Teach Your Children Well

One of the recent controversies has been over the the new content standards adopted by the Texas State Board of Education. These kind of things always spark my interest, in part because I used to teach.

In a recent article written by Lauri Lebo and posted at Religious Dispatches [to be found at: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/churchstate/2498/], 10 of the egregious choices made by the school board are noted. These are:

1. Exceptionally Unjust: Conservative board members spent much time stressing that students need to learn about “American exceptionalism,” even as they removed the concepts of “justice” and “responsibility for the common good” from a list of characteristics of good citizenship for Grades 1-3. They also unsuccessfully tried to remove the word “equality.”

2. Disestablishing the Establishment Clause: A proposal suggesting that high school students be able to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others,” was rejected by religious conservatives.

3. The Enlightenment Ends Here: Board members voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. Instead, they replaced him with theologians Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. Then, because neither were Enlightenment thinkers, board members also removed the word “Enlightenment.”

4. A Free Substitute for Capitalism: Board conservatives banned the word “capitalism” from the standards, arguing that “liberal professors in academia” use the word in a negative way. The phrase “free enterprise” is to be used in its place.

5. McCarthy, Great American Hero: Led by McLeroy, board members voted to require students to learn about “communist infiltration” in the 1950s in an attempt to absolve Joseph McCarthy for his Cold War Communist witch hunts. McLeroy asserted inaccurately that McCarthy has been “vindicated by history.”

6. Expunge the (Brown) Socialist: The board took Dolores Huerta, co-founder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of “historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship,“ because she was a socialist. Inexplicably, socialist Helen Keller remained on the same list.

7. A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ But a Conservative: Students are required to learn about “conservative heroes and icons” like Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority. No similar standard is required for “liberal heroes and icons.”

8. History, Rewritten by the Losers: When studying the writings of President Abraham Lincoln, eighth-grade students in U.S. history class are also required learn about Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address as president of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

9. Declaring Culture War on Liberal Programs: Students are required to learn about “any unintended consequences” of the Great Society, affirmative action and Title IX.

10. As Goes Hollywood So Goes the Texas School Board: The board removed freedom fighter and Salvadoran archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated during Mass, from a standard about leaders who resisted political oppression. The reason? Because they hadn’t heard of him and, as one board member said, “he didn’t have his own movie” like Nelson Mandela and Mohandas Gandhi.

The primary justification made by some members of the Board for these decisions, and others, was that these were necessary correctives to counter the liberal agenda of professional educators.

I believe that any decision made about what is "truth" in history is affected by one's perspective. I also believe, though, that the people best able to make such choices are those who have spent their professional career studying such things. What would we do, for instance, if a group of people who believe the earth is flat were elected to a state Board of Education? Would we be willing to allow them to rewrite science standards to mandate that students be taught this view? I would not. What about you?

National Day of Prayer . . . Or Not?

Full disclosure time. When I served as the pastor of a church in Virginia, I lived in a county where there was a military facility. During my 5 year tenure, I was asked to speak at the National Day of Prayer event on base one year. I accepted the invitation then without question.

I think prayer is an integral part of the Christian's spiritual life. I think praying for my country and its elected leadership - at all levels of government - is a good thing. I also think one should pray for all people and for all governments. I think it would be good to pray for all humans to experience peace and justice. All of this can be done, though, without a formally mandated "Day of Prayer."

The way that the National Day of Prayer is done raises some questions for me now.

First, what is the background agenda of the group that is the prime mover for this event. For those who are not aware, the group known as "The Family" is the one who began and continues to sponsor this day. "The Family" is the group that has the now infamous house in DC where several elected officials live and receive guidance, including some who have admitted to adulterous affairs. This is the group who backs certain international governmental officials, regardless of what unethical things they do. Jeff Sharlet has written the definitive book on this organization. Do these many other dabblings color their intent to sponsor this day? Probably.

Second, I wonder why this event is a Christian only event. If we want to invoke divine blessings on our people, should we - can we - say that only Christians can pray? What statement is this stance making? Can we who live in a pluralistic society have a governmentally sanctioned day of prayer that excludes everyone else? Prabably not.

What is the solution? The easy thing, in my mind, is to cancel the event as currently structured. I know, however, that the political fallout for such a decision would be huge.

What do you think should be done?

Once More Into The Fray

If you read the comments section, you note that only two people actually responded to my wonderings about whether to continue this or not. That is not an overwhelming number on which to make a decision, but I will take up the blog again, at least for a while. Then, I will see what the response is to my musings.