The Texas education standards controversy
February 13, 2010
I had meant to write at length on this myself, but this article from the New York Times Magazine covers much of what I wanted to say quite brilliantly. It should be mandatory reading for anyone concerned with the state of education in the U.S.
For those of you unacquainted with the controversy, you’re probably aware of the strong influence Texas has on what gets taught in public schools nationally – well, public and quite a few private as well. Texas was an innovator and early leader in setting statewide educational standards, and as the second largest textbook market in the nation, what Texas decides is important and necessary to be taught is likely to shape the textbooks educational publishers will offer to the rest of the nation.
Over the past few years, the Texas State Board of Education has increasingly come under the control of conservative activists who are bent on politicizing education. As the article points out, one of the core focuses, and what seems to be the major force driving the agenda of this group, is to rewrite American history to highlight what Christian fundamentalists insist on is the Christian origin of the nation. Although the group has made only a little headway in rewriting American religious history precisely, preferring at this point to focus on promoting explicitly conservative interpretations of isolated historical incidents and shifting the history’s personnel around (removing Ted Kennedy from the history curriculum, and adding Phyllis Shafly, e.g..), the re-imagining of America as a Christian nation remain a rhetorical incitement to their project as well as the intended effect of their changes.
As the article points out, the group has some valid points. The strong interpretation of the separation of church and state over the twentieth century has introduced what the current Supreme Court might very well term a “chilling effect” on the instruction of the role of religion in American history. What should be viewed as a central, organic, and integral component of the lives of the European settlers in North America and the consequences of that settlement emerges instead as piecemeal and often incoherent. Are any schoolchildren taught about the First and Second Great Awakening? The first is important to an understanding of the American Revolution; the second to the broad experience of American Protestantism but democracy, capitalism, and secularism as well (one of the beautiful, untold ironies of American history is how the Second Great Awakening generously produced not only evangelical Christianity but also the contemporary forms of liberal secularism, and not as a reaction either).
But alongside the efforts of the conservative contingent of the board to reintroduce the history of American Christianity into the history of America, there are also examples of selective focus, like putting new emphasis on the Mayflower Compact as setting out a specific Christian agenda for the Puritan settlers, neglecting that the initial colonies arose out of a variety of competing and often exclusive agendas, notably the mercantile proto-capitalism of the Virginia Company. And then, of course, there is the absolute ahistorical hogwash, that seems to come from that unique blindness that first obliterates inconvenient facts and then manufactures new ones to fill the resulting vacuum.
This the familiar historical bullshit that proclaims the Founding Fathers to be Christians who designed the new American nation to be from start to second coming a Christian nation. Do I need even need to rehearse this? The Founding Fathers were Christian in the sense that they were white descendants of Northern Europeans who were not Jews – that is how they understood and used the word. Their own religious beliefs and practices were various to a man, and few bear much resemblance to the beliefs and practices we currently use the term Christian to mean. Few of them believed in the divinity of Christ; few of them believed in the exclusive claim of Christian revelation to the truth. Most of them were deeply suspect of revelation and its claims entirely.
(That these men were educated elites whose own experiences and attitudes could be quite different from the masses whose passions helped fuel the Revolution and the ensuing emergence of the first modern republic should be evident. But let’s not forget the importance of Enlightenment secular thought to American intellectual culture throughout class strata. Washington read his soldiers in Valley Forge from The American Crisis by Thomas Paine, the Christopher Hitchens of the eighteenth century, to inspire them for the Christmas Day engagement with the British soldiers in Trenton that was to change the course of the war to the Americans’ favor.)
The Constitution is a wholly secular document, written to help shape the development of a strong federal government that in part would protect and assure that persons could follow the dictates of individual conscience, no matter what that might be (and the framers were aware and quite explicitly state in their correspondence – especially Jefferson – that the Constitution was to favor no religion over any other, including Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam). Those aspects of the First Amendment that specifically treat religion, the disestablishment clause and the freedom clause, developed out of joint efforts by secularists like Madison and Jefferson and religious dissenters like Quakers and Baptists to protect believers, dissenters, non-believers, and religion itself from what they viewed as potential tyranny of allowing the state to claim any authority from or involvement in religious practice.
And any anyone who believes that American jurisprudence has any relationship to the Ten Commandments is a fool who has either no knowledge of the law or of the commandments, or, mostly likely, both.
The debate is important: 1) the historical record is quite clear that America was founded as the world’s first secular nation, and we need to adhere to the truth where we have it, painful and inconvenient as it may be; and 2) our democracy and our freedoms cannot be ever fully extricated from our secularity: the three are mutually interdependent concepts, and are the consequence and the dream of a fully realized modernity.
I have much more to say on efforts to politicize education and on the hard-line conservative war on truth and reality, and I’m sure I’ll have the opportunity. This issue is important in and of itself, and as the article suggests, the controversy has brought about sufficient national scrutiny to mean that the political futures of the thugs attempting to divert education toward their partisan political agendas is less certain than before. Please, don’t lose sight of this.
Sarkozy endorses headscarf ban.
January 26, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7002294.ece
Bad. Bad. Bad. Fuller discussion to come, but all-in-all, this is bad news and poor policy on several fronts. It’s no surprise, given the increasing paranoia in Europe over the presence of Muslims and France’s rightward drift, but it’s still a disappointment that the country that produced the “Rights of Man” is now just another one bent on chipping away at them.
Well this is good news.
January 21, 2010
The Obama administration has just reversed a Bush administration Patriot Act decision preventing Tariq Ramadan from entering the country. Ramadan being perhaps the most prominent intellectual in interfaith dialogues between the West and Islamic traditions, this is excellent news. Ramadan was first denied entry in 2004 when he arrived to take a job at Notre Dame. He was again denied a visa in 2006, an again in 2007 he was denied a visa that would allow him to participate in a academic seminar at which I was attending in California. The seminar attempted to comlink him into a video conferencing center, but it was a dismal technological failure.
Ross Douthat is wrong on the right issues
January 12, 2010
Brit Hume probably didn’t expect to start a small firestorm with his comments on Tiger Woods’s religion. In case you missed it, on Fox News last Sunday Hume had the audacity to suggest that Woods’s Buddhism was insufficient to address the severity of his personal situation: “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, ‘Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’” Understandably, the immediate public reaction was to censure Hume for his perceived intolerance of another’s religion, though I’m quite sure he felt he was expressing cultural common sense and his own deep personal conviction.
Conservatives were quick to come to Hume’s defense – perhaps as unsurprising as the initial reaction against Hume. That initial reaction helped play into one of the right’s least respectable cultural memes and one of the touchstones of its populist victimology, the notion that Christianity is under assault from liberal secularism. It’s a ridiculous and ahistorical notion: after more than two centuries of liberal secularism, Christianity is actually more culturally robust in America than when the Bill of Rights was approved, and self-proclaimed and unabashed Christians control not only the three branches of government but pretty much the entire private sector as well. Sure, atheism is on the rise, but atheism isn’t secularism, and atheism, what seems to be the actual target of the Christianist rhetoric, has, in fact, very little cultural power.
The conservative movement is not exactly monolithic on this issue, of course, as libertarians – whose importance to contemporary conservatism seems to be increasing – trend atheistic, and what little remains of conservative intelligentsia has a strong neocon Jewish contingent. One wonders what that Jewish contingent in particular feels about the mileage their fellow travelers get from rehearsing the myth of true-blue American Christianity as being the bedrock of conservative values. I suppose they remain silent out of respect for the meme’s strategic value, but it’s a dangerous game. One doesn’t have to scratch too deep into the ridiculous rhetoric of the “liberal war on Christmas” coming from Bill O’Reilly and his ilk to find the virulent antisemitism at its heart.
In any case, the conservative punditocracy is quick to bemoan Christian speech’s lack of presence in public discourse, from Jonah Goldberg’s truly dumb critique of Avatar to Ross Douthat’s interesting if wrong-headed defense of Hume. I think that position is worth a longer look. (I also think that the cultural criticisms of Avatar from all points of the political spectrum are a fascinating phenomenon that deserves a longer look, but that may be for someone else to take on.) I don’t want to defend Hume or his comments. I loathe the empty-suit-with-good-hair journalism of which Hume has become the primary representative, and “bigoted” is the most charitable spin I can give his remarks on Woods’s religion: bigotry not born out of hatred and prejudice, perhaps, so much as ignorance, but the same ignorance that tolerance is meant to check and educate. But I do think there needs to be a stronger presence of religious speech in public discourse.
Evangelical Christianity and the exportation of murder.
January 4, 2010
It’s easy enough to dismiss evangelical Christians as paranoid and hysterical – take Harold Camping of Family Radio Worldwide who has made the news for his Bible-based calculations that the world will end May 21, 2011. Or one could easily think of them as a smarmy but harmless expression of all-American hucksterism, ranging from the scandal-plagued donation grubbing of Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, and other television ministries and the bizarre perversity known as “Prosperity Gospel” to the bland positive-thinking ministries, such as Rick Warren’s, whose theology seems to owe more to Dale Carnegie than Christianity. One might be able to shrug off the residue of queasy feeling induced by proto-totalitarian movements that occasionally spring out of the movement, such as the Promise Keepers or Quiverfull, to note that lately evangelicals in many areas of the movement have moved away from social conservatism and begun to work for more appropriately Christian endeavors such as a return to social justice or the growing conviction that stewardship of creation entails an environmentalist, or at least conservationalist, activism.
Great! But how about evangelical Christian desires for mass graves and brutal despotism? The New York Times is reporting that it was in fact leaders of the American evangelical movement who were directly behind the recent Ugandan efforts to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death, potentially setting off a witch-hunt and bloodbath. Read the rest of this entry »
The Catholic Church’s increasing irrelevance, and why not?
October 31, 2009
It used to be that the Catholic Church was actually a force for good in the world. Sure, there were some embarrassing doctrinal issues, and the whole male, unmarried clergy thing was kind of, well, weird, but at the same time the Church was earnest, devout, and genuinely concerned about not only its parishioners but also the spiritual and material well-being of all people. Being raised as a Catholic was for me always a source of pride, which was helpful, because growing up Catholic in the south is fairly much like growing up there as a Jew. It’s not a huge conceptual leap for me to regard American secularism as just another version of American Protestantism as it might be for northerners: I’m used to a cultural milieu which assumes Protestantism to be as universal and transparent as the air we breath, and one that silently but pointedly excludes my kind.
That was then. In the twenty-odd years since I renounced the Church, that whole male, unmarried clergy thing was revealed to be what it has been for hundreds of years – if not longer, simply part of a massive conspiracy for socially inept and sexually confused men to fuck unwilling young boys. The Church never anticipated the social and sexual revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s that finally permitted the victims of abuse to speak out due to the growing understanding that they wouldn’t entirely become social pariahs for admitting publicly what they’d been forced to endure. That finally if somewhat surprisingly slowly undid the whole silence about it, though I dare say the abuse still continues now even if somewhat muted.
