Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Whats the difference?

Do you mean apart from them being two different words with different meanings? Well, in the current context, the free exercise of religion is protected by the 1st amendment. The free practice of religion isn't. To sidestep your own special 'interpretation' of the words as being the same, the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.

recedite wrote: »

Both of the above. The stall will be set out over the Christmas period in the Florida State Capitol building source[/URL]

Aw now... that's really bold! I don't think a statue actually qualifies as 'a stall', and I'm certain that that haven't actually set one out yet; only that they intend to, as your source points out.
And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying its a breach of the notional "wall of separation between church and state" which I contend is quite an ill defined and porous wall, and therefore a breach is not necessarily illegal.

When you say the notional wall... do you think you mean your notional wall, rather than, say, the notional wall as accepted by the US Government?
Still... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?

recedite wrote: »

The two are not quite the same thing. I agree the former is a foundation for the latter, but the building of this wall of separation is an ongoing project. And there are those, such as the creationists, who want to dismantle the wall as quickly as others are building it.

Which two are not the same thing? No one has claimed that the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State are the same thing; in fact, the curricular requirement was that students must examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state.", which fairly clearly shows they are different things. It was your contention that such an examination is a quite easily spotted input from Creationists, perniciously seeking to undermine the separation of church and state..
So far you've given us nothing to support either part of that allegation... just a lot of broad 'interpretation' of the activities of satanists and such.

recedite wrote: »

I'm happy to admit I misunderstood the verdict at first. From what I can see, it was something of a pyrrhic victory anyway, because it only scraped through with a 5:4 majority, and that was back in the arch conservative times of 1947. And as a result of the close vote, it spurred numerous other cases pushing a secular agenda. If the same case had been heard more recently, the majority vote might have gone the other way.

Ah well, if we're talking about might, the revolution might have failed, the founding fathers might all have become ardent royalists, and America might still be a British colony.
Might is not terribly useful in teaching a history curriculum.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, there is a value to the debate itself. But as with most debates, there is a side that seeks to use the debate to further its own agenda. That agenda is to water down the separation between church and state, and to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt.

So far the only agenda that seems to be getting pushed is one that wants to decry religious influences in history though? All the 'obvious' Creationist input you've pointed out in the curriculum has turned out to be no such thing, so there seems to be only one agenda in play here....
For instance you're now claiming that someone's trying to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt. Was that in the curriculum we looked at? Or are you casting about for new arguments?

recedite wrote: »

IMO its not altogether different to <...> boss.

Fascinating (again), but how is it relevant to the proposed curricular changes?

recedite wrote: »

Peregrinus thinks I am jumping at shadows; well maybe, but maybe not. Here's an example of the agenda I refer to.

You know, I can't see anything in there saying things they don't like shouldn't be included in history lessons. So as agendas go, it seems somewhat less pernicious than others around here....

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

No one has claimed that the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State are the same thing; in fact, the curricular requirement was that students must examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state.", which fairly clearly shows they are different things. It was your contention that such an examination is a quite easily spotted input from Creationists, perniciously seeking to undermine the separation of church and state..

Actually a lot of people do think the first amendment and the separation of Church and State are the same thing. This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.
It doesn't help that the language used in the amendment is somewhat antiquated and obtuse; not everyone understands what "established" means in the specific context
And subsequent Supreme Court cases such as the Everson case (despite it failing) have done much to make "the wall of separation" a more familiar phrase to the general public in the US than the actual wording used in the Constitution.

A similar situation pertains in the UK, the actual level of separation is much higher than is justified by their (unwritten) constitution. They have evolved.

It stands to reason then, that the people who are most keen to remind us of this are the people who deplore the loss of (their own) religious influence in the affairs of state.

The satanists are a bulwark against religious influence, they have done secularists some service in reinforcing the notional wall of separation. The satanists remind the general public what is like to have someone else's religion getting a little too close to "the State" and/or "Government" which are supposed to represent all the people.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Do you mean apart from them being two different words with different meanings? Well, in the current context, the free exercise of religion is protected by the 1st amendment. The free practice of religion isn't. To sidestep your own special 'interpretation' of the words as being the same, the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.

Without getting too bogged down in semantics, the exercise of religion and the practice of religion mean generally the same thing to me, and I suspect to most people.
Religious practices (being the rituals and acts associated with religion) are slightly different, being a subset of the above. And religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws would be a tiny subset within religious practices.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Actually a lot of people do think the first amendment and the separation of Church and State are the same thing. This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.

So... if a lot of people think that they're same thing, then a curriculum which requires students to compare and contrast the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to the phrase, "separation of church and state", would appear to be would seem to be a good way of disabusing them of the notion? Hardly a pernicious attempt to undermine the separation of church and state as you said.

recedite wrote: »

It doesn't help that the language used in the amendment is somewhat antiquated and obtuse; not everyone understands what "established" means in the specific context And subsequent Supreme Court cases such as the Everson case (despite it failing) have done much to make "the wall of separation" a more familiar phrase to the general public in the US than the actual wording used in the Constitution.

That all seems to be making the case that the curricular inclusion is a good idea (even allowing for mistaking 'established' for 'establishment').

recedite wrote: »

A similar situation pertains in the UK, the actual level of separation is much higher than is justified by their (unwritten) constitution. They have evolved.

So... their (unwritten) first amendment is clearly understood by the public to be separate from the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson? I'm not quite sure what sort of achievement that is? Or how relevant it is to an American history curriculum?

recedite wrote: »

It stands to reason then, that the people who are most keen to remind us of this are the people who deplore the loss of (their own) religious influence in the affairs of state.

I think you've wandered astray there a little. People who deplore the loss of their religious influence in the affairs of state (Who are they? What influence? When did they exert it, and when did they lose it?) are perniciously undermining the separation of church and state by encouraging students to understand the intent and content of the First Amendment, and how it applies to the separation of church and state? How exactly does that make sense?

recedite wrote: »

The satanists are a bulwark against religious influence, they have done secularists some service in reinforcing the notional wall of separation. The satanists remind the general public what is like to have someone else's religion getting a little too close to "the State" and/or "Government" which are supposed to represent all the people.

That's a novel observation, but how is it relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?

recedite wrote: »

Without getting too bogged down in semantics, the exercise of religion and the practice of religion mean generally the same thing to me, and I suspect to most people.

Which is fair enough, as long as you remember that whilst you like to be fairly laissez faire with your 'interpretation' of words, it doesn't mean generally the same thing to the US Supreme Court whose job it is to provide the definitive meaning of such things in the context of the US Constitution.
So when discussing the First Amendment (as you were), the free exercise of religion cannot be considered to be generally the same thing as the free practice of religion.
Still, whether you imagine they were exercising or practising their religion by intending to passively disseminate religious material or to erect a statue (or that it is 'more' than either to do so), you haven't shown that this is a breach of the separation of church and state in the US, or that this is an the inevitable recourse to an imaginary creationist state governor handing out christian literature, as a potential result of Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

That all seems to be making the case that the curricular inclusion is a good idea (even allowing for mistaking 'established' for 'establishment').

I am making no mistake there. But as I said, there is some value in the debate itself, provided the debate covers all the ground, including the various SC cases which advanced the case for a wall of separation, and the changes in public attitudes, and even the contribution of the satanists.
That's not what they are calling for. They want to go back to the original wording, and ask the question does this really mean the separation of church and state?

Compare this to the UK, it would be like the Queen demanding that a reminder be included in the school syllabus that she is the boss, above the PM, because she was anointed by God at Westminster Abbey with the divine right to rule, that she is the head of The Church, that the House of Lords with its coterie of Bishops is the Upper house and the House of Commoners is only the lower house etc...
Why not assert these original rights and privileges?
Because in the past, when kings of England have put their heads too far above the parapet, they have lost their heads. The English public is amongst the most republican in the world in their attitudes, despite their fondness for royalty. The Scottish and Irish are similar, but with less of a soft spot for royals.

In the USA those who want to install Moses as a founding father, and generally roll back the separation of (their) Church and the State are trying to work against the tide of human progress.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Still, whether you imagine they were exercising or practising their religion by intending to passively disseminate religious material or to erect a statue (or that it is 'more' than either to do so), you haven't shown that this is a breach of the separation of church and state in the US, or that this is an the inevitable recourse to an imaginary creationist state governor handing out christian literature, as a potential result of Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion.

As you said yourself;

the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.

I think that is fairly straightforward. I am not imagining anything.
On the question of disseminating religious materials in public schools, or erecting religious statues in public spaces and State capitols, yes that is a clear breach of the concept "the separation of church and state".
It is not necessarily a breach of the first amendment, or any US law, so long as all religions are granted equal access, and they do it at their own expense.
I would not be surprised if the actions of the satanists resulted in a new law prohibiting religious statues/displays in public buildings.
If that happens, it will be another brick in the wall of separation between church and state. And if it happens, the words in original first amendment will still remain unchanged.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I am making no mistake there.

I don't doubt you think so.

recedite wrote: »

But as I said, there is some value in the debate itself, provided the debate covers all the ground, including the various SC cases which advanced the case for a wall of separation, and the changes in public attitudes, and even the contribution of the satanists. That's not what they are calling for. They want to go back to the original wording, and ask the question does this really mean the separation of church and state?

I didn't actually read that in the curriculum anywhere, is there any chance you could point it out? The requirement I read was "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state"." It would seem to provide a remarkably unbiased basis for further study into, as you say, various SC cases and public attitudes. That study would probably be assisted by other curricular requirements such as:
(A) analyze the effects of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Hernandez v. Texas, Tinker v. Des Moines, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and White v. Regester;
(B) discuss historical reasons why the constitution has been amended; and
(C) evaluate constitutional change in terms of strict construction versus judicial interpretation.
The student understands efforts to expand the democratic process. The student is expected to:
(A) identify and analyze methods of expanding the right to participate in the democratic process, including lobbying, non-violent protesting, litigation, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
The student understands how people from various groups contribute to our national identity. The student is expected to:
(A) explain actions taken by people to expand economic opportunities and political rights, including those for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, in American society;

recedite wrote: »

Compare this to the UK, it would be like the Queen demanding that a reminder be included in the school syllabus that she is the boss,

I think you're going to have to point out where someone in the American curriculum is demanding a reminder be included that they are the boss. I just can't see it.....

recedite wrote: »

In the USA those who want to install Moses as a founding father, and generally roll back the separation of (their) Church and the State are trying to work against the tide of human progress.

Well, it seems we're back to the start of the thread again! If you have a read through, I think you'll notice we found out that no one was installing Moses as a founding father... it was all just hyperbole.

recedite wrote: »

As you said yourself;I think that is fairly straightforward. I am not imagining anything.

I did say that, though notably it didn't include a finding that exercising was the same as practicing.

recedite wrote: »

On the question of disseminating religious materials in public schools, or erecting religious statues in public spaces and State capitols, yes that is a clear breach of the concept "the separation of church and state".

You said that already (you just siad notion instead of concept); what I asked you was whether it is (to use your new word) your concept, or the US governments concept. Because the US Government aren't giving the impression that it's a clear breach of their concept.

recedite wrote: »

It is not necessarily a breach of the first amendment, or any US law, so long as all religions are granted equal access, and they do it at their own expense.

So, it's probably not something necessarily relevant to a US educational curriculum then?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

It would seem to provide a remarkably unbiased basis for further study into, as you say, various SC cases and public attitudes. That study would probably be assisted by other curricular requirements such as:
(A) analyze the effects of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Hernandez v. Texas, Tinker v. Des Moines, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and White v. Regester;
(B) discuss historical reasons why the constitution has been amended; and
(C) evaluate constitutional change in terms of strict construction versus judicial interpretation.
The student understands efforts to expand the democratic process. The student is expected to:
(A) identify and analyze methods of expanding the right to participate in the democratic process, including lobbying, non-violent protesting, litigation, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
The student understands how people from various groups contribute to our national identity. The student is expected to:
(A) explain actions taken by people to expand economic opportunities and political rights, including those for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, in American society;

All the required reading as quoted refers to the development of civil rights issues other than the separation of church and state. Mostly in relation to equal rights for racial minorities.
But when it comes to the religion issue, the focus is merely on going back to a law passed in 1791 and pointing out that it contains the words "religious freedom" and not "the separation of church and state".

The biblical references (and requirement to teach as such in Texas) proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence

(1)History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by ideas, people, and historical documents. The student is expected to:
(A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights, divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government;
(B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English common law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals;
(C)identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu

Strange there is no mention there that the bible prohibits equal rights for gays, but condones slavery.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

You said that already (you just siad notion instead of concept); what I asked you was whether it is (to use your new word) your concept, or the US governments concept.

Neither I nor the US govt. can own any concept.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

All the required reading as quoted refers to the development of civil rights issues other than the separation of church and state. Mostly in relation to equal rights for racial minorities.

SC jurisprudence is on the curriculum though? So there seems to be no issue with including it on the curriculum, perhaps the fact that it's not being particularly presented to provide the narrative that you want to see has more to do with your desire for a particular narrative than a general presentation of American history? It's really sounding like you're the one that wants to change the curriculum to match your agenda, not anyone else....

recedite wrote: »

But when it comes to the religion issue, the focus is merely on going back to a law passed in 1791 and pointing out that it contains the words "religious freedom" and not "the separation of church and state".

Is it possible that it goes back that Constitutional Amendment because that is the seminal legislation? On which all further legislation is founded? It would seem to be a remarkably good place to start learning about legislation on 'the religion issue'.

recedite wrote: »

The biblical references (and requirement to teach as such in Texas) proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence.

Which biblical references proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence?
And where is the requirement to teach a proclamation that Moses "informed" the founding documents of American independence?
The requirement states "identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu"
Do you really have to rehash the first two pages of the thread, or do you actually have something new?

recedite wrote: »

Strange there is no mention there that the bible prohibits equal rights for gays, but condones slavery.

Why? Do you think either had a significant influence on the American founding documents?

recedite wrote: »

Neither I nor the US govt. can own any concept.

Ah now, I didn't ask who owned the concept, only whether it was your concept or their concept you were speaking of.... which draws out the point that your concept of the separation of church and state is not necessarily the same as everyone else's, particularly when you consider the differences in the concepts of separation of church and state in the various nations you have alluded to.
In fact, in the context of American history, the phrase 'separation of church and state' and the concept it denotes, can only realistically be considered when one has at least examined the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"