Texas Board of Education removed Thomas Jefferson??

[amy31416]

What in sam hill is going on in Texas??


Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.


9:40 – We’re just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board’s far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America’s exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America’s Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/


Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Uhh, interesting, that seems like a good thing for the most part.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPQ3ktQNqImWyQ23yXKoCFXWrN1QD9EDD4EO0


In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word "capitalism" throughout their texts with the "free-enterprise system."

Very cool!


The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”:

– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

– 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.”

As the nation’s second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous leverage over publishers, who often “craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers.” Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported, “when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

Well, considering the source, I'm sure they only highlighted the bad stuff. Though I don't understand the complaint that the Texas school board emphasizes that we are a constitutional republic, when we are.

All in all, quite a mixed bag.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Mixed bag. I have no idea why they would replace Jefferson with Calvin, if it's true. John Calvin isn't even part of United States history, at least directly.

I love that they added content about the gold standard, declining dollar, and free market thinkers though.

[amy31416]

Mixed bag. I have no idea why they would replace Jefferson with Calvin, if it's true. John Calvin isn't even part of United States history, at least directly.

I love that they added content about the gold standard, declining dollar, and free market thinkers though.

Yeah, I love that part as well. I'm sure it's an improvement over the "liberal" textbooks they had, but I'm just incredibly puzzled over the Thomas Jefferson removal.

[nate895]

Mixed bag. I have no idea why they would replace Jefferson with Calvin, if it's true. John Calvin isn't even part of United States history, at least directly.

I love that they added content about the gold standard, declining dollar, and free market thinkers though.

John Calvin (my avatar) had more influence on the ideas behind the American Revolution and the entirety of colonial history than Thomas Jefferson did in the final analysis. Elements of Calvin's theology was intimately involved in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth (they were different colonies for quite some time), the First Great Awakening, which led directly to the American Revolution, and with the English Civil War, which is important in the development of Republican ideals. George Washington was even sworn in on a Geneva Bible, whose earliest edition was edited by John Calvin, despite the King James (made specifically to replace the Geneva Bible because of anti-monarchist comments in the study notes) being the more popular overall English version at the time.

On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson, being a Deist, had more to do with the style behind the American Revolution than much of its substance. Although, he did hold a great amount of sway of the Virginians, which was the state most touched by enlightenment ideals at the time. Think about this: Jefferson was a deist, and while he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and a true deist can never say such a thing. The "god" of deism wouldn't really care about human rights since he has no concern with his creation. This is just one piece of evidence that Jefferson really didn't have so much influence on the ideas of the American Revolution, when he can't even reflect his own ideas in his most renown document.

[Imperial]

John Calvin (my avatar) had more influence on the ideas behind the American Revolution and the entirety of colonial history than Thomas Jefferson did in the final analysis. Elements of Calvin's theology was intimately involved in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth (they were different colonies for quite some time), the First Great Awakening, which led directly to the American Revolution, and with the English Civil War, which is important in the development of Republican ideals. George Washington was even sworn in on a Geneva Bible, whose earliest edition was edited by John Calvin, despite the King James (made specifically to replace the Geneva Bible because of anti-monarchist comments in the study notes) being the more popular overall English version at the time.

On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson, being a Deist, had more to do with the style behind the American Revolution than much of its substance. Although, he did hold a great amount of sway of the Virginians, which was the state most touched by enlightenment ideals at the time. Think about this: Jefferson was a deist, and while he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and a true deist can never say such a thing. The "god" of deism wouldn't really care about human rights since he has no concern with his creation. This is just one piece of evidence that Jefferson really didn't have so much influence on the ideas of the American Revolution, when he can't even reflect his own ideas in his most renown document.


Why would a deist god not care? One could argue he cares that much more if he chooses not to intervene so that his creation can learn for itself what is right.

First Great Awakening I think would be more of a factor in the American Revolution than a cause. The primary causes of the Revolution was Britain enforcing its laws restricting trade and not letting settlers occupy Native American lands west of the Appalachians I would argue.

John Calvin is appropriate to be talked about when you talk about the Great Awakening and Plymouth, sure. But when you talk about the run-up to the Revolution, Jefferson being author of the Declaration of Independence and putting it together is somewhat significant too.

I think instead of "constitutional" it would be better to put "democratic". So you have democratic republic. Most accurate would be federal constitutional democratic republic, but that is pointlessly specific.

I think alot of the changes are negative. I think the whole group of people in the SBOE are completely screwed up. 2/3rds of them are concerned with mandating their philosophy and faith into the educational system and the other 1/3 is affirmative actioning the curriculum simply for the sake of more representation of other races rather than how influential they were.

That is not what education is about! Education isn't about hearing one side- it is about hearing all of the information you can and drawing your own conclusions and portraying all arguments of what happened as realistically as possible.

[nate895]

Why would a deist god not care? One could argue he cares that much more if he chooses not to intervene so that his creation can learn for itself what is right.

A deist god, by definition, has nothing to do with his creation at all. He created us and we came about through the laws made by him (at the time either pre-Darwinian evolution or spontaneous generation) at the creation of the universe. The god of deism doesn't even care that we exist, we are simply a byproduct of the universe he setup. A deist is basically an atheist/agnostic who has accepted the soundness of the cosmological argument but not decided to go any farther than that.


First Great Awakening I think would be more of a factor in the American Revolution than a cause. The primary causes of the Revolution was Britain enforcing its laws restricting trade and not letting settlers occupy Native American lands west of the Appalachians I would argue.

Yes, those were the direct causes, but the argumentation of the colonists was based on the right of Englishman to make their own laws and levy their own taxes in their own representative assemblies, and there was also many religious arguments that the king himself didn't have authority since only Christ is the King (specifically Calvinistic/Puritanical in nature). The first argument won up until the time of independence gaining popularity, when it was combined with the second argument to advocate for the overthrow of the king.


John Calvin is appropriate to be talked about when you talk about the Great Awakening and Plymouth, sure. But when you talk about the run-up to the Revolution, Jefferson being author of the Declaration of Independence and putting it together is somewhat significant too.

Of course that is incredibly significant, and it ought to be discussed in any history class, but I was simply correcting the idea that John Calvin has little to do with American history when Leopold Von Ranke said "Calvin was virtually the founder of America."

[tonesforjonesbones]

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blo...ies-debate-iv/
This is the most slanted one sided site i've ever read...their goal is to try to beat down CHRISTIANS on the right...tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

http://libertarianchristians.com/

[specsaregood]

but I'm just incredibly puzzled over the Thomas Jefferson removal.

They don't want to teach kids about a guy that said such things as:



1. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

2. Never spend your money before you have it.

3. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

4. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

5. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

6. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


What governmental body would want kids to learn and even lookup to an obvious anti-government,anti-bank terrorist such as him.

[low preference guy]

specs, I think it has more to do with this Jefferson quote:


The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

[specsaregood]

specs, I think it has more to do with this Jefferson quote:

I think that quote is more like just used as an excuse to convince the masses that not teaching about him is a good thing, while the quotes I provided are more relevent to the real reason.

[nate895]

I think that quote is more like just used as an excuse to convince the masses that not teaching about him is a good thing, while the quotes I provided are more relevent to the real reason.

Your reasons don't make any sense considering the new curriculum also includes Hayek, the gold standard, and other very friendly economic developments.

[0zzy]

A deist god, by definition, has nothing to do with his creation at all. He created us and we came about through the laws made by him (at the time either pre-Darwinian evolution or spontaneous generation) at the creation of the universe. The god of deism doesn't even care that we exist, we are simply a byproduct of the universe he setup. A deist is basically an atheist/agnostic who has accepted the soundness of the cosmological argument but not decided to go any farther than that.

I sense </3 for Deists. And I don't think all deists think the way you just defined.

[low preference guy]

I sense </3 for Deists. And I don't think all deists think the way you just defined.

Yes, he went too far in his definition. A deist believes just that the creator doesn't intervene in the world we humans live in. They don't necessarily believe the creator does not care about humans.

[amy31416]

http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blo...ies-debate-iv/
This is the most slanted one sided site i've ever read...their goal is to try to beat down CHRISTIANS on the right...tones

In this case, I'll agree partially with you, only partially because I think that they're more interested in pushing their own agenda than beating down Christians. I think that "beating down Christians" is more of a byproduct than a specific aim.

But, take heart, they weren't successful this round.

If they hadn't removed TJ, I would consider the changes they made to be a good thing. There's no reason they can't teach about both Calvin and Jefferson's influence/part in the revolution.

What I'd like to see is how they treat Lincoln. :p

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...for some reason the republicans don't remember what a polecat Lincoln was and the huge amount of damage he did to this country. I keep reminding them. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

Well...for some reason the republicans don't remember what a polecat Lincoln was and the huge amount of damage he did to this country. I keep reminding them. tones

I'm glad you're educating people about that! :):cool: It's hard work sometimes.:(

[Brian Defferding]

On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson, being a Deist, had more to do with the style behind the American Revolution than much of its substance. Although, he did hold a great amount of sway of the Virginians, which was the state most touched by enlightenment ideals at the time. Think about this: Jefferson was a deist, and while he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and a true deist can never say such a thing. The "god" of deism wouldn't really care about human rights since he has no concern with his creation. This is just one piece of evidence that Jefferson really didn't have so much influence on the ideas of the American Revolution, when he can't even reflect his own ideas in his most renown document.

I respectfully disagree. Deism, as far as I know, is just simply the belief that there is a god, but not necessarily the Christian or Jewish god. That does not mean that belief automatically equals the belief that said god would not have concern with its creation.

[TastyWheat]

They're also replacing the term imperialism with expansionism (when referring to the United States). I'm sure they're also leaving out any references to the Iranian coup of 1953 and the fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the "political scandals" section.

[heavenlyboy34]

John Calvin (my avatar) had more influence on the ideas behind the American Revolution and the entirety of colonial history than Thomas Jefferson did in the final analysis. Elements of Calvin's theology was intimately involved in the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Plymouth (they were different colonies for quite some time), the First Great Awakening, which led directly to the American Revolution, and with the English Civil War, which is important in the development of Republican ideals. George Washington was even sworn in on a Geneva Bible, whose earliest edition was edited by John Calvin, despite the King James (made specifically to replace the Geneva Bible because of anti-monarchist comments in the study notes) being the more popular overall English version at the time.

On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson, being a Deist, had more to do with the style behind the American Revolution than much of its substance. Although, he did hold a great amount of sway of the Virginians, which was the state most touched by enlightenment ideals at the time. Think about this: Jefferson was a deist, and while he wrote the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and a true deist can never say such a thing. The "god" of deism wouldn't really care about human rights since he has no concern with his creation. This is just one piece of evidence that Jefferson really didn't have so much influence on the ideas of the American Revolution, when he can't even reflect his own ideas in his most renown document.


Not necessarily so. The Deist God simply created everything and then left. This does not exclude the concept that He created rights in human nature. Just my 2 cents.

[nate895]

Not necessarily so. The Deist God simply created everything and then left. This does not exclude the concept that He created rights in human nature. Just my 2 cents.

In the deistic system, god didn't even create humans as a direct act. They came about either through spontaneous generation or some form of evolution, so god really doesn't even care about whether or not they exist, let alone how they act towards one another.

[nate895]

I respectfully disagree. Deism, as far as I know, is just simply the belief that there is a god, but not necessarily the Christian or Jewish god. That does not mean that belief automatically equals the belief that said god would not have concern with its creation.

You are, and most people, equate deism with undefined theism. There are differences, and the primary one is that god has nothing to do with his creation and doesn't govern over it with the exception of the scientific laws he enforces. What you are thinking of as deism is more of a vague theism where you believe in a god who is active in this universe, but not in the god of any specific revelation, such as the Bible or the Qur'an.