ever wonder what theo-con home schoolers teach their kids about history?

[OneBlueSky]

well, here's one answer . . . from the perspective of one Steve Wilkins, pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La. — "the mother church to a noxious brand of theocratic thinking that has swept the entire neo-Confederate movement — markets his $80, 12-cassette version of the American saga under the title of "America: The First 350 Years" . . .

Wilkins' World
Homeschoolers nationwide are learning an unusual version of the American story from neo-Confederate Steve Wilkins

By Mark Potok
Southern Poverty Law Center

(snip)

All of history is a struggle between "biblical faith" and "non-biblical faith." White colonists made early America a godly nation, agreeing that "all areas of life must be ruled by His law," that democracy was to be "despised and condemned," and that theocracy was "the only proper role of government."

(snip)

Although it doesn't say so, the Constitution laid out "the Biblical role of government." The framers only referred to "coin money" — because of their "great fear" of paper money (not coincidentally, a bête noire of today's radical right). They obviously intended for the nation to hew to a gold and silver standard.

It's true that the right to vote was limited to property-holding white men. But the purpose of the restriction "was primarily moral and spiritual." Says Wilkins: "To allow non-property holders to vote would be to allow the slothful and the ungodly to rule."

(snip)

And slaves, by the way, had it pretty grand — even if "black historians" today insist on ignoring "unequivocal testimonies to the general benevolence of Southern slavery." Slaves actually "lived relatively easygoing lives."

- oh, yes . . . there's more . . .

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=254

[BattyDem]

1. I love this line ...

Although it doesn't say so, the Constitution laid out "the Biblical role of government."


That's right, genius ... it DOESN'T say so! The framers were very specific in their wording of the Constitution and if that was their true intention, I doubt they would have left it out. :eyes:


***ON EDIT***

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 (Article 11)
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



All US treaties represent US law (Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2), so if the treaty says we're not founded on the Christian religion, that's the law.



Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")



I bet they hate it when facts get in the way of their beliefs! :evilgrin:

[RubyDuby in GA]

2. Should I ask for my money back?

I didn't get any kind of instructing like then when I was getting my degree in History. I feel cheated.........

[CottonBear]

3. It's schooling for future freepers! n/t

[whistle]

4. Say, this is pretty good revisionist history there, I suppose John

...Wilkes Booth was just a patsy and was actually brainwashed into shooting President Lincoln while the confederacy never actually lost the civil war, but rather anarchists took over the White House following Lincolns assassination by Union military operatives who pushed Booth off the balcony railing and then implemented the reconstruction period which followed in the south. Slavery was never actually banned and when the dominionists take back the government it will again be legal for individuals to own slaves as part of the Christian demonstration of hope, faith and charity. Science will be banned from all public education and the study of alchemy will be reintroduced.

[CornField]

5. That's nothing... when I was homeschooling

my daughter, we had a very difficult time finding any curriculum that was not biblically based. For instance, within a math text you might find the following written problem:

"Sally's mother witnesses to an average of 4 people per week..."

No, I'm not kidding at all. Although science and history take the largest religious hits, all subject matters have some infusion.

[LeftyMom]

6. Yep, there's a lot of stupid crap like that out there

it's in homeschool catalogs but a lot of private Christian schools teach the same stuff. It's much more common to see fundie-type homeschoolers (who tend to teach very differntly from the rest of us, and domniate the homeschool textbook market because secular homeschoolers tend to use a more relaxed style with few or no textbooks) using materials that focus on the supposedly Christian origin of the nation and the role of thier God and his followers in history without the blatant racism. I think it's sometimes there in a more subtle fashion, and sometimes it slips by people who expect better from "christian" publications.

[Az]

7. This kind of exlemplifies the problems of home schooling

If we do not have a common understanding of history and reality for that matter, we are going to form camps and in the end only violence will determine the correct vision. The further we move from communicating with each other and driving forward in a shared understanding of our culture and world the more entrenched our opposition to each other becomes.

To have war waged amongts people you must first create camps. Then you must convince the inhabitants of those camps that the other camps are inhabited by evil inhuman beings that would kill them for a slice of bread.

[LeftyMom]

8. Common understanding of history?

Unfortunately, the common understanding of history is woefully inadequate, often incorrect and rather sanitized. It's a big part of why we homeschool, actually.

:argh:

LeftyDad went to a well regarded public high school which won lots of awards. He was not required to take any history and his only social studies class was a current events couse in which the class read current news articles, discussed the greatness of President Raygun and went to a Pappy Bush campaign event.

By contrast I went to a different well regarded public high school where I was required to take four years of social studies and literature was taught in historical context. LeftyDad and I are both products of the public school system and the only reason we have a common framework for discussing history is because I demanded he learn enough to be an informed citizen.

The common framework is ignorance, and many public schools reinforce it.