics of proposed changes to the school curriculum.

After months of increasingly fractious debate, the 15-member school board of Texas is expected today to approve more than 100 pages of new guidelines governing the teaching of social studies. They changes cover everything from Cold War history to the “correct” interpretation of the US Constitution. The proposed rules stipulate, among other things, that Republican superstar Ronald Reagan should be added to a list of “great Americans”. Country music can be described as an important cultural movement, but hip-hop can’t. And speeches by Jefferson Davis, the slave-owning president of the Confederacy, should be taught alongside those of Abraham Lincoln.

Elsewhere, the new curriculum changes references to American “imperialism” to “expansionism”, and forces teachers covering post-war politics to tell students that Senator Joseph McCarthy’s notorious anti-Communist show trials during the 1950s may have been justified.

Most controversial of all is a rewriting of a passage in the syllabus dealing with economics. Previously, it stipulated that eighth-grade students must learn how to, “explain reasons for the development of the plantation system, the slave trade, and the spread of slavery”. In the re-worded version, the words “slave trade” were replaced with: “Atlantic triangular trade”.

18

I think what is mostly lost in this whole discussion is the purpose of the 1st Amendment’s freedom of religion statement.

Remember that our country was founded largely as a reaction to religious persecution by European gov’ts flip-flopping from one view of Christianity to the next view and demanding that–with each change–the people accept the new religion. It was NOT the case that the Founding Fathers even considered a gov’t completely devoid of God.

The Founding Fathers understood the federal gov’t to not be involved in the establishment of a religion *in order for *the state gov’ts to have freedom to establish as strong as a religious belief–even within the gov’t structure itself–as they saw fit. It certainly was NOT an effort to rid God’s influence from all gov’ts (i.e., federal and state and local). It’s ironic to me (and I’m sure it would be repuslive to the Founding Fathers) that in this thread we’re discussing the 1st Amendment (i.e., the federal gov’t) restrictions in the context of a state gov’t’s actions … no matter how the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th and 14th Amendments.

As a matter of history, the Founding Fathers together drafted the U.S. Constitution, including the 1st Amendment, then proceeded to go back to their own states and write God all over their own state constitutions. See Massachusets (below).

So, you can rip on Texas as being dumb or misinformed or wrong, but they are certainly well within the Founding Fathers’ understanding of state’s rights in the context of the 1st Amendment.

from … http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
Massachusetts
Preamble:
We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Part 1, Article 2:
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience;
Chapter 5, Section 1, Article 1:
Whereas our wise and pious ancestors, so early as the year one thousand six hundred and thirty-six, laid the foundation of Harvard College, in which university many persons of great eminence have, by the blessing of God, been initiated in those arts and sciences, which qualified them for public employments, both in church and state: and whereas the encouragement of arts and sciences, and all good literature, tends to the honor of God, the advantage of the Christian religion, and the great benefit of this and the other United States of America …
Chapter 6, Article 1:
“So help me, God.”
Chapter 6, Article 10:
… in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five …
Chapter 6, Article 12:
… in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven …
… in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven …
Amendments, Article 6, oath of office:
“So help me God.”
Amendments, Article 11:
As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government;

19

Sir, facts are not welcome here.

20

“It certainly was NOT an effort to rid God’s influence from all gov’ts”

I’m not sure anyone ever said anything about God’s influence. An elected official can have any influence he or she wants. It’s when you make laws that are based purely off you beliefs and nothing else that pisses people off. I want the Democrats our of my check book and the Republicans our of my bedroom.