"So how can a radical Muslim who pledges fidelity to the Koran and (spiritual, if not physical) death to Christians and Jews lay such an impassioned claim to the U.S. Constitution?"
Many believe the Ground Zero mosque symbolizes militant Islam and threatens to undo America’s Judeo-Christian tradition.
On Oct. 22, 2001, six weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Associated Press religion writer Rachel Zoll reported that Muslim organizations aim to redefine America’s heritage.
Zoll writes that a post-9/11 study commissioned by the American Jewish Committee shows Muslim organizations in America inflate their numbers, by more than double, to exceed six million.
Six million Jews live here, and by claiming more, Muslims “would buttress calls for a redefinition of America's heritage as 'Judeo-Christian-Muslim,'” ACJ Director David Harris tells Zoll, “a stated goal of some Muslim leaders.”
President Obama’s Aug. 13 mosque endorsement barely got air until Nihad Awad, director of the Washington lobby, Council on American-Islamic Relations (criminally implicated for Hamas support), called other national leaders “to speak out in defense of the freedom of religion…enshrined in our Constitution” (USAToday, Aug. 14).
Our unique Judeo-Christian Constitution establishes America as the world’s grand experiment in religious freedom. Muslim countries do not embrace this concept. So how can a radical Muslim who pledges fidelity to the Koran and (spiritual, if not physical) death to Christians and Jews lay such an impassioned claim to the U.S. Constitution?
Hypocrisy? Mockery? Deception? Would a scoundrel like Awad set out to transform America, in a covert 21st century Conquest? (Google “taqiyya.”)
If not, then he might consider a well-reasoned, common sense precedent in this matter.
In 1984, Carmelite nuns set up a convent in a former administration building at Auschwitz. In 1993, they moved, because Jewish sensibilities -- nearly half a century after the holocaust -- were offended.
The sisters had a legal right to stay, and they had a rightful mission: Praying for the souls who died there, among whom were Polish Franciscan priest St. Maximilian Kolbe (starved Aug. 14, 1941) and Polish Jewish convert and Carmelite nun St. Edith Stein (gassed Aug. 9, 1942).
One of the controversial Carmelites was an Auschwitz survivor. Among more than a million who perished at Auschwitz, 149 were Catholic religious (Auschwitz.org, May 24, 2004) and 600 were Catholic Jews (TheTablet.co.uk, Feb. 13, 1999).
Dr. Ady Steg, a French Jewish leader at the time, blasted Catholic officials: "[T]he Carmelites come to Auschwitz to exalt the triumph of the Church” (Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1987).
Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants to France, whose mother died at Auschwitz, and Polish Pope John Paul II, who narrowly escaped Nazi capture, empathized.
The nuns relocated to a convent built for them across the street. It houses an information center about the Jewish holocaust.
The nuns, though, did not set out to destroy the country from within. The Muslim Brotherhood, with whom Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf allegedly has ties, does.
In his Sept. 9, 2007 Dallas Morning News commentary, Rod Dreher quotes from an 18-page Muslim Brotherhood document, seized by the FBI:
“The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is…eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ their miserable house…so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions.”
Earlier credit goes to San Ramon Valley (Calif.) Herald reporter Lisa Gardiner for quoting CAIR founder Omar Ahmad on July 4, 1998: “The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
If Cordoba House is legitimate, then true moderate Muslims might say, “Move it.” But if those involved, like Awad and Abdul Rauf, intend this mosque to be the axis for America’s undoing, and for world domination by Islam, then we all should say, “No way.”
Monday, August 30, 2010
Would this mosque be America's undoing?
Published in Cumberland Times-News Sunday, August 29, 2010.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Liberation theology politicizes Christianity
Published in Cumberland Times-News Tuesday, July 27, 2010.
Jesus teaches us that our personal relationship with him is the heart of our service to others (Lk. 10:38-42).
Today in America, perhaps emboldened by a President who champions their beliefs, liberation theologians -- and not just black adherents -- are ramping up efforts to remake Christianity into a politicized Christology.
Considering the movement’s genesis, it is unsurprising that President Obama has found friends at University of Notre Dame, where liberation theology founder Gustavo Gutierrez holds a prestigious professorship in the Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
Rev. Gutierrez’ bio at the Institute web site lists Latin America as his focus and “[t]he historical background and continuing theological relevance of the preferential option for the poor” as his current research topic. Gutierrez, a Peru native, is a Dominican priest.
Most associated with the Jesuits and 1960s insurgency in El Salvador, liberation theology hit a high pitch with assassination of San Salvador Archbishop Oscar Romero, killed March 24, 1980 because he publicly called Christian Salvadoran soldiers to obey God’s order and honor human dignity, and not follow government orders to oppress, abuse and kill countrymen.
A 12-year civil war ensued. Among 75,000 killed were six Jesuit priests, murdered in their home Nov. 16, 1989.
Fr. Jon Sobrino was not in the rectory that day. He continues to work and teach in El Salvador.
Two of Sobrino’s books published in 1999 are the subject of a Vatican notification to the faithful of March 14, 2007. Fr. Sobrino’s work with the poor is “admirable,” the Vatican writes, but he strays from church doctrine in his theological “presuppositions” that humanize Jesus Christ and neglect his divinity and “the salvific value of his Death.”
Fr. Sobrino’s material, rather than spiritual, view of Jesus and his teachings constructs the premise of liberation theology: That Jesus manifests social liberation from economic and political injustices imposed on the downtrodden by their oppressors -- not personal redemption from sins of immorality.
Along with Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff of Brazil (a former Franciscan priest twice admonished by Rome), and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay (a Jesuit priest, deceased in 1996), Sobrino was instrumental in formulating this humanistic view of social justice into a modern liturgy.
These liberation theology creators supposedly gained inspiration from the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium: “the Church encompasses with love all who are afflicted with human suffering and in the poor…sees the image of (Jesus). It does all it can to relieve their need and in them it strives to serve Christ” (Chapter 1, paragraph 8).
Consider Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Like Fr. Gutierrez and the others, she lived among the world’s poorest outcasts and devoted her life to improving their condition. Unlike the priests, however, she embraced Jesus’ spiritual poverty, his acceptance of suffering and surrender to God’s will, and his divine power to show us the way to heaven.
Jesus says our Father sent him to stir up the social order, to raise up the poor and scatter the proud. But Jesus’ radical idea of revolution is a spiritual wave of individual conversions. The savior’s poverty, and power, is a humble spirit.
Salvation history, Jesus teaches, is God’s domain, not man’s. Our monumental spiritual task in our puny human existence is to transcend injustices with charity and forgiveness.
Largely diminished in Latin America after Rome’s 1984 rebuke of Marxist (and underlying atheist) concepts, liberation theology remains a current among liberal Catholics and a prominent force in American black churches.
Among notable U.S. liberation theologians is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose 1990 sermon “The Audacity to Hope” inspired the beliefs of longtime Trinity United Church of Christ member Barack Obama.
"Jesus says our Father sent him to stir up the social order, to raise up
the poor and scatter the proud. But Jesus’ radical idea of revolution is a
spiritual wave of individual conversions. The savior’s poverty, and power, is a humble spirit."
Jesus teaches us that our personal relationship with him is the heart of our service to others (Lk. 10:38-42).
Today in America, perhaps emboldened by a President who champions their beliefs, liberation theologians -- and not just black adherents -- are ramping up efforts to remake Christianity into a politicized Christology.
Considering the movement’s genesis, it is unsurprising that President Obama has found friends at University of Notre Dame, where liberation theology founder Gustavo Gutierrez holds a prestigious professorship in the Kellogg Institute for International Studies.
Rev. Gutierrez’ bio at the Institute web site lists Latin America as his focus and “[t]he historical background and continuing theological relevance of the preferential option for the poor” as his current research topic. Gutierrez, a Peru native, is a Dominican priest.
Most associated with the Jesuits and 1960s insurgency in El Salvador, liberation theology hit a high pitch with assassination of San Salvador Archbishop Oscar Romero, killed March 24, 1980 because he publicly called Christian Salvadoran soldiers to obey God’s order and honor human dignity, and not follow government orders to oppress, abuse and kill countrymen.
A 12-year civil war ensued. Among 75,000 killed were six Jesuit priests, murdered in their home Nov. 16, 1989.
Fr. Jon Sobrino was not in the rectory that day. He continues to work and teach in El Salvador.
Two of Sobrino’s books published in 1999 are the subject of a Vatican notification to the faithful of March 14, 2007. Fr. Sobrino’s work with the poor is “admirable,” the Vatican writes, but he strays from church doctrine in his theological “presuppositions” that humanize Jesus Christ and neglect his divinity and “the salvific value of his Death.”
Fr. Sobrino’s material, rather than spiritual, view of Jesus and his teachings constructs the premise of liberation theology: That Jesus manifests social liberation from economic and political injustices imposed on the downtrodden by their oppressors -- not personal redemption from sins of immorality.
Along with Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff of Brazil (a former Franciscan priest twice admonished by Rome), and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay (a Jesuit priest, deceased in 1996), Sobrino was instrumental in formulating this humanistic view of social justice into a modern liturgy.
These liberation theology creators supposedly gained inspiration from the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium: “the Church encompasses with love all who are afflicted with human suffering and in the poor…sees the image of (Jesus). It does all it can to relieve their need and in them it strives to serve Christ” (Chapter 1, paragraph 8).
Consider Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Like Fr. Gutierrez and the others, she lived among the world’s poorest outcasts and devoted her life to improving their condition. Unlike the priests, however, she embraced Jesus’ spiritual poverty, his acceptance of suffering and surrender to God’s will, and his divine power to show us the way to heaven.
Jesus says our Father sent him to stir up the social order, to raise up the poor and scatter the proud. But Jesus’ radical idea of revolution is a spiritual wave of individual conversions. The savior’s poverty, and power, is a humble spirit.
Salvation history, Jesus teaches, is God’s domain, not man’s. Our monumental spiritual task in our puny human existence is to transcend injustices with charity and forgiveness.
Largely diminished in Latin America after Rome’s 1984 rebuke of Marxist (and underlying atheist) concepts, liberation theology remains a current among liberal Catholics and a prominent force in American black churches.
Among notable U.S. liberation theologians is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose 1990 sermon “The Audacity to Hope” inspired the beliefs of longtime Trinity United Church of Christ member Barack Obama.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
U.S. Immigration Overhaul Overdue
Published in Cumberland Times-News Tuesday, June 22, 2010.
Rather than follow through on a promise to send National Guard troops to Arizona’s border, President Obama appallingly slapped the governor last week with a frivolous lawsuit over the constitutionality of her state’s immigration law(s).
Equally reprehensibly, Obama’s third-in-command, Nancy Pelosi, preached amnesty as immigration reform last month to Catholics at what appears to be a contrived “first-of-its kind” forum in Washington, D.C.
Besides stretching the limits of the First Amendment, Pelosi played Pope to 1) cite a Catholic view of Scripture that inspires her viewpoint, 2) tell Catholic bishops to teach her view to the faithful, and 3) call all Catholics in the pews to endorse her progressive policies.
Pelosi told conferees in a May “briefing” at Trinity University, “the Church is going to have to play a very major role (in how illegals) are treated. … I want you to speak about (reform) from the pulpit…to instruct your (people who) oppose immigration reform…and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels.”
Can the Speaker, and the President, not hear the masses’ outcry for immigration reform? Do they not see that Americans do want reasonable treatment for illegals – but most assuredly, protection for Americans?
The President illogically pressures the governor not to defend Arizonans; and Pelosi crazily pressures Catholics to defend all illegals: “As a practical matter, we can’t say to (12 million people), go back to wherever you came from, or go to jail.”
Surely, as immigration reform unfolds, illegals who seek better lives here, and contribute, should earn assistance. However, rather than hogtie the states, federal officials should coordinate with them (and home countries) to arrest, incarcerate and prosecute illegals who commit heinous crimes in America.
His lawsuit typifies Obama’s inability to respond effectively to a plight like Arizona’s. And in delusional style, Pelosi blithely turns her gaze from Arizona’s border, where citizens daily battle transgressions like trafficking, rape and murder, to call fellow Catholics to manifest her utopia by advocating that compassion trumps law!
Sensible Christians know that compassion succeeds when transgressors amend their lives. Unrepentant, unreformable, criminal illegals who repeatedly break America’s laws and harm her people are due justice (Mt. 18:23-35).
Now, how could Pelosi’s intimate sharing of motives and agendas from state to church transpire?
Pelosi is a 1962 graduate of Trinity, which co-sponsored the Catholic forum, with National Catholic Reporter.
Founded in 1897 as a Catholic women’s college, Trinity today is iuber-liberal. Its president, Patricia McGuire, labels pro-life Catholics “uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize” (Catholic News Agency, May 18, 2009).
Founded in 1964 by laity and clergy, NCR is independent and often dissents from Catholic teaching.
Another speaker at Pelosi’s forum was Sister Simone Campbell, director of Network social justice lobby, who organized women religious to sign a letter, against bishops’ teaching, that influenced fence-sitters to vote to pass the abortion-friendly health care reform bill.
Prominent among panelists was Sister Carol Keehan, CEO of Catholic Health Association, touted by NCR as “the organization that played a pivotal role in the health care reform debate.” Sister Keehan and CHA also disregarded bishops’ teaching to endorse the flawed bill.
A panelists list includes Baltimore Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, though his office confirms, “He did not attend.”
On the back burner since 9/11, immigration overhaul is overdue. The U.S. Bishops advocate well-reasoned reform “that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and provides undocumented immigrants with a set of rules by which they can earn legal status and begin a path toward citizenship” (Archbishop O’Brien, May 6 Catholic Review).
Nancy E. Thoerig
Mount Savage
Can the Speaker, and the President, not hear the masses’ outcry for
immigration reform? Do they not see that Americans do want reasonable treatment for illegals – but most assuredly, protection for Americans?
Rather than follow through on a promise to send National Guard troops to Arizona’s border, President Obama appallingly slapped the governor last week with a frivolous lawsuit over the constitutionality of her state’s immigration law(s).
Equally reprehensibly, Obama’s third-in-command, Nancy Pelosi, preached amnesty as immigration reform last month to Catholics at what appears to be a contrived “first-of-its kind” forum in Washington, D.C.
Besides stretching the limits of the First Amendment, Pelosi played Pope to 1) cite a Catholic view of Scripture that inspires her viewpoint, 2) tell Catholic bishops to teach her view to the faithful, and 3) call all Catholics in the pews to endorse her progressive policies.
Pelosi told conferees in a May “briefing” at Trinity University, “the Church is going to have to play a very major role (in how illegals) are treated. … I want you to speak about (reform) from the pulpit…to instruct your (people who) oppose immigration reform…and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels.”
Can the Speaker, and the President, not hear the masses’ outcry for immigration reform? Do they not see that Americans do want reasonable treatment for illegals – but most assuredly, protection for Americans?
The President illogically pressures the governor not to defend Arizonans; and Pelosi crazily pressures Catholics to defend all illegals: “As a practical matter, we can’t say to (12 million people), go back to wherever you came from, or go to jail.”
Surely, as immigration reform unfolds, illegals who seek better lives here, and contribute, should earn assistance. However, rather than hogtie the states, federal officials should coordinate with them (and home countries) to arrest, incarcerate and prosecute illegals who commit heinous crimes in America.
His lawsuit typifies Obama’s inability to respond effectively to a plight like Arizona’s. And in delusional style, Pelosi blithely turns her gaze from Arizona’s border, where citizens daily battle transgressions like trafficking, rape and murder, to call fellow Catholics to manifest her utopia by advocating that compassion trumps law!
Sensible Christians know that compassion succeeds when transgressors amend their lives. Unrepentant, unreformable, criminal illegals who repeatedly break America’s laws and harm her people are due justice (Mt. 18:23-35).
Now, how could Pelosi’s intimate sharing of motives and agendas from state to church transpire?
Pelosi is a 1962 graduate of Trinity, which co-sponsored the Catholic forum, with National Catholic Reporter.
Founded in 1897 as a Catholic women’s college, Trinity today is iuber-liberal. Its president, Patricia McGuire, labels pro-life Catholics “uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize” (Catholic News Agency, May 18, 2009).
Founded in 1964 by laity and clergy, NCR is independent and often dissents from Catholic teaching.
Another speaker at Pelosi’s forum was Sister Simone Campbell, director of Network social justice lobby, who organized women religious to sign a letter, against bishops’ teaching, that influenced fence-sitters to vote to pass the abortion-friendly health care reform bill.
Prominent among panelists was Sister Carol Keehan, CEO of Catholic Health Association, touted by NCR as “the organization that played a pivotal role in the health care reform debate.” Sister Keehan and CHA also disregarded bishops’ teaching to endorse the flawed bill.
A panelists list includes Baltimore Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien, though his office confirms, “He did not attend.”
On the back burner since 9/11, immigration overhaul is overdue. The U.S. Bishops advocate well-reasoned reform “that keeps immigrant families together, adopts smart and humane enforcement policies, and provides undocumented immigrants with a set of rules by which they can earn legal status and begin a path toward citizenship” (Archbishop O’Brien, May 6 Catholic Review).
Nancy E. Thoerig
Mount Savage
Monday, May 17, 2010
Judeo-Christian primciples make U.S. exceptional
Published Monday, May 17, 2010 in Cumberland Times-News.
Christian conservatives can find a recapitulation of beliefs in Jewish author Bruce Feiler’s 2009 book, “America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story.”
Feiler visits popular museums and interviews prominent historians. He probes obscure corners and inspects hoarded troves of historic objects. He analyzes common threads and concludes that Judeo-Christian principles are the bedrock of American society.
Recognizing the Bible’s influence -- from the Pilgrims’ crash-landing on Clark’s Island in 1620, to the clashes in our homes and communities today -- is essential, Feiler establishes, to understanding American history and preserving the American dream.
“Discovering how much the biblical narrative of the Israelites colored the vision and informed the values of twenty generations of Americans and their leaders,” Feiler writes, “was like discovering a new front door to a house I’d lived in all my life.
“You can’t understand American history…without understanding Moses. He is a looking glass into our (collective American) soul.”
Now, if America’s history students could explore motivational religious themes like Moses’ leadership and the Exodus, they might discover more personally the situational gravity, and vision, of William Bradford, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Cecil B. DeMille, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, and so many more.
The Founding Fathers (and our most revered leaders) were Christians (or God-fearers) who knew their Hebrew Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy); and Moses, the reluctant-yet-headstrong redeemer in Exodus, motivated them to rise up and defeat the world’s (and society’s) most daunting or oppressive powers.
Throughout the American timeline, Feiler illustrates, the Exodus storyline repeats: 1) Righteous rebellion, 2) hard-won liberty, 3) just law, grounded in Hebraic principles – and all along the way, supplication and gratefulness to God for his intervention and generosity.
While Jesus is a personal savior to Christians, Feiler acknowledges, Moses is America’s prime founding father. Moses is the one to whom those we call founders turned, for inspiration and leadership -- from renouncing allegiance to the king, to establishing three chambers of government; from declaring the rights to choose life and liberty and to pursue happiness, to ensuring that those rights be protected by law.
Having signed the Mayflower Compact Nov. 11, but still seeking a suitable harbor, the Pilgrims organized an exploration party of 17 who set out Monday, Dec. 6 to explore Cape Cod Bay. As night fell on Friday, in a blustery storm, the pilot guided their battered shallop to rest on a tiny island inside Plymouth Harbor.
The next day, Saturday, the men needed to rest and repair their boat; and as William Bradford writes in his journal, “this being the last day of the week, they prepared there to keep the Sabbath.”
Their fellow Pilgrims -- on the ship, anchored 20 miles away -- likely knew not if they survived. Yet these devout Christians, finally finding suitable shelter after three months at sea, primarily honored God, praised him for his providence, thanked him for his “manifold deliverances,” and sought his blessings upon their pursuits in this New Promised Land.
From their humble act sprang Thanksgiving, what Feiler calls, “the symbol of American blessing, the one holiday that (marks) the union of God, the people, and the land.” He relates it to Passover, the Jews’ seminal commemoration of deliverance.
“I hadn’t known that Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams proposed Moses for America’s seal,” Feiler ponders at the conclusion of his history-detective tome. “The United States at its founding was essentially one hundred percent Christian.”
Well, Christians share the faith of Abraham and his descendants; and the Judeo-Christian tradition is the sublime combination of liberty and law that makes America exceptional.
Now, if America’s history students could explore motivational
religious themes like Moses’ leadership and the Exodus, they might discover more personally the situational gravity, and vision, of William Bradford, George Washington, Harriett Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Cecil B. DeMille, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, and so many more.
Christian conservatives can find a recapitulation of beliefs in Jewish author Bruce Feiler’s 2009 book, “America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story.”
Feiler visits popular museums and interviews prominent historians. He probes obscure corners and inspects hoarded troves of historic objects. He analyzes common threads and concludes that Judeo-Christian principles are the bedrock of American society.
Recognizing the Bible’s influence -- from the Pilgrims’ crash-landing on Clark’s Island in 1620, to the clashes in our homes and communities today -- is essential, Feiler establishes, to understanding American history and preserving the American dream.
“Discovering how much the biblical narrative of the Israelites colored the vision and informed the values of twenty generations of Americans and their leaders,” Feiler writes, “was like discovering a new front door to a house I’d lived in all my life.
“You can’t understand American history…without understanding Moses. He is a looking glass into our (collective American) soul.”
Now, if America’s history students could explore motivational religious themes like Moses’ leadership and the Exodus, they might discover more personally the situational gravity, and vision, of William Bradford, George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Cecil B. DeMille, Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, and so many more.
The Founding Fathers (and our most revered leaders) were Christians (or God-fearers) who knew their Hebrew Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy); and Moses, the reluctant-yet-headstrong redeemer in Exodus, motivated them to rise up and defeat the world’s (and society’s) most daunting or oppressive powers.
Throughout the American timeline, Feiler illustrates, the Exodus storyline repeats: 1) Righteous rebellion, 2) hard-won liberty, 3) just law, grounded in Hebraic principles – and all along the way, supplication and gratefulness to God for his intervention and generosity.
While Jesus is a personal savior to Christians, Feiler acknowledges, Moses is America’s prime founding father. Moses is the one to whom those we call founders turned, for inspiration and leadership -- from renouncing allegiance to the king, to establishing three chambers of government; from declaring the rights to choose life and liberty and to pursue happiness, to ensuring that those rights be protected by law.
Having signed the Mayflower Compact Nov. 11, but still seeking a suitable harbor, the Pilgrims organized an exploration party of 17 who set out Monday, Dec. 6 to explore Cape Cod Bay. As night fell on Friday, in a blustery storm, the pilot guided their battered shallop to rest on a tiny island inside Plymouth Harbor.
The next day, Saturday, the men needed to rest and repair their boat; and as William Bradford writes in his journal, “this being the last day of the week, they prepared there to keep the Sabbath.”
Their fellow Pilgrims -- on the ship, anchored 20 miles away -- likely knew not if they survived. Yet these devout Christians, finally finding suitable shelter after three months at sea, primarily honored God, praised him for his providence, thanked him for his “manifold deliverances,” and sought his blessings upon their pursuits in this New Promised Land.
From their humble act sprang Thanksgiving, what Feiler calls, “the symbol of American blessing, the one holiday that (marks) the union of God, the people, and the land.” He relates it to Passover, the Jews’ seminal commemoration of deliverance.
“I hadn’t known that Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams proposed Moses for America’s seal,” Feiler ponders at the conclusion of his history-detective tome. “The United States at its founding was essentially one hundred percent Christian.”
Well, Christians share the faith of Abraham and his descendants; and the Judeo-Christian tradition is the sublime combination of liberty and law that makes America exceptional.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Texas Gives the Boot to Liberal Social Studies Bias
From Education Reporter April 2010
After three days of contentious meetings, Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) members gave preliminary approval to revised social studies standards they say are intended to rein in the liberal bias of teachers and academics. "We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, leader of the conservative bloc of the board. "History has been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."
The new standards will be written next year and remain in effect for ten years. They will determine what the state's 4.8 million K-12 students are taught in government, world history, U.S. history, and economics classes from kindergarten through high school. They will also be used to develop state tests and write textbooks.
Significant media attention has been devoted to the state's debate over social studies guidelines because decisions made there have national impact. Since Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks, publishers tailor them to its guidelines. Typically more than 90% of America's textbooks are based on Lone Star state curriculum, as it is too costly to produce multiple versions.
The lengthy process of determining curriculum guidelines began with teams of teachers writing a first draft, which was then reviewed by six experts appointed by the SBOE. The expert panel then reported their findings and recommendations to the 15 board members. The board also received at least 14,000 emails and considered 17 hours of public testimony prior to the three-day meeting. Parents, teachers, civil rights groups, historians and state legislators were among those who attended the proceedings, and many testified before the board.
The heated discussions there served as a public forum for quieter ideological skirmishes happening throughout the country. The battle line runs between defenders of traditional values, who oppose what they see as politically correct historical revision, and progressives, who prefer secularism and emphasize prominent inclusion of minority figures. McLeroy acknowledged the conflict, saying, "Our country is divided on how we see things, and [it comes] into sharp focus, especially with history and how you present it to your children." (Austin-American Statesman, 3-11-09) Proponents of both sides were visible and vocal during the deliberations.
The conservative caucus of the Texas legislature submitted written testimony and sent representative Ken Paxton to read it at the proceedings. The letter called on the board to resist pressure to wash the standards "clean of any references to Judeo-Christian faiths while promoting references to other religions." The letter cited a prior attempt to remove Christmas and Rosh Hashanah from guidelines and replace them with the five-day Hindu festival Diwali, a measure that was overturned by the board.
The board also rejected the adoption of the secularist-preferred B.C.E. and C.E. (Before the Common Era and Common Era) instead of B.C. and A.D. to specify time periods before and after the birth of Christ. Board member Mavis Knight (D-Dallas) objected on the ground that the "social studies community uses B.C.E. and C.E."
Hostilities escalated over presenting the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and particularly on how the First Amendment should be taught. Knight proposed an amendment to teach students that "the Founding Fathers supported a strong wall of separation between church and state."
Republican member Ken Mercer countered that the Founders "did not want a separation from religion, they just wanted to avoid having a national denomination . . . one religion everyone would have to follow. I think they had a different understanding of religious freedom." Other Republican board members agreed that the First Amendment was written to protect rather than prohibit the practice of religion, and Knight's motion failed. (wnd.com, 3-15-10)
"Some board members and the non-expert ideologues they appointed to a review panel have made it clear that they want students to learn that the Founding Fathers intended America to be an explicitly Christian nation with laws based on their own narrow interpretations of the Bible," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an organization whose mission is to "counter the religious right."
Former board chairman McLeroy said the efforts of conservatives were misconstrued and mischaracterized. "I don't see anyone wanting to say this is a Christian nation or anything like that," he said. "The argument is that the principles on which (the nation) has been founded are biblically based."
McLeroy found support for his position in the dean of the College of Humanities at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Derek Davis. "An education without some understanding of the profound role of religion in our nation's history and its contributions to our nation's success is an incomplete education, and our courts have often said as much," said Davis. (Education Week, 1-13-10)
The subject of minority inclusion and prominence in the guidelines was another ongoing area of controversy. Texas state legislator Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), representing the Mexican-American caucus, came before the board to voice concerns about the absence of important Hispanic figures and groups in the history standards. Rodriguez asked the board to include Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America and member of the Democratic Socialists of America in the guidelines; member Pat Hardy (R- Fort Worth) informed him Huerta was already in the standards.
Other Hispanics such as Jose Antonia Navarro were added in response to the push for greater inclusion, but tensions rose when not every request was adopted. Mary Helen Berlanga, Democrat board member, stormed out of the room when members did not add the names of two Hispanic and one black Medal of Honor recipients to a history lesson. Berlanga was also upset that the board deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society." She accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" the curriculum standards, saying, "We can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist."
Republican members argued that listing three Medal of Honor winners out of the thousands of those honored "diminishes the accomplishment of other recipients." Terri Leo (R-Spring) said, "I would rather give teachers the academic freedom to possibly pull a winner from that school, that those children can relate to and emulate."
Further examples of the changes the SBOE ultimately approved include restoring references to Independence Day, Thomas Edison, Christopher Columbus, Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong and Daniel Boone that had been deleted. The board added the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a lesson on the Bill of Rights, an element conspicuously absent from some curricula.
Teachers and textbooks will be required to accurately describe the U.S. form of government as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy. Depictions of Joseph McCarthy must include an explanation of "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in the U.S. government." The Venona papers are verified transcripts of communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the U.S.
A section in the U.S. government standards will cover the concept of American exceptionalism and detail how the nation's values are unique from other nations. Alexis de Tocqueville's five values critical to America's success as a republic will also be delineated. In economics, the board added free-market economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek to the usual list of John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.
The board, whose members are elected, voted ten to five along party lines to approve the revised standards, with the Republicans prevailing over the Democrats. Conservatives held only one seat 15 years ago, but have built up to seven of the ten GOP seats on the 15-member board now. A final vote on the Texas standards is expected in May, after another public comment period. (Education Week, 3-1-10; New York Times, 3-13-10)
"An education without some understanding of the profound role of
religion in our nation's history and its contributions to our nation's success is an incomplete education, and our courts have often said as much." -- Derek Davis, dean of the College of Humanities at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
After three days of contentious meetings, Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) members gave preliminary approval to revised social studies standards they say are intended to rein in the liberal bias of teachers and academics. "We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, leader of the conservative bloc of the board. "History has been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."
The new standards will be written next year and remain in effect for ten years. They will determine what the state's 4.8 million K-12 students are taught in government, world history, U.S. history, and economics classes from kindergarten through high school. They will also be used to develop state tests and write textbooks.
Significant media attention has been devoted to the state's debate over social studies guidelines because decisions made there have national impact. Since Texas is the largest single purchaser of textbooks, publishers tailor them to its guidelines. Typically more than 90% of America's textbooks are based on Lone Star state curriculum, as it is too costly to produce multiple versions.
The lengthy process of determining curriculum guidelines began with teams of teachers writing a first draft, which was then reviewed by six experts appointed by the SBOE. The expert panel then reported their findings and recommendations to the 15 board members. The board also received at least 14,000 emails and considered 17 hours of public testimony prior to the three-day meeting. Parents, teachers, civil rights groups, historians and state legislators were among those who attended the proceedings, and many testified before the board.
The heated discussions there served as a public forum for quieter ideological skirmishes happening throughout the country. The battle line runs between defenders of traditional values, who oppose what they see as politically correct historical revision, and progressives, who prefer secularism and emphasize prominent inclusion of minority figures. McLeroy acknowledged the conflict, saying, "Our country is divided on how we see things, and [it comes] into sharp focus, especially with history and how you present it to your children." (Austin-American Statesman, 3-11-09) Proponents of both sides were visible and vocal during the deliberations.
The conservative caucus of the Texas legislature submitted written testimony and sent representative Ken Paxton to read it at the proceedings. The letter called on the board to resist pressure to wash the standards "clean of any references to Judeo-Christian faiths while promoting references to other religions." The letter cited a prior attempt to remove Christmas and Rosh Hashanah from guidelines and replace them with the five-day Hindu festival Diwali, a measure that was overturned by the board.
The board also rejected the adoption of the secularist-preferred B.C.E. and C.E. (Before the Common Era and Common Era) instead of B.C. and A.D. to specify time periods before and after the birth of Christ. Board member Mavis Knight (D-Dallas) objected on the ground that the "social studies community uses B.C.E. and C.E."
Hostilities escalated over presenting the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and particularly on how the First Amendment should be taught. Knight proposed an amendment to teach students that "the Founding Fathers supported a strong wall of separation between church and state."
Republican member Ken Mercer countered that the Founders "did not want a separation from religion, they just wanted to avoid having a national denomination . . . one religion everyone would have to follow. I think they had a different understanding of religious freedom." Other Republican board members agreed that the First Amendment was written to protect rather than prohibit the practice of religion, and Knight's motion failed. (wnd.com, 3-15-10)
"Some board members and the non-expert ideologues they appointed to a review panel have made it clear that they want students to learn that the Founding Fathers intended America to be an explicitly Christian nation with laws based on their own narrow interpretations of the Bible," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an organization whose mission is to "counter the religious right."
Former board chairman McLeroy said the efforts of conservatives were misconstrued and mischaracterized. "I don't see anyone wanting to say this is a Christian nation or anything like that," he said. "The argument is that the principles on which (the nation) has been founded are biblically based."
McLeroy found support for his position in the dean of the College of Humanities at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Derek Davis. "An education without some understanding of the profound role of religion in our nation's history and its contributions to our nation's success is an incomplete education, and our courts have often said as much," said Davis. (Education Week, 1-13-10)
The subject of minority inclusion and prominence in the guidelines was another ongoing area of controversy. Texas state legislator Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin), representing the Mexican-American caucus, came before the board to voice concerns about the absence of important Hispanic figures and groups in the history standards. Rodriguez asked the board to include Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America and member of the Democratic Socialists of America in the guidelines; member Pat Hardy (R- Fort Worth) informed him Huerta was already in the standards.
Other Hispanics such as Jose Antonia Navarro were added in response to the push for greater inclusion, but tensions rose when not every request was adopted. Mary Helen Berlanga, Democrat board member, stormed out of the room when members did not add the names of two Hispanic and one black Medal of Honor recipients to a history lesson. Berlanga was also upset that the board deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society." She accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" the curriculum standards, saying, "We can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist."
Republican members argued that listing three Medal of Honor winners out of the thousands of those honored "diminishes the accomplishment of other recipients." Terri Leo (R-Spring) said, "I would rather give teachers the academic freedom to possibly pull a winner from that school, that those children can relate to and emulate."
Further examples of the changes the SBOE ultimately approved include restoring references to Independence Day, Thomas Edison, Christopher Columbus, Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong and Daniel Boone that had been deleted. The board added the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a lesson on the Bill of Rights, an element conspicuously absent from some curricula.
Teachers and textbooks will be required to accurately describe the U.S. form of government as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy. Depictions of Joseph McCarthy must include an explanation of "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in the U.S. government." The Venona papers are verified transcripts of communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the U.S.
A section in the U.S. government standards will cover the concept of American exceptionalism and detail how the nation's values are unique from other nations. Alexis de Tocqueville's five values critical to America's success as a republic will also be delineated. In economics, the board added free-market economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek to the usual list of John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.
The board, whose members are elected, voted ten to five along party lines to approve the revised standards, with the Republicans prevailing over the Democrats. Conservatives held only one seat 15 years ago, but have built up to seven of the ten GOP seats on the 15-member board now. A final vote on the Texas standards is expected in May, after another public comment period. (Education Week, 3-1-10; New York Times, 3-13-10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
