History Is Texas Reshaping American Education with Conservative Textbooks?

[Evo]

This is rather disturbing, to say the least.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

The nation’s public school curriculum may be in for a Texas-sized overhaul, if the Lone Star state’s influential recommendations for changes to social studies, economics and history textbooks are fully ratified later this spring.

Don McElroy, who leads the board’s powerful seven-member social conservative bloc, explained that the measure is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left." And the board's critics have labeled the move an attempt by political "extremists" to "promote their ideology."

The revised standards have far-reaching implications because Texas is a huge market leader in the school-textbook industry. The enormous print run for Texas textbooks leaves most districts in other states adopting the same course materials, so that the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation’s textbook market. That means, for instance, that schools in left-leaning states like Oregon and Vermont could soon be teaching from textbooks that are short on references to Ted Kennedy but long on references to conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.

Here are some of the other signal shifts that the Texas Board endorsed last Friday:

continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253

 

[waht]

How could this even get in there:

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

 

[MotoH]

Well at least I'm not in high school anymore.

 

[calculusrocks]

If parents were allowed tax credits for not using the public school system, then there would be a lot more choice. That means if you want to put your kid in a school with different curriculum from neighbors, then you don't have to pay for the public schools that your kids don't use. The uniformity of the textbooks is a direct result of a government monopoly.

 

[Nebula815]

Some good, some bad, textbooks will never be perfect. I know textbooks for very long have been skewed to the Left, I remember reading an elementary school textbook that talked about how government money should be spent and not be spent, one example of how it should not be spent being a missile defense system Don't know what THAT was doing in an elementary school text!

I might be wrong but I think one reason Latin and Hispanic history is being curtailed is to make more room for European history. Latin and Hispanic history deals with the Inca, Aztec, etc...which while nice, are not what created modern society. We got the English language, modern science, common law, and all that, from Europe and European history is thus very important. If you are Hispanic and want to learn hispanic history, fine, but the history of the nation is more what you need to be taught in school (they cannot make room for every nation and culture's history).

Not including Jefferson I think is bad.

 

[Evo]

I might be wrong but I think one reason Latin and Hispanic history is being curtailed is to make more room for European history. Latin and Hispanic history deals with the Inca, Aztec, etc...which while nice, are not what created modern society. We got the English language, modern science, common law, and all that, from Europe and European history is thus very important. If you are Hispanic and want to learn hispanic history, fine, but the history of the nation is more what you need to be taught in school (they cannot make room for every nation and culture's history).

Not including Jefferson I think is bad.

Actually, Texas was part of Mexico. Remember the Alamo and Santa Anna? Mexico is an extremely inmportant part of Texas history.

 

[MotoH]

Actually, Texas was part of Mexico. Remember the Alamo and Santa Anna? Mexico is an extremely inmportant part of Texas history.

I am pretty sure the Texans are way more proud of being American than they are of being ex-Mexicans.

 

[Nebula815]

Actually, Texas was part of Mexico. Remember the Alamo and Santa Anna? Mexico is an extremely inmportant part of Texas history.

Sure it is. But not going into depth on Hispanic and Latin history doesn't mean they are excluding Mexico as it relates to the history of the United States. We don't need to go deeply into depth on the history of Japan either, but Japan was a part of our history in the sense of pulling us into WWII.

 

[calculusrocks]

Not including Jefferson I think is bad.

Jefferson should definitely be included.

 

[edward]

I am pretty sure the Texans are way more proud of being American than they are of being ex-Mexicans.

Mexico is taking the Southwest back one person at a time on foot, or 15 at a time in minivans.

 

[rootX]

How could this even get in there:

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

Nonsense. I don't know what's in the brains of these people. Neither I understand how people like them have power to make these decisions/plans.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd like to actually see the textbook. I'm curious how accurate the descriptions of it are -- they make it sound quite bad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This idea of Texas seceding from the Union is sounding better all the time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I first moved to Oregon, I found that the local high school was teaching that it is "economic pollution" to leave the remaining 5% of Oregon's old-growth forests standing.

The book used was written by a local teacher who received a personal visit from me.

 

[DanP]

"is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left."

A funny idea. If you can't get enough political support, enforce it into the minds of children.
The Conservative Religious Right never ceases to amuse me. I wonder when they'll move to drop Darwin and evolution from scholar programs.

 

[BobG]

In 2001, California had 6.2 million students, Texas 4.2 million, New York 2.9 million, Florida 2.5 million, and Illinois 2.1 million - out of 48 million students nationwide. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/pdf/table37.pdf

How come Texas is so much more important than California when it comes to textbooks?

 

[MotoH]

California is too busy trying not to fall into the ocean to care about textbooks.

I believe Texas has more clout than California when it comes to decision making.

In Texas there are most likely more people who are reading the textbook than compared to California.

 

[BobG]

Would it be a bad sign if they obtained their new textbooks from http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/about ?

Interesting name for a textbook publisher. Maybe I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Liberals never fare well when shots ring out from the Texas School Book Depository.

 

[Mkorr]

How come Texas is so much more important than California when it comes to textbooks?

The difference is that Texas (but not California) approves and buys books for all the school districts in the state. Publishers often edit and revise textbooks in order to meet specific demands of the members of the Texas board.

NCSE: Consequences of the flawed standards in Texas? (concerning creationism, but I think it is equally valid for this topic)

 

[Nebula815]

"is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left."

A funny idea. If you can't get enough political support, enforce it into the minds of children.
The Conservative Religious Right never ceases to amuse me. I wonder when they'll move to drop Darwin and evolution from scholar programs.

The big-government "liberal" Left never cease to amaze me either with their efforts to brainwash children within the educational system. What you speak of goes both ways.

 

[DanP]

The big-government "liberal" Left never cease to amaze me either with their efforts to brainwash children within the educational system. What you speak of goes both ways.

Liberalism in US is far from being leftist.

If you call science "brainwashing" than yeah, you are right. Liberals are guilty :P But it's the fundamentalist right who tries to teach creationism to just about every being in schools, not the liberals.

 

[Nebula815]

Liberalism in US is far from being leftist.

Could have fooled me!

If you call science "brainwashing" than yeah, you are right. Liberals are guilty :P It's the fundamentalist right who tries to teach creationism to just about every being in schools, not the liberals.

I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about skewed teachings of American history to the ultra-leftist variant (skewed versions to the ultra-right variant are bad too), skewed teachings of the role of government in a society, etc...creationism teaching is more something the social fundamentalists want taught, not conservatives who are mostly concerned about proper/balanced teaching of history, economics, Constitution, and so forth. Science is certainly important, that's why I wrote in an earlier post about how it is more important to teach kids European history than something like Aztec or Inca history because it is Euro history that gave us things like Western science.

 

[DanP]

Could have fooled me!

Yeah. Well, small wonder.

I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about skewed teachings of American history to the ultra-leftist variant

Like ? The fact that women have the right to vote and to abortion ?
Besides, you have no idea what means ultra leftists politics. Not until you are deported to Siberia, or went killing with El Che

 

[Nebula815]

Like ? The fact that women have the right to vote and to abortion ?

Who says abortion is a "right?" I agree the option for abortion should be available, but it is debatable to claim whether or not it is a right, and Constitutionally, I do not agree with Roe v Wade as it was judicial activism IMO (even if one thinks abortion is a right does not mean Roe v Wade was correct).

On women's right to vote, yes, that is very important. If you notice, the Left oftentimes want Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as they prefer it to be written as opposed to how it actually is written. If conservatives complain about this, they claim that conservatives would allow blacks to still be slaves and deny women the right to vote.

It doesn't occur to them that conservatives want no such thing, but that you protect such rights by amending the Constitution, not judicial activism (otherwise a woman's right to vote would rest with a few justices on the Court and could be overturned! same with slavery; this is the problem with abortion right now, a woman's "right to choose" rests with a few people on the Court as opposed to a formal amendment).

Besides, you have no idea what means ultra leftists politics. Not until you are deported to Siberia, or went killing with El Che

There's different variants of the ultra-Left. British Labour Party pre-Margaret Thatcher was pretty ultra-Left, but not of the same types as Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc...

 

[calculusrocks]

"is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left."

A funny idea. If you can't get enough political support, enforce it into the minds of children.
The Conservative Religious Right never ceases to amuse me. I wonder when they'll move to drop Darwin and evolution from scholar programs.

The liberal argument against a tax credit for those parents who choose to enroll their children into private school has always been that parents are not as capable of making sound decisions regarding education as bureaucrats are. Now, all of a sudden, the liberals have a problem with the bureaucrats as they make decisions on the content of the textbooks. It's a little late in the game to cry foul.

DanP, what you fail to recognize that whether you like it or not half the country is Christian, so it has been the liberals who don't have the 'political support' you speak of, and have been enforcing it on the minds of children through a government monopoly for decades.

A survey has recently been taken by American Civic Liberty of people's knowledge of civics. It is abysmal. Here is how the survey was http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2010/survey_methods.html" .

In three successive years, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute conducted surveys to determine the impact a college education has on civic knowledge. In 2006, ISI gave approximately 14,000 college freshmen and seniors at fifty colleges nationwide a sixty-question multiple-choice exam on fundamental knowledge of America’s history and institutions. The average freshman scored 51.7% and the average senior scored 53.2%. In 2007, ISI tested another set of over 14,000 college freshmen and seniors. Similarly, the average freshman scored 50.4% and the average senior scored 54.2%.

I also would like to see what is in the textbooks as the article is somewhat vague and incomplete.

 

[DanP]

There's different variants of the ultra-Left. British Labour Party pre-Margaret Thatcher was pretty ultra-Left, but not of the same types as Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc...

I wouldn't call it ultra left not even before Thatcher. It was a center left in my view.

 

[Nebula815]

I wouldn't call it ultra left not even before Thatcher. It was a center left in my view.

Pre-Thatcher, the majority of the UK economy was dominated by big, nationalized enterprises that arm-wrestled with big, bureaucratic unions, and most of the "private" corporations were so regulated, they might as well have been appendages of the government, with only a small portion that was truly private-sector, along with ultra-high taxes; IMO, that's pretty far left. One doesn't need to be a genocidal dictator to be very Left. For decades India has had a mostly centrally-planned economy, but it has a democratic government still (democratic socialism). UK was similar.

 

[DanP]

The liberal argument against a tax credit for those parents who choose to enroll their children into private school has always been that parents are not as capable of making sound decisions regarding education as bureaucrats are. Now, all of a sudden, the liberals have a problem with the bureaucrats as they make decisions on the content of the textbooks. It's a little late in the game to cry foul.
[/URL].

Textbooks should reflect science.

Anything else shouldn't be taught at a children as part of the public system. If you feel that they should be exposed to the Christian view over the world , teach them privately in your home.

 

[calculusrocks]

Textbooks should reflect science.

Anything else shouldn't be taught at a children as part of the public system. If you feel that they should be exposed to the Christian view over the world , teach them privately in your home.

I don't know why there is confusion over what I'm saying still after saying it twice already. Alright, fine. I am simply saying that parents are more equipped to choose than bureaucrats are. One-size-fits-all public education has been a failure. If parents can afford after a tax credit to place their kids out of the public education system, then they are doing government a favor.

 

[DanP]

I don't know why there is confusion over what I'm saying still after saying it twice already. Alright, fine. I am simply saying that parents are more equipped to choose than bureaucrats are.

On this I would tend to agree with you.

 

[Ronnin]

Everyone of these threads become the same tired left vs. right argument. It gets beaten about ad nauseum eventually straying completely away from the OP. This nation has some real tough times ahead no matter what side of the political spectrum you on. But, we seem never able to hash out any real answers on any given issue because this is what contemporary American debate has evolved into. This especially annoys me when the topics have a direct impact on our children.

 

[Nebula815]

Everyone of these threads become the same tired left vs. right argument. It gets beaten about ad nauseum eventually straying completely away from the OP. This nation has some real tough times ahead no matter what side of the political spectrum you on. But, we seem never able to hash out any real answers on any given issue because this is what contemporary American debate has evolved into. This especially annoys me when the topics have a direct impact on our children.

The problem is for a lot of stuff there can be no bi-partisan answers, because both sides have fundamentally different views then the other, and also certain portions of each party are driven by ideology (with Democrats too many have an almost religious fervor in government as the answer to everything, with Republicans, a very fundamentalist Christian portion want to ram their religion down people's throat).

 

[BobG]

The difference is that Texas (but not California) approves and buys books for all the school districts in the state. Publishers often edit and revise textbooks in order to meet specific demands of the members of the Texas board.

NCSE: Consequences of the flawed standards in Texas? (concerning creationism, but I think it is equally valid for this topic)

With that much money at stake, why don't the publishers just bribe the decisionmakers?

It would be safer than publishing a textbook that might turn out to be worthless. It would also render any ideological debates moot.

 

[calculusrocks]

Everyone of these threads become the same tired left vs. right argument. It gets beaten about ad nauseum eventually straying completely away from the OP. This nation has some real tough times ahead no matter what side of the political spectrum you on. But, we seem never able to hash out any real answers on any given issue because this is what contemporary American debate has evolved into. This especially annoys me when the topics have a direct impact on our children.

I thought adding choice was a good solution. That way liberal parents can educate their children in liberalism, and Christians, Buddhists, etc. can choose to educate their children how they best feel fit. The problem, and this relates directly, is the uniformity in the textbook system, which seems somehow to be OK when the uniformity echos your own views, but not OK when it doesn't. DanP was attempting to trying to shift the debate into abortion, Darwinism, and Christianity.

 

[BobG]

"is a way of "adding balance" in the classroom, since "academia is skewed too far to the left."

A funny idea. If you can't get enough political support, enforce it into the minds of children.
The Conservative Religious Right never ceases to amuse me. I wonder when they'll move to drop Darwin and evolution from scholar programs.

The big-government "liberal" Left never cease to amaze me either with their efforts to brainwash children within the educational system. What you speak of goes both ways.

DanP, what you fail to recognize that whether you like it or not half the country is Christian, so it has been the liberals who don't have the 'political support' you speak of, and have been enforcing it on the minds of children through a government monopoly for decades.

Actually, much more than 50% of the country is Christian. However, that fact is irrelevant. The most heated debate is between a small number of atheists and an equally small number of fundamentalist Christians.

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

 

[calculusrocks]

Actually, much more than 50% of the country is Christian. However, that fact is irrelevant. The most heated debate is between a small number of atheists and an equally small number of fundamentalist Christians.

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

Well, I agree with that, and it's not a Christian/atheist issue. I do hope you were joking on the bribes stuff. An elite manipulating the situation would do absolutely nothing to solve the debate.

 

[DanP]

Perhaps the most annoying thing both sides do is to try to pretend that Christian fundamentalism and atheism are the only two choices that could ever possibly exist.

What would be a sensible choice in your opinion ?

 

[BobG]

I thought adding choice was a good solution. That way liberal parents can educate their children in liberalism, and Christians, Buddhists, etc. can choose to educate their children how they best feel fit. The problem, and this relates directly, is the uniformity in the textbook system, which seems somehow to be OK when the uniformity echos your own views, but not OK when it doesn't. DanP was attempting to trying to shift the debate into abortion, Darwinism, and Christianity.

Not that public schools do a great job of fulfilling their mission, but providing educational choice should not be the goal of a government funded program. The goal should be to teach the skills necessary to provide a better qualified labor force than the countries we compete against.

Teaching creationism would probably be bad, since you're intentionally creating less qualified students. But, as far as the other debates about teaching cultural and sexual diversity, cap it and spend less time on those subjects, in general. Schools should improve literacy, math, science knowledge, vocational skills (metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, electronics, etc). You want insight on how to improve education, go to employers for feedback, not educators, students, or parents.

If the country isn't obtaining some economic benefit from education, then it should drop it completely (or at least that portion), not turn it into a social welfare program designed to provide everyone the opportunity to brainwash their progeny.

 

[Char. Limit]

I also support the idea of tax credits in schools.

I do believe that, at least in history, the textbooks have been a bit left, especially in areas concerning politics, but I've just learned to read past the politics and find what facts there are in the text.

I feel that this debate could be solved with true choice in schools and textbooks, allowing parents to pick whichever school supports their beliefs, whichever they may be. A tax credit supports this, as many parents put their children in public schools because the private ones are too expensive.

My $0.02.

 

[DanP]

I The problem, and this relates directly, is the uniformity in the textbook system, which seems somehow to be OK when the uniformity echos your own views, but not OK when it doesn't. DanP was attempting to trying to shift the debate into abortion, Darwinism, and Christianity.

Actually, I couldn't care less if schools educate ppl in liberal values or not, or in conservative values or not. I don't give a dime.

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

 

[calculusrocks]

Actually, I couldn't care less if schools educate ppl in liberal values or not, or in conservative values or not. I don't give a dime.

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

 

[DanP]

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

Sure. the family has an important role in educating the children. It is their prerogative to educate the children in the values they feel important.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the instatution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

The problem of choosing an adequate institution for education is many time limited by social options. Unfortunately, many will not have the luxury of wide choices. this is OK, it is only natural that some have less choices than others. The important point is to recognize this, and try to build a competitive public education system.

 

[Evo]

Well, I certainly see your point. Religion should not be taught in public schools. But, what people do on their own dime is no business of mine so long as the math scores become competitive with the rest of the globe.

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

Where you live determines which school you attend, unless you go to a private school or get permission and pay for your child to attend an out of district school.

 

[Nebula815]

Not that public schools do a great job of fulfilling their mission, but providing educational choice should not be the goal of a government funded program. The goal should be to teach the skills necessary to provide a better qualified labor force than the countries we compete against.

Well that's actually what the public education system was designed for when one looks at its history and designers, problem is, teaching skills necessary to form a better qualified labor force isn't necessarily the same thing as educating people. The original goal of the educational system was to teach people to obey and follow orders. It was based off of the Prussian system, which was designed to produce soldiers and employees (with the idea that a classical education only be given to an elite few). It was not designed to enhance critical thinking skills and in certain ways was designed to retard them.

An example is how in public schools, children change classrooms for each class. This was done to socially condition people. If you read in T. Boone Pickens recent book, he even talks about how, back in the 1950s when he went to work for a big oil corporation, he said the work environment was almost identical to public school. You'd go in, have some free time, a bell would ring, you had five minutes to be at your work station, then later a lunch bell, eat lunch, bell again, back to work, etc...in private schools, children remain in the same classroom all day.

The Prussian type of school system is beloved by Big Government and Big Business because it creates a docile, sheeple labor force, a population easy to market all sorts of consumer goodies too, and an electorate easy to manipulate and control.

Today's public education system is the leftover remnants of such a system. There wasn't any central scheme or conspiracy to create such a school system, but if one studies the history and the people influential in the design of the public school system, that was much their mindset. For example Woodrow Wilson, a leading Progressive, who was President of Princeton University (and later POTUS), believed a classical education should only be given to an elite few, not to the masses.

Today, while we want a qualified labor force, we also want an educated people, who can think critically, and know civics and history and so forth (technically there is no need for any history or basic science even to be a good employee; what does an engineer, scientist, accountant, lawyer, etc...need to know history or elementary or high school science for? (the scientist can learn all that in college if that's the field they want to pursue)).

I think one way to create competition among the public schools is via vouchers. Also charter schools. Otherwise, as Evo says, one must attend the school within their district.

 

[turbo]

I think one way to create competition among the public schools is via vouchers. Also charter schools. Otherwise, as Evo says, one must attend the school within their district.

A favorite refrain of the neo-cons, because they can count on getting votes from the segment of the religious right that is intent on continuing segregation. I don't want my tax money flowing to all-white "Christian academies" in the deep south while their public school systems languish and fail to educate students.

 

[BobG]

ADD: The real intention of 'choice' in regard to schools is to improve the institution of education. I believe most rational parents will not care so much about the religion and the politics, and will intelligently look at these school's academic records and pick the schools that do the best jobs educating the children.

I'm cynical enough to believe most parents will pick their children's schools the same way they pick their eating establishments. They'll pick cheap, fast, and convenient - at least until a particular school proves that it can't provide cheapness, speed, convenience, and quality all at the same time, in which case that school goes out of business and parents look for a different cheap, fast, and convenient school.

The chances of a new school succeeding will probably be about the same as the chances of a new restaraunt succeeding - except you lose significant chunks of time every time you send your kid to a poor quality school.

On the other hand, the schools that do establish themselves as a quality establishment have an even greater opportunity for profits than your most elegant restaraunts. With the chunks of time you're talking about and the impact it can have on your kids, schools that establish themselves can charge exhorbitant tuitions far above whatever money parents are receiving from the government in vouchers.

Those suckers relying solely on vouchers for educating their kids can go suck eggs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What I care is keeping religion out of the schools, and lame excuses such as "academics is skewed on the left". In a word keep the poo of both religion and politics out of the schools.

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

We don't need an entire course on it, it should just be taught along with history, since religion is a huge part of history.

 

[BobG]

Interestingly, I feel just the opposite. I think that a course on religion would be good for high schools. I see too many people who misunderstand Islam, or don't know what agnostics are, or say false things about atheists, or set up strawman Christian beliefs, etc. A semesterlong course that discusses those and Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Sikhism, and various philosophies like Confucianism would be a good idea in my view. Real-world examples (motives of Sept. 11th terrorists, destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban, Sharia law, etc.) would also be nice, if there was time in the curriculum.

You understand proper display of the United States flag, don't you? (There's good chance of that answer being no, considering the diversity here). It has to be raised first, it has to be displayed on the right, it has to be displayed highest, etc.

That works in a country with one flag. You start teaching about various religions and most of the religions will be offended that they were given exactly equal treatment with every other religion. Most consider themselves more valid than other religions and deserving of more respect than other religions.

You'll only be able to include religions foreign enough to the United States that we won't care about the few people who do protest being grouped with the heretic religions (i.e - all the other religions besides theirs).