![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertomFrom AmericaBlog we hear of a Wall Street Journal editorial column, trying to shove the ol' no-separation-of-church-and-state noise down our throats. It starts:
But there are other passages in this screed I find even more interesting.
The fact that we are still dealing with people trying to legislate superstition makes me crazy. That it shows up on the editorial page of the WSJ is headdesk time. And that they invoke those simple down-home edjamacational doctrines from the frontier two hundred years ago is flat-out irresponsible.
That they think it makes their point, rather than showing them to be desperate loons, is maddest of all.
In early American public schools, there was no separation between church and state. Tenets of Christianity were embedded in almost every lesson and book, including spelling, reading, history, grammar, arithmetic and science.As John points out, we also had slavery. And women couldn't vote. And there were no child labor laws.
But there are other passages in this screed I find even more interesting.
By the end of the 18th century, a thriving textbook industry had taken root in the U.S. No credentials were required to write a schoolbook, and ministers, lawyers, teachers and publishers all tried their hands at it. Almost all the books were printed and distributed locally, so children in different areas might be studying different texts. But because there were few copyright laws, schoolbook authors often borrowed or plagiarized similar material from earlier volumes.Work, suffer, die. Don't learn what we decide you don't need. Don't think. And especially don't think about something besides God.
The books were subject to little editing or expert review, and they reflected the prejudices of their authors. In his 1784 textbook, "Geography Made Easy," Jedidiah Morse (whose son Samuel would later invent the telegraph) described the characteristics of people living in different U.S. states: Virginians were "indolent, easy and good-natured," he wrote; Westerners "produce a strange sort of lawless profligacy."
Morse especially liked the people of Connecticut. In the 1812 edition of "American Universal Geography," he wrote, "Only two duels were ever fought in the state; the first between two West Indians, the second between two citizens of New York who crossed the line."
The purpose of education, which for many children stopped after elementary school, was to prepare them for life as devout farmers in a frontier democracy. Only useful knowledge was important, and reading material was supposed to be informative or morally edifying.
[...]
Although early schoolbooks portrayed the world as a moral place, where virtue is rewarded and vice punished, they also didn't shrink from the cruel realities of life on the frontier ("Xerxes did die/And so must you and I," said one speller).
"Schoolbooks made the 19th-century child thoroughly aware that life is hard and full of natural and manmade pitfalls," wrote Ms. Elson. "It is his duty to strive for success, but he will struggle hard on the way."
The fact that we are still dealing with people trying to legislate superstition makes me crazy. That it shows up on the editorial page of the WSJ is headdesk time. And that they invoke those simple down-home edjamacational doctrines from the frontier two hundred years ago is flat-out irresponsible.
That they think it makes their point, rather than showing them to be desperate loons, is maddest of all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 02:26 pm (UTC)Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 02:31 pm (UTC)And, frankly, "Life's a bitch and then you die" is as true now as it was back then, and I'd see nothing wrong with teaching kids that. Indeed, I think if today's kids were taught that life has a whole smegload of pain, suffering, heartbreak, and misery in it, instead of being protected and coddled until they're in their early 20s (then shoved out, naked and unprepared, into a world which doesn't give one fig about their precious self-esteem), we'd have more responsible adults. Guess what, kiddies? The universe doesn't love you. The universe hates your fish-eating guts and wants to kill you before you can breed. Go kick the universe in the balls and tell it to get bent. But I digress.
(And aren't todays texts just as preachy? No, we don't get "Abstain from evil" but we do get "Abstain from using non-recyclable products" and Cookie Monster singing about the virtues of carrot sticks. I do not think ANY society has ever failed to shove moral values down the throats of those too young to think about them; the debate is only over WHICH values.)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 02:47 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 02:49 pm (UTC)And, yeah, life's a bitch and then you die. But we've already seen countless attempts at censorship of textbooks, a near-constant drumbeat to remove the theory of evolution from schools, largely successful attempts to devalue other sciences (such as global warming) in the public eye, the rise of charter schools, and a whole bunch of other things keyed towards teaching you what they think you should care about rather than what is.
I'm a huge advocate of "life training", or whatever it's called these days -- drilling people on basic financial management, child care, cooking, car maintenance, decent manners, housekeeping, etc. A lot of stuff I guess everyone assumes you're supposed to get from Mom and Dad. Well, it doesn't always happen. I understand the instinct to protect your kids from the world... but you can't. The best thing you can do is prepare them for it.
And today's textbooks are preachy in a much different way. Abstain from using non-recyclable products because we haven't got infinite resources. Cookie love carrot sticks because too many kids eating too much sugar and getting fat, not getting enough vitamins. Kinda different from "Abstain from evil, or you'll be tortured forever by a god who says he loves you".
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:05 pm (UTC)I still think that they shouldn't have messed with Cookie Monster's eating habits, personally. Then again, my sweet treats growing up were various fruits. To this day, I still do a little dance when cherries start to show up in the local stores. Or mangoes . . . mmmmmmmm.
I miss the old Cookie Monster. Even at 6, I knew the only reason he could eat only cookies and not get very, very sick was because he was a monster.
Has stuff regarding kids really gotten dumbed down that much recently?
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:39 pm (UTC)Yes, indeedy. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein15aug15,0,4923608.column?coll=la-opinion-center)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:51 pm (UTC)Right. The search for the Sesame Street I remember and love begins now. It has to be out there on DVD or VHS somewhere, right?
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 04:26 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 06:30 pm (UTC)But then Bert is evil too... (http://www.bertisevil.tv/index2.htm)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-29 06:34 am (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-29 01:09 pm (UTC)I'm sure I'd find it funny if drunk. ;-)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-29 01:32 pm (UTC)In other words, actually following the path of Christ, as opposed to Beating the Crap out of Non-Christians.
Then I tuned in...and damn, it's a silly bit of drek.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 06:43 pm (UTC)I did find Cookie rapping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvtEszjn14M) about eating healthy food.
And also a review (http://www.laweekly.com/music/music/sesame-street-forever/494/) of Sesame Street records.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:13 pm (UTC)And isn't not consuming all the worlds resources for yourself, and leaving some for others, fundementally a moral value? Since I do not accept any sort of afterlife/karma/reincarnation/yaddayadda, what reason, OTHER than morality, a sense of right and wrong, do I have for not consuming as much as I can before I die? Odds are good we won't run out of anything necessary before I kick the bucket, so only my sense of morality -- my ability to look myself in the eye -- constrains my baser instincts. You seem to be unintentionally advocating the lie the religious right preaches -- that 'God' is essential to morality, and that there cannot be moral teaching without God -- or, by reverse, if what you're teaching doesn't involve God, then, it can't be teaching morality. Sometimes, I think liberals think 'morality' is a dirty word, which only serves to help the right.
At the heart, everything has a moral component -- at least, everything worth arguing about. Why recycle? Because resources aren't infinite. Why care that they aren't, so long as there's enough for me? Because other people need them, to. Why care about what other people need? And so, we hit morality, without any need for God. (Like there ever was...) (If you reply "Care about other people 'cause they'll hit you if you don't", how does this differ from "Care about other people 'cause God will damn you if you don't"? If the only basis for moral behaviour is a fear of punishment -- from God or the cops, it doesn't matter -- then we should just give up on this whole 'society' thing.)
And why would one of the most prestigious papers print that article? Why do they print a LOT of the fluff they print? I used to read the WSJ regularly, and there's plenty of human interest or random column filler among the stock listings and the "Who's Indicted, Who's Aquited" social pages.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 04:48 pm (UTC)The duty one has to future people is a very interesting puzzle.
(Oh, I should add that I'm a philosopher, so this is the kind of stuff I teach every day. *grin*)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 04:50 pm (UTC)Seriously, how about "Care about other people because it makes life more pleasant to live?"
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 07:58 pm (UTC)You Are Completely Missing Two Points
Date: 2006-08-28 11:14 pm (UTC)You are also missing the point that the problem is the WSJ column is going to be used as fuel to support legislating a particular flavor of religion. It's specifically there to do that. There's no other possible reason.
You're looking at the whole thing as a philosophical debate, and such a "debate" is one we both agree on -- there's right, there's wrong, you should do right, you shouldn't do wrong. The problem is that the real debate is over attempts to write into law certain actions, inactions, and circumstances based solely on the narrow tenets of Evangelical Christianity. The more militant advocates of the right wing have been trying to jam that stuff down all our throats for a long time now.
The point of the WSJ article is that, why, Christianity used to get along just fine in the classroom, so why can't we go back to those Good Old Days?
It's laying the seeds to make the non-separation of church and state seem more reasonable. If you can't see that... I can't think of another way to tell you.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 02:58 pm (UTC)Cookie Monster eats cookies. I have already told one small child that while the little green balls in his bowl (in a book I was reading her) may look like peas, they were in fact, lime-ball cookies.
As for the rest, shoving kids into life expecting only pain, suffering, and heartbreak is a far cry from not wrapping them in cotton.
Not trying to jump down your throat here. Just seen too many folks who think that misery defines adulthood.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:10 pm (UTC)The next life, the Afterlife, Heaven, will be better.
Heaven and Hell have been the carrot and stick for two thousand years.
And, time and again, they get in the way of progress in the Real World. That's probably the safest and politest way of putting that.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:23 pm (UTC)The Church did not want folks to notice much of what was going on in the Real World. So toil and suffering on earth were the greatest of virtues, and ensured one a place in Heaven. It gave folks something to hold out for. No matter how cruel their lord was, they would eventually be able to get away from him and rest in Paradise. This is also more than likely the reason why suicide was considered to be the ultimate sin. Can't have the folks that are growing the crops or fighting on your front lines all decide they're going to head for Heaven early.
Jesus is probably still beating his head into a wall somewhere over how his teachings got interpreted.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 06:03 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 05:47 pm (UTC)I tend to say, and believe, "Yes, life is often unfair. That's what we're here to put right." Whether because a god wants us to, or because we would all (I guess: YMMV) like to live in a more pleasant universe, it's still a good idea. If someone had talked to kiddy-me as
We give our children an idea of the world as it should be (coloured, of course, by our individual prejudices) in the hope that when they're grown they'll do their bit to bring the reality a little bit closer to the idea.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 06:00 pm (UTC)Not Pedantry :) (And yes, I know you mean on your part)
Date: 2006-08-28 11:21 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 03:20 pm (UTC)And this is the only one you get. No heaven. No reincarnation. No becoming an operant thetan. You are born. You live. You suffer. You die.
So it falls to each of us, in our own way, to wring whatever happiness, joy, and purpose we can out of our brief flare of existence. We must do so knowing it is futile and knowing that whatever good we manage to snatch from the universe is transient. And we do so anyway, because, otherwise, what's the smeggin' point?
That's my philosophy, at least. I am going to enjoy my pathetic few decades of existence in this wretched hellhole of universe. Just because I'm ornery, and if the universe wants me to be constantly miserable, I'm going to spite it by being occasionally happy.
........
Date: 2006-08-28 05:17 pm (UTC)Re: ........
Date: 2006-08-28 05:45 pm (UTC)Re: ........
Date: 2006-08-28 06:05 pm (UTC)A hunch!
Badum-CHING!
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 05:57 pm (UTC)There's something admirable about someone who believes that and continues to live, but personally, brrrr.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-28 05:58 pm (UTC)"Always expect the worst. That way, if it happens, you're prepared for it, and, if you're not, you're pleasantly surprised."
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2006-08-29 06:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 05:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 05:36 pm (UTC)Mind you, I've never been able to make heads or tails of the alleged reasoning behind this position, and it's certainly not for lack of trying. But then, these are the same people who believe it's even possible for every word of the Bible (in English, as commissioned by King James) to be literally true. So I kinda think the aforementioned trying has been a waste of my time. :-/
King James
Date: 2006-08-28 05:57 pm (UTC)Re: King James
Date: 2006-08-28 06:09 pm (UTC)Thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live. *nods sagely*
And speaking of King James....
Date: 2006-08-28 06:44 pm (UTC)http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/28/senate.harris.ap/index.html
Yo, God! You've made some pretty poor choices lately! Why not let Satan have a go?
And I'd love to know the Founders intended for only Christians to serve when the Constitution specifically forbids any religious test to hold public office. There are two places in the Constitution where religion is mentioned, and both are denying religion any role in government.
Re: King James
Date: 2006-08-28 06:20 pm (UTC)Re: King James
Date: 2006-08-29 04:28 pm (UTC)Re: King James
Date: 2006-08-29 04:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 05:55 pm (UTC)Much that seems straightforward in the Constitution is seen as complex in practice. "No law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press" has become "many laws abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, as regards indecency or obscenity or whistleblowing or the registry of kmartsucks.com". "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is, apparently, wholly unclear, and can be interpreted as "shall be infringed in whatever way we choose". Etc, etc, etc.
Historically, the Constition, and espcially the Bill of Rights, has been observed mostly in the breach (consider the Alien & Sedition Act), and the Supreme Court has gone along with it. Only post the 14th Amendment has the B of R actually been taken seriously by the courts, and even then, fairly sporadically until the 1950s and 1960s. (For example, laws banning anti-draft speech were upheld in WWI)
Many on the Religious Right like to point out the fact that they used to "get away" with government sponsored religion, and claim this is, thus, what the founders intended, never mind their own writings to the contrary. Of course, the point is sort of moot; even if it was the "original intent" (I do not think it was), it is no more valid today than slavery or denying women the right to vote is. I suspect that at least some of the founders (Jefferson, Paine, etc) would be aghast at the idea that a nation would consider itself bound by what men 200+ years dead might have thought about things. I think they had a better view of humanity than that, and designed a system of government fit for free men and women -- not those who would slavishly follow the customs and mores of a different time.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 08:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-28 11:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-29 01:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-29 12:16 am (UTC)That they think it makes their point, rather than showing them to be desperate loons, is maddest of all
Actually, it makes their point better. You need to friend ozarque. One of the things she talks about is the Unifying Metaphor:
"If we had to choose a single most popular Great American Unifying Metaphor, it would unquestionably be the Western Frontier. That one can be used over and over and over again; it never fails. The Marlboro man is its personification. Almost every American (even the American Indian, which is both ironic and mystifying) grows up today watching Westerns on television and in the movies; and the whole elaborate system -- a kind of consensus perception of reality -- is something you can expect to find in almost everyone's memory. Wether any of it is true or logical or any of those good things is irrelevant. (It was in the Wester Fronteir that guns never ran out of bullets no matter how often you fried them, all Indians spoke the same language and lived in wigwams or teepees, and hired killers preferred horses to women. None of that has any logic behind it, but it does not interfere with our consensus perception of the West as having been that way.) That metaphor of the Old West is a perceptual peg, and from it hang a whole lot of things that you don't ever have to mention....A construct like this is very, very useful. It saves enormous amounts of time, effort and money. If you can find a unifying metaphor to use as a peg for your proposal, whatever it may be, you can rely of all the presupposed semantic chunks that go with it, and you won't have to go to the trouble of explaining them. Furthermore, people will feel comfortable with the things you say, because they are familiar with the metaphor; it's like a house they've lived in or a shoe they've worn, and they just **know** that you are someone they can follow with confidence. When JFK organized the language of his presidency around the New Frontier, he knew this, and the effect was predictable...."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-29 12:17 am (UTC)