Re-writing History

[Guest American Woman]

"You see, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ so Texas has coined the phrase ‘separation of Jefferson and history.’"

– Stephen Colbert

Evidently the majority of the board of education in Texas isn't happy with America's history, so they are basically re-writing it. Part of the revision includes removing Jefferson from a list of writers who inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century; replacing "capitalism" with "free-enterprise system," because capitalism has negative connotations, as in "capitalist pig;" and rejection of the idea of constitutional separation of Church and State. link

Texas conservative Republicans on the board think history has been leaning too much to the left, thus the revision.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state. link

[ToadBrother]

"You see, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ so Texas has coined the phrase ‘separation of Jefferson and history.’"

– Stephen Colbert

Evidently the majority of the board of education in Texas isn't happy with America's history, so they are basically re-writing it. Part of the revision includes removing Jefferson from a list of writers who inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century; replacing "capitalism" with "free-enterprise system," because capitalism has negative connotations, as in "capitalist pig;" and rejection of the idea of constitutional separation of Church and State. link

Texas conservative Republicans on the board think history has been leaning too much to the left, thus the revision.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state. link

I saw this coming a few years ago when debating some uber-Bushite on the First Amendment, and quoting Jefferson's famous Danbury Baptist letter, and got, in return, a mouthful about how Jefferson was nothing more than a slave-screwing debtor. There has always been little to endear Jefferson to the religious and social conservatives, but it seems to me that they would like to remove him from the Founding Fathers column to perhaps the neo-pinko column. How are they going to get past the fact that Jefferson largely wrote the Declaration of Independence, I don't know, but I'm sure they'll think of something.

After that, well, Lincoln, you better watch out.

[Shady]

I kind of like the idea. Maybe it'll add some balance to the way liberals have re-written history books over the last several decades.

and rejection of the idea of constitutional separation of Church and State.

Maybe because there is no constitutional seperation of Church and State. I know that facts are stubborn things.

[Smallc]

Of course there's not....as long as you pretend the constitution is meant to be interpreted in a very narrow literal sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

Freedom or religion necessarily includes freedom from religion.

[Michael Hardner]

They just had a Republican candidate who appeared to openly support secession. Texas.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Are they also calling all of the founding fathers Christian?

[bloodyminded]

I kind of like the idea. Maybe it'll add some balance to the way liberals have re-written history books over the last several decades.

Do you have some good, hard evidence that "liberals have rewritten history books over the last several decades"...and further, that the histories they have "re-written" are factually incorrect?

[Pliny]

"You see, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ so Texas has coined the phrase ‘separation of Jefferson and history.’"

– Stephen Colbert

Evidently the majority of the board of education in Texas isn't happy with America's history, so they are basically re-writing it. Part of the revision includes removing Jefferson from a list of writers who inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century; replacing "capitalism" with "free-enterprise system," because capitalism has negative connotations, as in "capitalist pig;" and rejection of the idea of constitutional separation of Church and State. link

Texas conservative Republicans on the board think history has been leaning too much to the left, thus the revision.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state. link

You take Stephen Colbert seriously, I see. I think he coined the phrase "separation of Jefferson and history".

Nevertheless, does the Constitution say there shall be a "separation of church and state" or does it say that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion?

First Amendment

Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but decry the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.

If someone, perhaps a public employee, mounts a copy of the ten commandments on government property and the Supreme court rules that it should be taken down haven't they then made a law regarding an establishment of religion?

Does the separation of church and state mean the separation of government employees from an establishment of religion? Does it mean that the government is sterile, and if it is how can it then make laws banning religious symbology and tenets?

In this respect I don't think the Democrats understand what making no law regarding an establishment of religion means. They are constantly attempting to enact legislation to ban and separate religion from the state but the first amendment states "no law shall be made regarding an establishment of religion". As a government employee I would think they have a right to practice their religion ,whatever it may be, and hang a copy of their creed or a picture of some symbol in their office. In doing so, no law has been made regarding their action to do so. I would expect that an atheist could hang a picture of Darwin or Dawkins or whatever symbology he should wish representing his personal beliefs. (I somehow doubt he would become an elected official though.)

But when government prevents one from freely practicing his religion by enacting legislation banning him from hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments or whatever it has then made a law regarding an establishment of religion.

Democrats want all kinds of laws to separate church from State although the Constitution seems to state these laws should not be made.

Does this seem a rational point of view?

Can a person put a Christmas display on public property? No law has been made regarding the display so I would argue it is wholly Constitutional to be able to but a law enacted against such a display would be unconstitutional as it is a "law" regarding an establishment of religion.

If you don't like another religion or any religion or the simple display of religious symbology you are intolerant. Democrats, or rather "Liberals", would twist their intolerance to the opposite meaning of being tolerant because everyone must be treated equally by government and that is tolerance there must be no display of bias, preference or prejudice. Government must be a sterile and non-judgmental body. but then we must define Government. Government is not it's employees or it's politicians, it is it's "laws". It is laws that must be blind to preference, bias, prejudice and favour. To demand that of an individual is to make him inhuman.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

More on this subject from Eric Foner:

More interesting is what the new standards tell us about conservatives' overall vision of American history and society and how they hope to instill that vision in the young. The standards run from kindergarten through high school, and certain themes obsessively recur. Judging from the updated social studies curriculum, conservatives want students to come away from a Texas education with a favorable impression of: women who adhere to traditional gender roles, the Confederacy, some parts of the Constitution, capitalism, the military and religion. They do not think students should learn about women who demanded greater equality; other parts of the Constitution; slavery, Reconstruction and the unequal treatment of nonwhites generally; environmentalists; labor unions; federal economic regulation; or foreigners.

Here are a few examples. The board has removed mention of the Declaration of the Seneca Falls Convention, the letters of John and Abigail Adams and suffrage advocate Carrie Chapman Catt. As examples of "good citizenship" for third graders, it deleted Harriet Tubman and included Clara Barton, founder of the Red Cross, and Helen Keller (the board seems to have slipped up here--Keller was a committed socialist). The role of religion--but not the separation of church and state--receives emphasis throughout. For example, religious revivals are now listed as one of the twelve major "events and eras" from colonial days to 1877.

The changes seek to reduce or elide discussion of slavery, mentioned mainly for its "impact" on different regions and the coming of the Civil War. A reference to the Atlantic slave trade is dropped in favor of "Triangular trade." Jefferson Davis's inaugural address as president of the Confederacy will now be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's speeches.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100405/foner

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm against the suppression of religion, any religion by the state. In a free and multicultural society all people should be allowed to celebrate their religion, christians, jews, muslims, hindus. Suppression only causes these problems we see now, making it illegal to show or wear a religious symbol on your clothes. I read that in France a woman cannot even wear a cross on her necklace, apparently. That's absurd. The state has no place to dictate what people are allowed to wear, or whether they can believe in religion.

Now as to revisionism, that's done for political manipulation and has probably been ongoing since the dawn of history. In order to strengthen their position, the new king will change what happened and was decreed by the old king. The problem is it creates a conflict in the minds of people who can remember. And anyone who thinks this sort of thing is "good" is just another part of the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

The problem is it creates a conflict in the monds of people who can remember.

That's hardly the main problem, however. If you kill (or wait until they die) all the people who can remember that doesn't make things any better.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe because there is no constitutional seperation of Church and State. I know that facts are stubborn things.

Over two hundred years of interpretation and legal precedent say you're wrong. The Framers very much wanted to prevent the United States from suffering the same sorts of religious persecution that had happened in England (in particular the abuse of Catholics and Non-comformists, the latter of which were the forefathers of a lot of folks living in the Thirteen Colonies). Your argument is faulty from beginning to end, and is the revisionist one. The United States has no established church, it's government is bound to treat all people equally under the law regardless of religious belief, and cannot use any test to determine whether an individual can hold any public office in the land.

Edited March 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Pliny]

Over two hundred years of interpretation and legal precedent say you're wrong. The Framers very much wanted to prevent the United States from suffering the same sorts of religious persecution that had happened in England (in particular the abuse of Catholics and Non-comformists, the latter of which were the forefathers of a lot of folks living in the Thirteen Colonies). Your argument is faulty from beginning to end, and is the revisionist one. The United States has no established church, it's government is bound to treat all people equally under the law regardless of religious belief, and cannot use any test to determine whether an individual can hold any public office in the land.

You don't usually write things I agree with but here I do.

Shady is not entirely wrong either. There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and State that I have read. There is the first amendment that states no law shall be made regarding an establishment of religion - I think the interpretation of that has been construed to mean there be a separation of church and state. Consequently laws regarding an establishment of religion have unwittingly been made.

[Smallc]

Shady is not entirely wrong either. There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and State that I have read.

Part of the first Amendment was written with that in mind. Freedom or religion covers the separation of church and state. A constitution (even the US one) doesn't have to exactly state something for it to be so.

[Pliny]

Part of the first Amendment was written with that in mind. Freedom or religion covers the separation of church and state. A constitution (even the US one) doesn't have to exactly state something for it to be so.

The best way to keep church and State separate is to enact legislation stating that the State shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.

It is my contention that the Lib-left (where atheists find political solace) is constantly getting the state to violate the First Amendment by demanding the banning of religious displays on public property ironically stating they are necessary "laws" for the preservation of the separation of church and State.

The essence of the State is it's laws. Keeping church and State separate means there shall be no laws made regarding religion and that would and should be then the only law.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Guest TrueMetis]

The best way to keep church and State separate is to enact legislation stating that the State shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion.

It is my contention that the Lib-left (where atheists find political solace) is constantly getting the state to violate the First Amendment by demanding the banning of religious displays on public property ironically stating they are necessary "laws" for the preservation of the separation of church and State.

The essence of the State is it's laws. Keeping church and State separate means there shall be no laws made regarding religion and that would and should be then the only law.

The U.S. Constitution says congress can't make laws supporting one religion over another. Banning all religous displays does not violate that.

Also do not generalize the left and atheists on this one. Want me to cite cases where displays have been banned on public property because athiests have put up a display?

[Pliny]

The U.S. Constitution says congress can't make laws supporting one religion over another. Banning all religous displays does not violate that.

Also do not generalize the left and atheists on this one. Want me to cite cases where displays have been banned on public property because athiests have put up a display?

I don't think even Atheists recognize themselves as a religion. Thus, there can be laws regarding atheism.

Where does it say in the Consitution that congress cannot make laws supporting one religion over another? The first amendment states no laws shall be made regarding an establishment of religion. Thus, it would be obvious it could not make laws supporting one religion over another.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't think even Atheists recognize themselves as a religion. Thus, there can be laws regarding atheism.

Where does it say in the Consitution that congress cannot make laws supporting one religion over another? The first amendment states no laws shall be made regarding an establishment of religion. Thus, it would be obvious it could not make laws supporting one religion over another.

That means it can not support one religion over another not that it can't make laws regarding religion period. This includes not supporting religion over non-religion. Hence places having to ban all religous displays on public properties and not being able to say just atheists can't put up displays as this would support religion over non-religion.

[Guest American Woman]

....Freedom or religion covers the separation of church and state. A constitution (even the US one) doesn't have to exactly state something for it to be so.

This is Jefferson's explanation of the first amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. link

Writing Jefferson out of history and ignoring the idea of separation of church and state is to re-write history, and it boggles the mind that the Texas Board of education is getting away with it. Seems to me there should be some federal guidelines/standards regarding what is taught in public schools.

Edited March 20, 2010 by American Woman

[Pliny]

This is Jefferson's explanation of the first amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. link

Writing Jefferson out of history and ignoring the idea of separation of church and state is to re-write history, and it boggles the mind that the Texas Board of education is getting away with it. Seems to me there should be some federal guidelines/standards regarding what is taught in public schools.

Excellent quote and iterates my exact concept.

The Texas board of education needs to read that and the first amendment. The Liberals have been trying to write religion out of history for the last century. All the board needs to do is ensure the Constitution remains intact and all the lib-left BS is recognized for what it is, invoking the state to make laws to banish religion. According to Jefferson the Feds should not be making these laws.

[Smallc]

OK. Taking religion out of government institutions isn't banishing religion.

[Sir Bandelot]

A person should be allowed to wear a symbol of their religious belief if they wish to do so, or even post an image on the wall of their office at work, even if they work in a government building. The state has no right to ban it.

[bush_cheney2004]

A person should be allowed to wear a symbol of their religious belief if they wish to do so, or even post an image on the wall of their office at work, even if they work in a government building. The state has no right to ban it.

Nope...most companies have policies that prohibit such things, regardless of what the govmint' says.

[Pliny]

Nope...most companies have policies that prohibit such things, regardless of what the govmint' says.

Companies have policies they do not make national legislation.

And besides I think those policies are appeasements bending to lib-left politically correct pressure to avoid lib-left politically correct lawsuits.

[punked]

Companies have policies they do not make national legislation.

Yah right there is a whole lot wrong with that statement.