Check yo' sources

Lately I've been frustrated with people bitching about things they don't understand.  How do you know something doesn't work when you haven't even researched as to how it supposedly works?  How do you know a religion preaches violence when you've never cracked open its holy text?  How do you know the hidden meaning behind something when you can't even be arsed to check google or wikipedia (let alone read an actual book on the subject).  Do you really think dismissive, uninformed soundbites from the opposition are considered good research?  Come on - don't fall for the friggin' strawman. 

I'm not going to get into everything that's been vexing me, but I will share some links that illuminate a current popular news story as that's probably most relevant to the public interest out of everything I could potentially bitch about.

Satire.  History.
and now... one more.

The wonderful world of Deism

So how many of you have been following the Texas text book drama?  As someone who almost (and still might) make their career in academia, it's a topic that has me greatly concerned.  It seems to be getting media attention but I'm really not sure how much people are paying attention to it since Arizona has been hogging the spotlight with its jacked up legislation (If you've been living under a rock, I suggest checking out Dionysian Atavism's posts on racism or read the bills directly: SB1070 and HB 2281).

The Texas issue is very troubling because it directly impacts thousands of students all over the United States who will be using these text books.  It's a bastardization of history and it will influence how students think about the world and what they teach their future children.  I know teachers can at least choose not to cover some of the controversial material the way it's presented, but we also have to take into account that students are influenced by what they're not seeing as well.  Take for example the decision to leave out United Farmworkers founder Dolores Huerta and all her accomplishments and contributions to history because she's not dead yet.  Never mind that our history books cover plenty of other prominent figures that aren't dead yet.  Never mind that this looks racially and politically motivated since this woman is a prominent figure in the Chicano civil rights movement and a Democratic Socialist hated by Republicans and State schools chief Tom Horne from Arizona.  No, no - she was rejected because she's not dead yet.

There were also some attempts at sugar coating the slave trade by renaming it and de-emphasizing the civil rights movement while emphasizing the violence of the Black Panthers.  The former did not happen, but I'm unsure of the status of the latter.  While I think it's important to cover the Black Panthers, I have to ask why there is such a push to emphasize their violence.  This seems like such a trivial bit of history to focus on when we look at the broader picture of the civil rights movement as a whole.  So I have to ask, what is the board's agenda with this one?  I'm sure you can guess what I'm thinking.  But really, if the civil rights movement had been a violent revolution, could you really say we didn't deserve it?

Aside from all the suspiciously racist sounding amendments to the text books, the other big thing being pushed is that whole Christian Nation fairy tale.  You know, the one where our founding fathers were all super duper Christian and believe everything the Bible said and founded our country on these beliefs.   Yeah, I hate to break it to you but most of them were Deists.  For example: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison - ALL DEISTS.  Now you could say that Deism is just a type of Christianity or just a philosophical viewpoint within Christianity... but then I'd have to facepalm in response.

Deism came into vogue because of Newton's scientific discoveries and the great philosophical works published during what is known as the Age of Enlightenment.  If you ever get past an intro course in Philosophy, you might learn a little about this stuff.  Philosophers believed you could prove the existence of God (or a creator) through philosophical arguments.  One of the popular ones was based on cause and effect.  Everything's created by something, everything is set in motion by something else, etc.  But without a creator, or prime mover, we'd end up with an infinite regress.  (Which is a bad thing in case you were wondering.)  Another popular one was the Teleological argument.  The basic idea here is that nature is orderly and well designed.  It makes sense.  Never mind that we can chalk this up to evolution; this is clearly proof that some intelligent mind designed the place!  There's plenty more arguments where these came from, and I certainly don't purport to know which ones our founding fathers happened to like.

But how is Deism different from the Christianity I practice, you ask.  Ohhhh, let me tell you (since you're too lazy to read that wiki entry I posted).  Deists believe in some sort of creator, which most call God, by which we assume they mean the Christian God.  But it bears very little resemblance to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.  Funny I should mention that Bible thing.  Deists tend to think it's hogwash.  You see their God created the universe, set things in motion, but like a deadbeat parent he high-tailed it out of here after the birth.  The Bible is just a bunch of nice stories written by humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.  Jesus was just a hippie with controversial views.  God doesn't intervene, there are no miracles, there's not even an occasional birthday card.  Prayer is wonderful for meditation, cleansing, and affirmation, but God isn't going to intervene on your behalf no matter how much you grovel.  With beliefs like these, is it any wonder our Deist forefathers pushed for Separation of Church and State?

Our forefathers, and other prominent figures of the age, believed that reason should govern us. They put safeguards in place so that religious dogma would not control our nation. They promoted tolerance of other religions. Some biographers[36] hold the opinion that many of the American Founding Fathers (and especially Washington) believed that, as leaders of the nation, they should remain silent on questions of doctrine and denomination, to avoid creating unnecessary divisiveness within the nation; instead they should promote the virtues taught by religion in general. (via)   They held great reverence for God and creation, but they knew that no one agreed on the details and didn't want laws and other important decisions based on what someone claimed was the word of God.  If something was truly a good decision, then we would arrive at it through reason and intelligent discourse.

So when you call America a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles, you are doing a disservice to American history and our forefathers.  You're oversimplifying the truth and fooling your audience with an implied comparison to the Christianity practiced today.  You're ignoring Separation of Church and State and disgracing our forefathers intentions of religious freedom for ALL religions, not just sects of Christianity.