Teaching Religion in Schools Article in WSJ - calling bullshit
Mon Aug 28, 2006 at 09:36:32 AM PDT
Seems that the WSJ wants to help the GOP with more talking points and propaganda, so they have come through with this
doozy of an article talking about religion in early textbooks for school children.
This gem helps set the tone:
The schoolbooks used by early Americans were supposed to teach literacy and knowledge, but they also had a broader purpose: to create a national character, instilling children with a belief in God and a moral code appropriate to the pious citizens of a new republic. While learning to read, students also had to absorb messages about religion, patriotism and other virtues, such as thrift, diligence and honesty.
National character, eh? A "moral code appropriate to the pious citizens of a new republic?"
The columnist, Cynthia Crossen, cites two volumes of scholarship, Ruth Miller Elson's groundbreaking work Guardians of Tradition: American Schoolbooks of the Nineteenth Century and Michael V. Belok in "Forming the American Minds, as a paintbrush to flavor the article in positive and generalized terms. She goes on to use two quotes from the books to paint a picture that would lead one to believe that these works POSITIVELY support the religious component her article purports. To me, that is blatant twisting of the facts to suit the article, and a sly way to make it look as though these historians are supportive of a generalized religious teaching in public schools. Further examination shows that there is much more to these works than Crossen bothered to go into. Elson's book found that:
...an evangelical Protestant worldview pervaded U.S. history, social studies and literature texts long after the country had become religiously pluralistic. Only Protestant contributions to history and literature were recognized. All other religious traditions were ignored, or, worse, denigrated. Even geography texts clearly preferred Protestant to Catholic or Eastern Orthodox countries. They were seen to be industrious and cultivated.
Hmmm. Much like the Religious Right wants to do today by marginalizing other religions and forcing their particular religious and moralistic viewpoint upon the rest of us. Many Evangelical Christians really do feel that part of the practice of their faith is to bring the word of God to non-believers and the unsaved. They do call their opponents godless and attack them. They are intolerant, they do engage in finger-pointing, and they do back it all up with their faith. In their Churches they do claim that their opponents are destroying the moral fabric of their society. Is this what we want to go back to? One of the very reasons religious teachings were phased out of school was because of the rise of religious pluralism in America. This forced the powers that be to rethink the fact that there were many students who didn't subscribe to the to the W.A.S.P way of thinking and begin down the road of inclusiveness for ALL students. There is certainly no tacit support in Elson's book for this columnist to have used a quote to back up her thinly-veiled bias.
As for Belok's book, several historian reviews of the work feel that Belok did not achieve his intended goal by backing up many of his assertions throughout the book. Reviewer Richard Edward Kelly wrote:
Unfortunately, Belok has done far less "to fill part of the knowledge gap in this area" or to "shed some light on the role school-books play in nation-building" than his self-assertions would suggest. The goals were worthy, but only to a very limited extent were they achieved.
I'm not so certain, had Crossen did a better research job, would she have chosen to use his book to provide a quote for anything, since it can be possibly dismissed as not having made the grade in terms of peer review.
It is true that even after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and the Bill of Rights (which includes the First Amendment) in 1791, Protestantism continued to enjoy a favored status in some states. But not all. What doesn't seem to be touched upon in the article is the fact that much of the discussion throughout the 19th century regarding religious education in schools relates to the fact that many of these primers used by school children served dual purposes, regular studies and Sunday School itself due to costs of printing and costs of owning multiple books by families at that time. The distinction is an important one, because the article implies in no uncertain terms that religious teachings were the norm in the classroom, and this simply is a falsehood. Context is everything, and the obvious slant in the article is disturbing.
Playing loose and hard with the facts does not a well-researched article make. Writing propaganda in the form of a "balanced" article (read: fluff piece) is at best underhanded and one-sided.
Call Cynthia out on this and make your thoughts known...
Cynthia.Crossen@wsj.com
Permalink | 87 comments