Texas School Board Delays Decision on Christian Heritage Education

imagesbannerscp_120x60Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

The Texas State Board of Education has delayed its first vote on a new social studies curriculum to March.

The vote was scheduled for Friday but the board said it needed additional time to evaluate and revise curriculum standards for Texas public schools.

Description of the Washington Monument capstone which says on the east side "Laus Deo" or "Praise be to God"

Amendments to the standards that determine what children will study in social studies class were debated Wednesday. More than 100 people signed up to testify before the board, either defending or opposing some of the proposed revisions that would be in place for the next ten years.

Steven K. Green, professor of Law at Willamette University flew in from Salem, Ore., to oppose efforts to “simplify, sanitize and sanctify” the content of history, government and social studies curriculums in schools.

He argued that the proposals to emphasize the religious influences on the nation’s founding principles are “inaccurate and unwarranted.”

“I fully support exposing children to the religious influences of our nation’s history. Religion has played a very important ideological and institutional role in the nation’s government,” Green acknowledged. “However, there is a crucial pedagogical and legal difference between the academic study of our religious past and exposure of children to misleading religious truth claims particularly if they’re for the purpose of instilling religious devotion.”

While amendments to the social studies curriculum standards cover a host of topics including Hispanic figures to Christianity, much of the debate has centered on the latter.

Some of the proposed revisions that have riled up church-state separation activists include ones that would require students to “identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English Common Law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and Republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals.”

Green, who was invited by the Texas Freedom Network – an organization of religious and community leaders advocating for church-state separation – to speak at Wednesday’s hearing, stood firmly against some of the proposals emphasizing religion.

“Too much attention can be given to the fact that our founders occasionally used religious discourse in their formal statements,” said Green, who described himself as a product of Texas public schools. “Biblical rhetoric was ubiquitous during the founding era but such rhetoric tells us very little about the founders’ religious devotions and more importantly, about their desire to instill those values into a system of government.”

The historian denounced the practice of prooftexting, where isolated statements are taken out of context and then offered as proof of a figure’s religious devotion.

“This is bad history,” Green asserted.

He further contended, “Claims of a profound religious influence on the founding period and its participants should always be approached with caution if not skepticism. The founders were influenced primarily by enlightenment rationalism, not by a Calvinist understanding of depravities.”

Several of the State Board of Education members expressed doubts about Green’s testimony and did not hide their dissent.

Don McLeroy asked Green, “Would you characterize our nation was founded on secular and not biblical principles?”

Painting in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda of the Discovery of the Mississippi by Hernando DeSoto. Notice the monk praying as a crucifix is set up. CLICK TO ENLARGE

Green replied saying if he had to defer to one or the other, then he would choose secular. The founding principles, he said, were based on enlightenment rationalism. For example, occasional references to the Creator in historic documents” actually reflect enlightenment thought more than they indicate any connection to modern understandings of Christian faith,” he argued.

When Green claimed that enlightenment broke from a reliance on biblical based law, McLeroy looked at the professor with skepticism.

“My understanding is when I look at enlightenment principles, it sprung up in Christendom,” the board member maintained.

Green was grilled by other board members, including Ken Mercer who noted that all 50 state constitutions have references to God, thus demonstrating that Judeo-Christian influence was apparent not just in the 1700s but all throughout U.S. history. Mercer expressed clear dissent with the Salem, Ore., professor.

The delayed initial vote on an updated curriculum moves the final vote and adoption of new social studies standards, originally scheduled for March, to May. The new standards will dictate what some 4.8 million K-12 students learn over the next decade and could also affect textbooks used by schools nationwide.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • brian rutledge
    Bob Appreciate the lengthy response. I think what the Enlightenment thinkers( and little me as well) would question would be the reasoning behind the idea that because Christinaity and the Enlightenment were in the West, in the 1700's and both claimed to use reason, that somehow the two are even remotely related. The men of the Enlightenment read the non-Christian Greeks and many others and were convinced that the concept of mind and thought preceded all such things as beliefs and religions.

    In fact most questioned the Christian, Jewish etc idea you stated that religion( Christianity) taught the use of reason and things like ordered universes, when miracles, seas parting, suns standing still were the antithesis of reason and natural order

    The men of enlightenment observed the world, the history of mankind, read about the ideas of thought and the independant mind and came to the conclusion reason was inherent and basic to all .They did agree that reason would sometimes lead man to religion, but not the other way around
  • Finally getting a little caught up and back around to this...

    As I said before, that's a mighty big coincidence that the Enlightenment came out of the same geographical area where Christian thought had been percolating for nearly 2,000 years and had inundated cultural thinking to the point where many hardly noticed it as distinctively Christian.

    The Bible teaches that exceptions to natural laws have happened in a few isolated cases over the course of human history--and that the vast majority of time the natural laws of the universe are orderly and consistent. Why are the consistent? Because God is orderly and consistent; in a random, spontaneous universe that came about by accident (i.e. without purpose) and whose history is one massive chain of accidents...there is no reason whatsoever to expect such a universe to be ordered, consistent, or logical. Scientific laws would be more likely to change and shift with time and physical location.

    Thus, the intellectual groundwork laid by the Christian worldview was the perfect and (excuse the pun) logical place for the Enlightenment to be birthed. Unfortunately, reason was elevated to the status of godhood or a religion in and of itself. With the human mind being so susceptible to the influences of emotion, desire, and self-interest, the god of reason (as an outgrowth of the god of the human mind) makes for a much more pliable and easy-to-please god than the Judeo-Christian God of absolutes and objective truth.

    True, reason will not always lead man to religion, but one cannot attain a proper grasp of the Christian religion without reason.
  • brian rutledge
    dg
  • Brian Rutledge
    Certainly things like religion, the Enlightenment etc should all be mentioned as motives serving our FF when they established this country.My problem is not with that, but with the terribly distorted views of people, like Don McLeroy who make statements like ' the principles of the Enlightenment sprang up from Christendom'.

    The Enlightenment espoused individual thought, reason, intelligence, contractual basis of rights,empiricism,religious tolerance while questioning religious orthodoxy. I am not sure someone like McLeroy, who holds such misguided and ignorant views of something like what the Enlightenment was, should be in positions of knowledge and deciding what should be in textbooks.I would feel the same of someone who didn't have a clue about what Christianity represents.

    McLeroy parading as knowledge would be like me parading as a Pastor and trying to give a sermon
  • Actually I don't think McLeroy said what you seem to think he said. He didn't say it "sprang up from Christendom," but that it "sprang up in Christendom."

    Christendom is defined as the part of the world where Christianity is prevalent, and that was undoubtedly the West. The West is also where the Enlightenment sprang up.

    Christianity teaches that human beings are created in the image of God, and accordingly we have the capacity for thought, reason and logic. Christianity also teaches that God is a God of order, and that he established the universe according to physical and intellectual principles that are ordered and reliable.

    Thus, in a very significant sense, Enlightenment appreciation for human reason owes itself to the preceding teachings of reason and an ordered universe taught by Christianity. I would say it is no coincidence that the Enlightenment sprang up from the cradle of Christendom.

    And though a great deal of Enlightenment thought ended up putting itself at odds with Christianity, not all did. The questioning of religious orthodoxy, for example, is not in and of itself a bad thing. A questioning that denies conclusions which end up still pointing to the accuracy of religious orthodoxy--simply because the questioner doesn't like the implications of that conclusion--are not a positive thing; indeed, such examples don't even honor Enlightenment principles of reason because rather than loyalty to reason, they illustrate loyalty to emotion and bias. But other questioning of religious orthodoxy has helped identify erroneous ideas that had crept into religious orthodoxy, such as the divine right of kings. The founders rightly recognized that earthly government can become despotic and rule counter to the will of God and counter to the inalienable rights bestowed to all human beings by God. And there are other examples (e.g. Galileo's challenge of the geocentric doctrine which had crept into the church from secular sources) where questioning of religious orthodoxy has been useful in helping to identify and jettison doctrine that is both contrary to reason and to Christian teaching.

    Enlightenment, thought, reason and logic are good, useful things in and of themselves. What really matters is what human beings do with them, and this is usually dictated by how much sway human beings give to emotions and biases. In the American Revolution, human reason helped bring about the most free, prosperous and domestically tranquil nation in human history; in the French Revolution, human reason helped bring about horrific bloodshed, domestic and foreign turmoil, and mediocrity.

    Intelligence and reason are gifts from God, but like all the gifts he gave us (first and foremost being free will), they can be used for great good...or great evil.
blog comments powered by Disqus