board77

Hey, at least Texas doesn't glorify and merchandise the formerly uneducated, poverty stricken and general backward nature of it's natives. A quick look at the yellow pages in the Ozark Mountain area- mostly near Branson, MO:

Hillbilly Inn Restaurant
The Hillbilly Inn Lounge
Hillbilly Country Auto Sales
Hillbilly Country Hotel
Hillbilly Pumping Hauling
The Hillbilly Tree Trimmer
Hillbilly Bowl
Hillbilly Electronics
Hillbilly Enterprises
Hillbilly Holler Custom Embroidery
Redneck Computers
Redneck Trailer Supplies
Redneck Restaurant
Redneck Street Rods


It's not a good thing to be a hillbilly or a redneck! I didn't find any entries under "stupid" or "idiot" or "moron" or "ignorant" or "uneducated" ... and yet entrepreneurs in that region are willing to label themselves with words that mean the same thing. I just don't get it.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

How does the importance of faith get downplayed today? I'm unsure that faith played as large a part in the founding of this nation than fundamentalists like to claim considering the history doesn't support their interpretations of christianity.

Well--this is just my impression, here--there seems to be a general trend to overlook the role faith played in the founding of this nation, either by teachers glossing over this information or choosing to focus instead on only the non-religious factors. I think some, on the extreme end of things, even demonize the Christians of that time. While I would probably agree with others that Franklin, Jefferson, et al were not Christians (maybe fundamentalist Christians is a better term), some of that is ambiguous and subject to personal interpretation.

There are many important things that are being emphasized these days that were glossed over even when I went to grade school, e.g., the impact on the Native Americans of the European settlers. (Again, that can go to extremes, too.)

I'm a two-sides-to-every-story kind of person, so I prefer to acknowledge the complexities of most situations.

Also, even if certain key people in the formation of this nation were not Christians, per se, they still came from a Judeo-Christian culture and background, which certainly formed the basis of much of what we have today in the way of laws and society. When people want to remove references to God in government property (documents, statues, buildings, money, etc.), that does bother me, because it feels like an attempt to deny where we came from as a nation.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that well, as I'm for the separation of church and state. (Hey, I am Baptist [whether I like it or not], and that's a big part of our heritage.)

The assertion that Lincoln wasn't a Christian is a new one to me, I think. ?? Links?


Good post, Dave.

Thinking about this for moment, and I understand Lali's point here, that the US was founded on Christian beliefs. So where does that leave the Native Americans? Their God wasn't the right God? Taking this a step further, what would happen if we changed the US was founded by God to the US was founded by Allah? or Buddha? or any other name of God. Does God play favorites? And if God does play favorites what was so special about the US? Was it the untapped natural resources that God provided that made the country so powerful? Did God inspire Louis 14 to bankrupt France (thus leading to his grandsons beheading some years later) to send money and arms and men to help fight the Brits? Did the Brits piss God off?

It is not possible to teach the early beginnings of the US without talking about Christianity. This is because the early white settlers were religious and political dissidents who essentially got kicked out of their home countries or were simply fleeing the wars that followed the Reformation. In a time when there was no separation between church and state, to subscribe to a flavor of Christianity different from whatever your state sanctioned could get you killed at worst, deprived of wealth and property at best. And the flavors of Christianity that dominated each particular colony varied, as did the role played by religion in day to day existence of the colony. In fact, Massachusetts was set up to be a divine city on the hill sort of place where Calvinists could be purely Calvinist and so on. OTOH, colonies like MD and VA and the Carolinas were set up basically to grow cash crops like tobacco, cotton, and indigo. Religion wasn't quite so important. Furthermore, the US, once it got up and running, was somewhat unique at the time in that it had no state religion and never intended to instate one. Which would they pick? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Catholicism? The Church of England? Baptism? And after they picked, what would they do with those who worshipped differently? Revert to the same practices their fathers and mothers and, possibly, they themselves fled?

My point is, the role of Christianity in the founding of the US is not cut and dried. To say it was all about Christianity is not accurate. And to say Christianity had nothing to do with it is also not accurate.

BTW, I learned all of that in school. As I said, you can't talk about US or European history for that matter, without talking about Christianity. And you can't talk about American literature without talking about Christianity either. But there's the academic way of looking at it and the theological way and that might be where the fundamentalists get hung up.

LalaithUrwen wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

How does the importance of faith get downplayed today? I'm unsure that faith played as large a part in the founding of this nation than fundamentalists like to claim considering the history doesn't support their interpretations of christianity.

Well--this is just my impression, here--there seems to be a general trend to overlook the role faith played in the founding of this nation, either by teachers glossing over this information or choosing to focus instead on only the non-religious factors. I think some, on the extreme end of things, even demonize the Christians of that time. While I would probably agree with others that Franklin, Jefferson, et al were not Christians (maybe fundamentalist Christians is a better term), some of that is ambiguous and subject to personal interpretation.

There are many important things that are being emphasized these days that were glossed over even when I went to grade school, e.g., the impact on the Native Americans of the European settlers. (Again, that can go to extremes, too.)

I'm a two-sides-to-every-story kind of person, so I prefer to acknowledge the complexities of most situations.

Also, even if certain key people in the formation of this nation were not Christians, per se, they still came from a Judeo-Christian culture and background, which certainly formed the basis of much of what we have today in the way of laws and society. When people want to remove references to God in government property (documents, statues, buildings, money, etc.), that does bother me, because it feels like an attempt to deny where we came from as a nation.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that well, as I'm for the separation of church and state. (Hey, I am Baptist [whether I like it or not], and that's a big part of our heritage.)

The assertion that Lincoln wasn't a Christian is a new one to me, I think. ?? Links?


Good post, Dave.

I don't see your point. Certainly the founders all came from a judeo-christian background, and our rule of law has some basis in the ten commandments, but how much is really getting glossed over? If christianity's influence is more of a background, then teaching that christianity influenced the founding of the nation is misleading. The early settlers came for religious freedom, but (to my knowledge) few came with the desire to start a nation based on their religion. The settlers who wanted to create a nation did so more out of monetary desires than religious. Edit: River had a good post. Didn't read it right away.

The removal of 'god' from government property is more of a fixing of history rather than denying it. Take the Pledge of Allegiance as one example; "under god" was added in the 1950s. Citation: click The phrase "in god we trust" didn't appear on money until 1864. Citation: click. I picked these two examples so as to not take up too much space unless the thread heads that way.

Do you know of any stories of teachers either glossing over the religious impact on the Americas, or demonizing it?

Wot River sed.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Do you know of any stories of teachers either glossing over the religious impact on the Americas, or demonizing it?

I can't think of any specific stories right now, and I don't know any specific names to give you. Sorry. You can dismiss my view, if you like. I don't think it's totally unfounded, though; I just don't have time to research it and show otherwise.

Good discussion, though!

LalaithUrwen wrote:

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Do you know of any stories of teachers either glossing over the religious impact on the Americas, or demonizing it?

I can't think of any specific stories right now, and I don't know any specific names to give you. Sorry. You can dismiss my view, if you like. I don't think it's totally unfounded, though; I just don't have time to research it and show otherwise.

Good discussion, though!

I'm not trying to dismiss your view. I want to understand it, but I cannot without more elaboration.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was trying to say that you would be pretty well justified in dismissing my view because I haven't been able to provide any concrete proof.

I guess it's more of an overall feeling (which I am not a big fan of, normally). There has been a shift in viewpoint over what would've been taught 100 years ago versus what is taught today. Not all of that is bad, of course. Some it is very good, but I do think it can go too far into political correctness and the like. Again, that is my view, but I don't have the time or energy to dig up examples for anyone.

One of my guides to life in the USA in the 19th century is Laura Ingalls Wilder. I've read her books since I was 7 years old and still read them. Religion had almost no mention in her books. "Almost", not "none". Her mother Caroline didn't like living in the wilderness because they couldn't attend church, but it is pretty clear that Caroline missed the social contact, not the operations of religious expression. Once, the Ingalls family was glad to get a "missionary barrel" from Back East. The Rev. Allen was a special friend. But that's about it.

When Laura was to marry her Almanzo, she asked that the word "obey" be removed from her wedding vows. It was. It was about that time that Laura wrote of her distaste for revival meetings.

"Little Women" and Alcott's other books are another dependable view of 19th century America. Jo March's dad was a clergyman, and that was just his job. The business of going to church, of viewing themselves as religious people, was not important enough to be often mentioned in Louisa May Alcott's books.

I have read novels that were clearly religious tracts, but at no time did the author indicate that America was a "religious country" or that a god had made the place special. Without exception, my readings from the past make it clear that religious faith and its expressions were personal and meant to be personal.

The present view, that America is, first and foremost, a Christian nation, is not at all the view of most of your ancestors.

Either that, or it was so taken for granted that church, faith, God, and all of that were such a part of people's lives that it didn't even need to be mentioned.

In any case, I think you assume a lot from things that could be taken different ways, imo. (For example, I don't think it's clear that Caroline only missed the social contact that church brought to their lives. It was definitely one aspect of it she missed, but it assumes a lot to say that it was the only thing she really missed about it.)

I don't like revival meetings either, btw.

Well, those are only 2 authors of many I've read and I stand by my view that the importance of PUBLIC religious observance is a newer thing.

Looking at it from my perspective, it is clear that "the founders" intentionally created a nation where religion was a private matter and public affairs were to be kept free of any interference by any church/faith/sect. Equally clear is the idea that the nation/state is NOT to interfere with any church/faith/sect. (I like the fact, and it is a fact, that the Pilgrim fathers, over 100 years before Jefferson et al, did not seek "religious freedom" except for themselves, they had no idea that any other branch of Christianity had any validity whatsoever and made no bones about it.)

The addition of religious, specifically Christian, expressions on the coinage and into the pledge of allegiance, were, in my view, very much improper in the kind of nation the founding fathers had. The words are not intended, were never intended, to be about any god but the Christian god. It's fine and dandy to assert, as some do, that god is god and not specifically Christian, but that's not how it works. Look at the uproar, which isn't dead, and the lie, about Mr. Obama being a Muslim. A nation full of religious tolerance would not care what religion a man professes.

It is said that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles, but that is not quite the truth. (US law follows on directly from English law, not the law of any other nation. France has a very different law code, for example). The ideals of The Enlightenment drove the founders, and the ideals of the Enlightenment did not spring from Christianity, but were in fact often directly opposed to it.

Quote:

In any case, I think you assume a lot from things that could be taken different ways, imo. (For example, I don't think it's clear that Caroline only missed the social contact that church brought to their lives. It was definitely one aspect of it she missed, but it assumes a lot to say that it was the only thing she really missed about it.)

If you think vison is assuming why Caroline missed church, you also assume that Caroline had another reason (implied religious) for missing church. I haven't read enough Laura Ingalls Wilder to know why Caroline missed church, but in this case I would agree with vison based solely because she stated that read many of those books, and continues to do so.

Teaching children that America was founded with god in mind would be placating a viewpoint that has yet to prove itself, and it isn't simply a matter of interpretation. There is a lot of evidence that one nation under god was not the intention of the founders, and even settlers; from the language of the constitution, to the declaration, to the bill of rights, and to the 50s cold war additions, a correct reading of the founding of America was freedom, and freedom alone.

There is a trend with American fundamentalists today to get a certain interpretation of the founding of this nation accepted as a valid interpretation, but the motivation bothers me. Why is your god so important that he belongs in places with little, or no evidence? I don't think Lali is part of these fundamentalists, but I do think that she buys some of their doubts which they confuse for evidence. The same thing is happening in science with the intelligent design movement. The theory cannot support itself except by criticizing a well supported theory, and many districts claim to only want to acknowledge that evolution isn't the only theory in science class where even their unsupported acknowledgment does not belong.

Sorry for the tangent, but I see some similarities. I don't trust the motivation because too many fundamentalists want this to be a christian nation, and that goes against the founders or else they would have just created a christian nation.

Well, TED, I have read all of Laura Ingall Wilder's books all of my life as well and continue to do so. vison is a bit older than me (and so has probably read them more times than I have???), but those books are dear friends to both of us. What you said was exactly my point--it could be interpreted different ways and both views are assumptions. My guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between. But I certainly wouldn't base my view on 19th century religious life in America on it (though, together with other sources, it might make an interesting support to a theory).

The fact that this country was founded mainly by Protestants is somehow significant, I think. (I'm just not exactly sure how.)

I'm not sure I'm confusing doubts for evidence. I really don't think it's a stretch to say that this society has moved into a postmodern worldview. With such a change in any culture, history often gets reinterpreted through that lens.

Quote:

I'm not sure I'm confusing doubts for evidence. I really don't think it's a stretch to say that this society has moved into a postmodern worldview. With such a change in any culture, history often gets reinterpreted through that lens.

We are in a postmodern worldview. I agree with you there.

I didn't know you also knew Laura Ingalls Wilder books since you didn't mention it until now.

The fact that the country was settled with protestants is significant because they oppressed groups. If it was the catholics, then most of the settlers might have been catholic.

I didn't think I needed to mention it in order to have my point taken seriously, but that's fine. I've mentioned it now, and we're on the same page.

I guess I was thinking more of a particular mindset that characterized many Protestants and how that might be different than the older denominations of Christianity (and I don't mean oppression). It's a passing thought that's probably not worth spending time on.

Quote:

I didn't think I needed to mention it in order to have my point taken seriously, but that's fine. I've mentioned it now, and we're on the same page.

Well, it helped when reading the discussion of that particular character. No offense, but how would I know if you were speaking from experience (reading) rather than repeating what you heard, or what you were told?

Sure, but that doesn't really fit with what my post said. I was not trying to put forth the argument that Caroline missed church only because of the religious aspects. I was merely pointing out alternative explanations for what vison posted.

And, really, no offense, but it's not like the Little House books are exactly obscure. I'm sure there are many qualified "experts" on here.

Anyway, whatever. No offense taken here, and we're "arguing" some rather minor things at this point.

LalaithUrwen wrote:

The fact that this country was founded mainly by Protestants is somehow significant, I think. (I'm just not exactly sure how.)

First of all, it wasn't all Protestants. I'm pretty sure there were some Deists, Anglicans, and Catholics involved as well. But the fact that Protestants were heavily involved is significant because, as someone else mentioned, at the time North America was being colonized, the Protestants were an oppressed group. Back then, the idea that church and state could be separated was nothing short of revolutionary and if you didn't subscribe to the state religion, you were in a lot of trouble. So much trouble you were liable to be treated as a second class citizen, get thrown out of your home country, be forced to convert, be maimed or get killed if you were caught worshipping in some manner other than your state decreed. The founders knew this. If they themselves had not lived it, their recent ancestors had. It colored their thinking. They didn't want to see the bloodshed and misery and exiling happening again, not when they were carving a nation out of a bunch of colonies that had been founded for a myriad of reasons, ranging from generating cash to dumping religious/political dissidents in a nice out of the way spot on the other side of a big ocean where they wouldn't bother anybody (I descend from that latter group ) and had all the accompanying diversity in ideas to contend with.

Isn't the Texas schoolboard suggesting that God actively guided them to Zion, I mean America? Isn't that the problem, rather than whether the founding was politically or religiously motivated?