The standards are what we, as public school teachers, are required to teach. If our textbooks are inadequate (as is the 6th grade social studies book I use to teach is), we, the teachers, are still required to teach the standards by whatever other means.

Therefore, a useful and quality textbook with meaningful and relevant information is important, but not necessary.

My point is NOT that the textbook is unimportant — they are important — but the issue that is even more pressing is keeping our eye on the verbiage of the standards of Texas and all states, as the state mandated curriculum standards will have even further reaching implications than just the textbooks.

I suspected we didn’t disagree on much. I think you are right that perhaps the difference between no establishment and separation is our main disagreement (or misunderstanding). It just seemed with ” that he was trying specifically to prevent the establishment of a national religion” you were implying that Madison perhaps didn’t see the first amendment as expansively as we do today. My point with providing his quotes was simply to point out that wasn’t the case. He, for instance, vetoed a law creating a chaplain for Congress even though it fell far short of declaring Christianity the official religion. He saw that, though it didn’t force anyone to join any particular sect, it could intrude upon people’s free exercise of their chosen sect and thereby have an effect similar to establishment. That’s a pretty expansive view.

As to how far that expansive view spread beyond the founders I would just argue that many religious sects did understand the implications of the Constitution and their support is why it ultimately was accepted. Remember too that the Constitution consciously included no reference to God and strictly forbid religious tests for holding office. This strongly suggests a desire for government to keep its nose out of religion in general not “merely” against establishment. Surely not everyone agreed with these view but I would argue that it was well understood by opponents and friends alike.

I won’t belabor this point over a minor difference of opinion any longer. I will just leave off with a cute poem, found in Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers, by a Baptist Rev. David Thomas that accompanied a petition against a religious assessment bill in Virginia that I think shows the spirit of the age.

Tax all things; water, air and light
If there need be; yea, tax the night
But let our brave heroick minds
Move freely as celestial winds.
Make vice and folly feel your rod,
But leave our consciences to God.

As to the points about deism and hostility to religion: People tend to operate under a false dichotomy when they talk about the beliefs of the founders. One myth is that they were all practicing Christians, and that they intended to create a Christian nation. The other myth is that they were all anti-religious deists who were trying to create a completely secular nation. Neither is true. The reason it matters is that I don’t think people in the former camp (like the Texas BoE) would be so cavalier about erasing Jefferson from the history books if they didn’t think his inclusion bolstered the latter camp in some zero-sum game. (I’m not saying that you’re operating under this false dichotomy. I’m saying that the reliance on the “separation” language instead of the “establishment” language leans the debate to this kind of dichotomy)

I also never said it was a “sneak attack” or that they “pulled a fast one.” I assume you’re basing that off the “infiltration of Enlightenment ideals” language in my original post. You completely misunderstand me. I don’t mean that anyone was tricked. What I mean is that certain post-Enlightenment ideals (rationality, freedom of conscience, political equality) affected the religious beliefs of people at the time. The “infiltration” naturally results from the co-existence of those ideas. Christianity in the post-Enlightenment era is very different from Christianity in the pre-Enlightenment era.

“Are you hinting at what is sometimes claimed , namely that he wouldn’t have minded a little co-mingling as long as it fell short of a national church? This is simply false as is easily demonstrated , as I said in my original comment, by Madison’s own words.” What Madison would or would not have minded isn’t the point. What matters is what the states ratified. Many (maybe most) people really were fine with co-mingling. Again, I think they were wrong.

As to the Texas BoE amendment to the education standards: Obviously, those guys are assholes. They are blatantly inserting their own political bias into the curriculum, and the amendment should have failed. I took that as a given.

I think our main disagreement, excepting instances where I was unclear or you misunderstood me, is on the equivalence of “no establishment” and “separation.” I don’t think they’re the same thing. I don’t think a First Amendment requiring “complete separation,” as opposed to “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” would have passed, although I would have voted for it. We don’t have a national religion, and contemporary doctrines concerning establishment take for granted that there is some co-mingling of religion and government, that there is not complete and utter separation. That lack of separation is, right now, legally acceptable unless it reaches the level of establishment.

Texas is what we call an “adoption state”. Textbooks that are on the approved SBOE list are bought by the state for individual school districts at no direct cost to the schools per se.

Given that Texas is the second most populous state in the country, with our 900+ public school districts, we are therefore the single largest purchaser of textbooks. Publishers are highly motivated to cater to their biggest customers, and are left with two alternatives. Used to be that there were “Texas Editions” of school books, but technology has changed the economics of book publishing (just like the music business), and the publishers are laboring to keep up and still be profitable.

Online books may solve this problem in the future, but it assumes that all school children can afford computers and internet access.

I would think colleges would jump on board with this more quickly than they seem to be.

As far as producing on-line text books. Aside from issues of accessibility and ease-of-use, I don’t think these would have the ‘weight’ and credibility of a paper publication. People, rightly or wrongly, tend to associate the Internet with throwaway, ephemeral information. A book, any book, carries a certain amount of gravitas.

For the purpose of this comment I’ll use Jefferson’s definition of separation of church and state.
their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

While I agree that there was nuance in religious beliefs it is not clear to me what you are objecting to re:separation of church and state. The purpose of the amendment to the standard was to require teaching why people such as Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, and Franklin thought the institutions of government and religion should be separate. This does not preclude teaching nuance in their personal beliefs so I fail to see what your objection is.

There is no mention of deism in the amendment to standards. No mention of anyone being hostile to religion. So I fail to see your point on those 2 items. What about those particular nuances changes whether or not children should be introduced to an idea that the people who were most influential in shaping the form of the United States government held? An idea that had great influence on other nations at the time and still today.

Your notion that Madison (et al) somehow pulled a fast one is simply not supported. Yes there were people strongly opposed to his ideals but they lost! The issues were widely known and debated from the time of Jefferson’s religious liberty bill in Virginia (supported by Madison) right up through the contentious debate over the omission of the word God and no requirement of a religious oath in the Constitution. In fact it was, ironically, evangelical Christians who may have provided the deciding support for such secular decisions. Though many states tried to add the words God or Jesus Christ to the preamble of the Constitution all such efforts were ultimately defeated. After the Constitution was ratified many states began altering their Constitutions to reflect the secular nature of the federal one. No, this was no sneak attack. This was a widely accepted ideal.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to say when you state “[Madison] was trying specifically to prevent the establishment of a national religion.” Is that not the essence of separation? I don’t think you are claiming that he opposed the 2nd half of separation where free exercise is not to be prohibited. Are you hinting at what is sometimes claimed , namely that he wouldn’t have minded a little co-mingling as long as it fell short of a national church? This is simply false as is easily demonstrated , as I said in my original comment, by Madison’s own words.

So as not to make this comment even longer I am linking to some quotes I have gathered elsewhere. http://bit.ly/bfw4nR . Again, your intention here was not clear to me so if that isn’t what you were claiming then I guess I did a lot of copy paste for nothing.

Another mistake should be noted. What exactly Washington’s religion was is not exactly a settled issue. Some claim he was in fact a deist based on things like not taking communion and preferring terms like Great Spirit to God. I won’t delve in to that though since it is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not he thought shared religion was a help to civic government he still strongly support the separation of church and state. You can find a quote by him at the same link above.

So in summary on the question of the proposed amendment to the school standards (“examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”)… Was separation of church and state a belief held by the men most associated with the founding of the United States government? Yes. Did the founders intend to promote religion as the Republican board member claimed? No. Was it a concept widely debated and accepted (by solid majorities) by the society at large? Yes. Was it important not only to the US but in European revolutions and reforms? Yes. Should it be taught to high school children as an idea that was important to the founding of our country and the world at large? Yes.