posted
I haven't gotten to far into it (it is my bus reading) but I find myself with a better opinion of Puritans than I started with. Of course, my opinion of Puritans might not have been all that high to start.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Link [QUOTE]–
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”
Ummm... ok. But...
1) I don't remember reading in the constitution where it prevents the US from promoting one religion over another. It only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Not the same thing...
2) The USA IS a Constitutional Republic.
How dare they teach their kids facts!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jefferson is a somewhat fun founding father. On the one hand Christians try to use quotes by him to further the "US as a Christian Nation first and foremost" concept. But then secularists also use him for his first amendment concept as proof positive that that is certainly not the case.
Small government types love his statement "The Government that governs least governs best." Federalists like that we made the Louisiana Purchase.
Jefferson was a big fan of revolution, until he saw that not all revolutions end (*cough* French *cough*)well. I think Jefferson is a striking example of a politician that improved with age.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The longstanding interpretation of the establishment clause is that it does exactly that- prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. In fact it goes further, barring the government from promoting *any* religion.
Let me stop you before you say that that is "only an interpretation." Yes it is, but it is an interpretation born out in legal precedent set by the supreme court for many, many years. Meaning that the constitution, as it is currently understood and used, does in fact prevent the government from doing this. You just have to keep in mind that in this context, talking about what the constitution "does" is not just talking about what it says, but what legal precedents have been established through interpretation. The constitution is bigger than a single document- it is the basis of quite a lot of legal precedent that is an effective part of our judicial and legislative process. Meaning that it does, in fact, do exactly what they don't want to admit it does.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, right now the precedent has pretty solidly ensconced the whole 'separation of church and state' thing, with few hitches — "faith based initiatives" under the accommodation interpretations, but even those are vanishing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the authors of this curriculum push is Don McLeroy. Here is how he explained his method for evaluating textbooks:
"We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes."
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Geraine: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The longstanding interpretation of the establishment clause is that it does exactly that- prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. In fact it goes further, barring the government from promoting *any* religion.
Let me stop you before you say that that is "only an interpretation." Yes it is, but it is an interpretation born out in legal precedent set by the supreme court for many, many years. Meaning that the constitution, as it is currently understood and used, does in fact prevent the government from doing this. You just have to keep in mind that in this context, talking about what the constitution "does" is not just talking about what it says, but what legal precedents have been established through interpretation. The constitution is bigger than a single document- it is the basis of quite a lot of legal precedent that is an effective part of our judicial and legislative process. Meaning that it does, in fact, do exactly what they don't want to admit it does.
Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Here's the thing is: I agree with you on the school going too far. I think these people have some good ideas, however I think they ARE taking it too far. I think there are valid issues with the school system and what is taught in schools, but I think this is going overboard.
I don't think shools should focus on one president. Teach about all of them. I'm fine with teaching about evolution just as I am fine with them teaching creation. It doesn't have to focus on the Christian interpretation of creation. Go over Christian, Native American, Asian, and ancient interpretations of creation.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Come on. That's not really a serious attempt at real dialog, is it?
Way to make me feel sorry for sticking up for you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Geraine. Because we choose judges who rule by "how they feel on a particular day". We don't make them justify their rulings with precedent or write decisions or anything.
quote:Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
No. But the constitution is more than words on a page. Almost none of the statements in the constitution have unambiguous meaning. However, many of the statements in the Constitution do have larger meanings that the courts have been applying and refining since this country was founded.
It would not be possible to teach students more than one or two lessons about the requirements of the Constitution if only totally unambiguous literal meanings were allowed. There'd be one lesson where everyone read the Constitution out loud, and another where the teacher gave the unambiguous bits. Lets see . . . the requirements for various offices are pretty unambiguous!
You're rejecting the Constitution having any power if you reject the possibility of any meaning other than the literal. That's not even supporting a strict reading: that's supporting no reading.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm fine with teaching about evolution just as I am fine with them teaching creation. It doesn't have to focus on the Christian interpretation of creation. Go over Christian, Native American, Asian, and ancient interpretations of creation.
Come now. You think that everyone hasn't heard of Texas' Bible classes?
"We know for a fact that most courses promote Christian beliefs over those of other religions. Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices," Chancey said in a statement critical of the board's guidelines."
You can't expect a reasonable person to read this, and think that the same teachers who can't respect the Christian beliefs of other sects will magically be fair and objective with it comes to non-Western beliefs.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Uh... no. No, you are entirely incorrect. You really couldn't be further from an accurate representation either of what I said, or of the facts of the matter.
I'm confused- are you angry because you don't like that this is true, or because you don't believe that what I'm saying *is* true? Or are you just confused? I'm being serious here- your reaction was so wildly off-base, and you missed so completely the point of what was said, that I can't help but think you're being facetious either for fun, or because you really have no understanding of what I'm talking about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day.
You're probably going to have to understand how law works as an organic body, constantly morphed by precedent. This interpretation is further off than a conceptualization of constitutional interpretation as having started out settled.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Geraine, www.wikipedia.org search for US Constitution and read it, I've done this several times when arguing with people who think the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just going to echo Mr. Squicky's reply, and write off Geraine as someone to take seriously for now in this discussion at least. That was a total hack job, man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At this juncture, I would like to insert a plug for Sary Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates".
Great book. Not good for your opinion of Puritans (nasty folks, them), but a fun read.
I disagree. It's a great book, but it didn't portray the Puritans as nasty folk. At least, no more nasty than any other folk. I thought Vowell did a good job of showing more than one side of the Puritans.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just found them a particularly intolerant people, no better than those they left behind. Rather than pursuing religious freedom of the sort we generally associate with that phrase, they just started their own religiously oppressive society.
They aren't without any redeeming value, of course, but they were far from the ideal that I'd held before. Of course it's not their fault that I began with the wrong impression.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The issue has now been covered by the Daily Show the arguments of the Board are "This guy isn't famous enough" and "someone needs to stand up to experts."
IP: Logged |
posted
MattP: I see the pilgrims as more so strident in their desire for a pure society that England and Holland just wouldn't do, too much alternate opinion. They went to America precisely because they wanted the freedom to be as hardcore as they wanted.
That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
Although it tickles me to no end that William Bradford was a mere 4'11, I'm glad that gene does not survive in me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
If by "love between and husband and wife" you mean unquestioning obedience of a woman to her husband. Not something I find particularly worthy of admiration, but to each his own.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Puritan attachment to hard work was also pretty weird outside of being a good drive towards early economic relevance. Ties a lot of your self-worth intrinsically to how productive you are, economically.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
If by "love between and husband and wife" you mean unquestioning obedience of a woman to her husband. Not something I find particularly worthy of admiration, but to each his own.
That's not exactly how Puritanism believed a husband and wife were supposed to act. It's actually a good deal more nuanced than "Husband = King, wife = King's slave."
Samp: No, that is not it at all. While supporting a family was certainly important, it was more a function of anything worth doing is worth doing well. That was a huge part of how Puritans worshiped their God. They believed that by accomplishing good works, you were allowing God to work through you as he is the creator, and he creates marvelous works.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that is not it at all. While supporting a family was certainly important, it was more a function of anything worth doing is worth doing well.
Ahem. Puritan socioeconomic mores are pretty much the poster child of cultural concepts that tie self-worth to economic productivity and financial independence.
Residual american neo-puritanism remains the reason why we as an populace are so much more averse to social safety nets than the other high-income nations in the world.
quote:That's not exactly how Puritanism believed a husband and wife were supposed to act.
The american puritans in the seventeenth century very clearly subordinated women to men and demanded obedience and modesty on the part of women. This was heavily culturally enforced.
The justification was woman's descent from eve; an inherent irrationality that made her more vulnerable to error and corruption than man.
Puritan husbands also regularly beat their wives.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
