![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Economic Puritans?
Sep. 18th, 2005 09:46 amThere is a move in Texas to reach religion as an elective in the public schools. The curriculum is based on the curriculum created by The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a protestant group with rather conservative values. Of course this is raising all kinds of controversy and protest.
What I find scary in the other direction is the removal of religion from world history. Apparently according to some history textbooks the only reason the Puritans and Quakers came to America was for economic opportunity that they didn't have in their own countries. The crusades are barely touch on for the religious reason but are looked at from the economic and political point of view. There were economic reasons for both but the religious fervor outweighed the possible monetary gain.
I was a history major as an undergraduate and have had a love of history for a very long time. I have always enjoyed reading tales of the past. I also have a passion for folktales and myths. I enjoy looking at a culture in terms of their myths and religions since it is so closely tied together especially in ancient history. I believe that the predominant religion of the time should be studied along with the facts known of the age. I don't think we can talk about the ancient Greeks without talking about their belief systems. For some periods in history religion and politics were so intertwined that you really can't separate them. To remove religion from history is to do our students a great disservice. I am sure that you can do history from the political and economic point of view but you lose part of the picture. Cleaning up history, although quite often done by the winning side, is a travesty. How can we learn from history if we don't learn real history? Trying to explain Gandhi without his Hindu beliefs is absurd. Dr. Martin Luther King was a minister who preached to a very large audience. Most of the European kings believed they ruled by divine right and then there is a multiple pope mess, which I would like to see someone write up without mentioning religion.
The fact is that religion is part of our society and culture and has been through out history. I don't have a problem with religion being looked at in its historical context especially if all religions are looked at rather than just a few. In terms of my daughter's religion education, I will do that myself. As her parent I have the responsibility for this aspect of her life not the government or the schools. There has to be a balance here that allows for more than one point of view to be explored in schools. To remove any mention of religion does our children a disservice. But if you are going to let one religion as an elective then you have to let them all. So we need over 1000 new classes per school in Texas. I hope they have the resources for it.
I am grateful for my history teachers.
What I find scary in the other direction is the removal of religion from world history. Apparently according to some history textbooks the only reason the Puritans and Quakers came to America was for economic opportunity that they didn't have in their own countries. The crusades are barely touch on for the religious reason but are looked at from the economic and political point of view. There were economic reasons for both but the religious fervor outweighed the possible monetary gain.
I was a history major as an undergraduate and have had a love of history for a very long time. I have always enjoyed reading tales of the past. I also have a passion for folktales and myths. I enjoy looking at a culture in terms of their myths and religions since it is so closely tied together especially in ancient history. I believe that the predominant religion of the time should be studied along with the facts known of the age. I don't think we can talk about the ancient Greeks without talking about their belief systems. For some periods in history religion and politics were so intertwined that you really can't separate them. To remove religion from history is to do our students a great disservice. I am sure that you can do history from the political and economic point of view but you lose part of the picture. Cleaning up history, although quite often done by the winning side, is a travesty. How can we learn from history if we don't learn real history? Trying to explain Gandhi without his Hindu beliefs is absurd. Dr. Martin Luther King was a minister who preached to a very large audience. Most of the European kings believed they ruled by divine right and then there is a multiple pope mess, which I would like to see someone write up without mentioning religion.
The fact is that religion is part of our society and culture and has been through out history. I don't have a problem with religion being looked at in its historical context especially if all religions are looked at rather than just a few. In terms of my daughter's religion education, I will do that myself. As her parent I have the responsibility for this aspect of her life not the government or the schools. There has to be a balance here that allows for more than one point of view to be explored in schools. To remove any mention of religion does our children a disservice. But if you are going to let one religion as an elective then you have to let them all. So we need over 1000 new classes per school in Texas. I hope they have the resources for it.
I am grateful for my history teachers.
