This is an article on the textbook controversy in Texas and the importance of truth regarding America's heritage. by Ryan Burgett
(libertarian)
Friday, June 18, 2010
My name is Ryan Burgett and I am Chairman of the Liberty Bell Center for Constitutional Studies. But while LBCCS strives to stay clear of modern politics, sometimes modern politics move into our domain of history and truth. In this case we are seeing the controversy in Texas surrounding changes to their public school education curriculum. The majority of the board supports language that presents American history more appropriately in the context of its religious heritage, while the opponents claim that it is all revisionist history.
In the articles that have been published relating to this controversy, one name keeps coming up, David Barton. While his credentials are lacking by most modern standards, it must be admitted that he has put in lots of personal study and is well stocked with quotes and excerpts from historical documents to back up his claims. In this particular case, I would consider him right on. In his recommendation to the Texas School Board, he listed five principles that can be found in the Declaration of Independence and are essential to understanding the true history of our nation's founding. The five he listed are:
1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature. 2. There is a Creator. 3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights. 4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual. 5. Below God-given rights and moral laws, government is directed by the consent of the governed.
I agree that those principles are both the foundation of our nation and also the reason our nation has become the greatest nation the world has ever seen. These principles have nothing to do with sexual orientation or abortion or any other modern political hot topics. This is not a political issue, and anyone that is trying to make it such (and these people can be found on both sides of the controversy) are wrong for doing so. This is a historical issue. If you read the history of the Enlightenment, the history of our nation's founding, and the words of our founding fathers, you can see that these principles were not the crazy ideas of religious radicals, but mainstream ideas that were accepted by the majority of Americans.
So let us never take it upon ourselves to revise true history, but let us also not be afraid to present the truth regardless of how controversial it might be.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Ryan Burgett only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Ryan Burgett is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
In essence, this article argues that because many liberty thinkers historically associated liberty with God, therefore Christianity should be taught in public schools. That's very sloppy thinking.
First of all, many of the leading contributors to our understanding of liberty were not Christians, including American contributors. These include people like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ethan Allen, all of whom were Deists, not Christians.
Even John Locke, whom some consider to be the top contributor to ideas on liberty, was likely not a Christian. He was a member of the Church of England, but his religious ideas were decidedly anti-Church on many issues. There are numerous articles on the web about this, including this one.
Also, there are many very strong supporters of liberty who are decidedly agnostic or even atheistic. Where does their understanding of liberty come from? Certainly not from God, or more specifically from Christianity!
So when the author of this column concludes that a connection between God and liberty translates to the idea that Christianity should be taught in the public schools, I can only shake my head at the clear ignorance and heavily pro-Christian bias under which he comes to his false conclusion.
Posted By: Mike Foster
Date: June 18, 2010 04:43:38 PM
Trying to restrict students to "a textbook" is insane. Most textbooks simply aren't needed any more. These kinds of arguments are never about what's best for students, it's all about who gets to milk the cow.
I consider myself a Christian, but I agree with Walt here. The bulleted points are derived from implication. And really, when are people gonna get tired of their children being used and abused and ask cui bono? because all this crap is not gonna benefit the students. Actually, I'm finding that, since students now have access to enormous amounts of information - and many of them are not afraid to use it - the students know and understand more than their "teachers" and the school system is having a hard time keeping the students' knowledge down at a manageable level.
The best way for the school system to help today's students is to get out of their way. Stop trying to "control" what they learn; Stop trying to inculcate your political or religious dogma into them; Just get our of their way and let them do what kids do best - learn new things.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: June 18, 2010 08:52:31 PM
No where in the article does Ryan mention Christ, which pretty much means it is an assumption on your part that he was referring to Christ. I have enough faith in the Founders that I belief they knew the difference between Freedom of Religion and freedom from.
http://candst.tripod.com/chaptest.htm
In the writings of John Adams we are told that it was actually Cushing who made one of the initial motions for prayer in the Continental Congress. That John Jay and John Rutledge were opposed to this motion because of the religious diversity that existed among the members of Congress. That they felt that there could be no one prayer that would satisfy all present. Samuel Adams spoke up saying that he was no bigot and could hear the prayer of any man of piety and virtue and who was also a friend of his country. He then nominated Duche.
The following morning the Rev. Mr. Duche' did in fact deliver the morning prayer and as part of his work he read the 35th psalm, which made it somewhat a political/religious event. Considering the nature of the business at hand and the reason the men had assembled (the making of a revolution), his choice not surprising.
Thus the tradition was born. "On July 9, 1776, Duche' was elected Chaplain of Congress, but he served only a short time."
It would nice if Samuel Adams words would have put an end to this irrational fear of infection by the mere mention of someones God. The Founders were intolerant of a State imposed religion, not of others religious beliefs.
Reason and Responsibility
Act of a Diest? [URL="http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/111/George_Washington_General_Orders_July_16_1775_1.html"]
