Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants to Push Christian Revisionist History in Public Schools

[Saint Frankenstein]

Trump's lip service to Fundamentalist Christians, is a very small price for him to pay in order for him to be in power as POTUS.

No atheist, who honestly admits his lack of Faith, is ever going to be elected to the U.S. Presidency.

Christianity is on the decline. In a few generations, it will be quite likely that we will have openly atheist major nominees, especially if more young people start running and push the old fogies out. Trump's base lost decades ago. They know it and they're scared.

 

[Salvador]

Christianity is on the decline. In a few generations, it will be quite likely that we will have openly atheist major nominees, especially if more young people start running and push the old fogies out. Trump's base lost decades ago. They know it and they're scared.

By the time this happens, I'll likely be long gone out of existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Continental Congress was never judged to be in error.

But, as a revisionist that you believe in, you would obviously ignore that.

That is incorrect. The First Amendment to the Constitution corrected that error, though you may not understand that. That Congress never repeated that error means they understood it better than you do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and
mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine
our selves together into a civil body politick. MAYFLOWER
COMPACT, 1620

The Mayflower Compact has just as much legal standing in America as the Articles of Confederation.
And you seem to not know of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Jefferson, which officially declares the United States is not "in any sense, founded upon Christian principles."

 

[shunyadragon]

My primary concern is that Donald J. Trump keeps most of his campaign promises, which I do believe he has done.

His campaign promises centered on his evangelical Christian base, which on the basis of this you support.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nobody voted for Donald J. Trump to be like the Pope or to be like Mike Pence, who is Trump's Christian Fundamentalist vote magnet. We Trump supporters voted for Donald J. Trump as President, because we agree with Donald J. Trump's vision and conservative populism agenda for making America Great Again. President Trump has indeed kept most of his campaign promises for making America Great again by way of the deregulation of business that spurs economic growth, a globally competitive corporate tax rate that attracts business investments in our nation, having trade deals that are fair to America i.e.- replacement of NAFTA with the USMCA trade deal, the repeal of the Obamacare tax mandate, having a tough stance against illegal alien criminality, prison reform, the withdrawal of American troops from god forsaken crap holes, and the appointment of conservative judges.

Now that Donald J. Trump has done what is necessary for making America Great Again, his continued executive leadership is needed for keeping America Great. ...

 

[Kenny]

That is incorrect. The First Amendment to the Constitution corrected that error, though you may not understand that. That Congress never repeated that error means they understood it better than you do.

Please quote source to substantiate this position. As it currently stands, your statement is a revisionist statement coming from the 1960's but hardly representative of the almost 200 years of precedent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please quote source to substantiate this position. As it currently stands, your statement is a revisionist statement coming from the 1960's but hardly representative of the almost 200 years of precedent.

It appears that you are claiming not to understand the First Amendment. Let me see if I can find a primer for you:

Establishment Clause

"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

The act that you mentioned supported Christianity as a religion. That is unconstitutional as explained above. That amendment corrected the error of the Continental Congress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please quote source to substantiate this position. As it currently stands, your statement is a revisionist statement coming from the 1960's but hardly representative of the almost 200 years of precedent.

It appears that you are claiming not to understand the First Amendment. Let me see if I can find a primer for you:

Establishment Clause

"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

The act that you mentioned supported Christianity as a religion. That is unconstitutional as explained above. That amendment corrected the error of the Continental Congress.

 

[Kenny]

The Mayflower Compact has just as much legal standing in America as the Articles of Confederation.
And you seem to not know of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Jefferson, which officially declares the United States is not "in any sense, founded upon Christian principles."

Yes the Mayflower Compact said that its purpose was:

We whose names are under-written having undertaken for
the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our
king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts
of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence
of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil body politick.


And your statement of the Treaty of Tripoli is a GREAT example of revisionism promoted by Christophobic people:


1) There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence anywhere and there hasn’t beenfor well over 200 years.

2) The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as “the original” was an Englishversion copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).

3) There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree thatArticle 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy, and most probably bythe America diplomat Joel Barlow, who helped negotiate the treaty and who washimself a skeptic of Christianity.

4) When the tampered English translation version was presented to Congress forratification in 1797, in spite of Article 11 inserted and included, they had to passthe treaty anyway out of political expedience and immediate urgency to quicklystop the carnage of militant pirate attacks upon American merchant ships in theMediterranean Sea. Because of the situation at hand, there would be no time tore-draft such a treaty and run it through the diplomatic channels again.

5) Eight years later when America gained a military upper hand on the situation, thisTreaty was renegotiated in 1805-6, and the “non-Christian” Article 11 phrase wasconspicuously removed and absent!

6) Those who attempt to use the Treaty of Tripoli as so called evidence proposingthat this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, typically ignore theTreaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War.

ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence” *

No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsifiedArticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treatiesand Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United StatesGovernment, Record group 11; National Archives)

7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part ofsecular humanists (their “strongest” isolated claim that America was notestablished upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a thedocument. Its claimed “non-Christian part” is readily admitted by non biasedexperts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. Byany standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature.


I do hope this helps you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes the Mayflower Compact said that its purpose was:

We whose names are under-written having undertaken for
the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our
king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts
of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence
of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a
civil body politick.


And your statement of the Treaty of Tripoli is a GREAT example of revisionism promoted by Christophobic people:


1) There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence anywhere and there hasn’t beenfor well over 200 years.

2) The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as “the original” was an Englishversion copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).

3) There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree thatArticle 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy, and most probably bythe America diplomat Joel Barlow, who helped negotiate the treaty and who washimself a skeptic of Christianity.

4) When the tampered English translation version was presented to Congress forratification in 1797, in spite of Article 11 inserted and included, they had to passthe treaty anyway out of political expedience and immediate urgency to quicklystop the carnage of militant pirate attacks upon American merchant ships in theMediterranean Sea. Because of the situation at hand, there would be no time tore-draft such a treaty and run it through the diplomatic channels again.

5) Eight years later when America gained a military upper hand on the situation, thisTreaty was renegotiated in 1805-6, and the “non-Christian” Article 11 phrase wasconspicuously removed and absent!

6) Those who attempt to use the Treaty of Tripoli as so called evidence proposingthat this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, typically ignore theTreaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War.

ThisTreaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly afoundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognizedthe independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... Ithaving pleased the Divine Providence” *

No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsifiedArticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treatiesand Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United StatesGovernment, Record group 11; National Archives)

7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part ofsecular humanists (their “strongest” isolated claim that America was notestablished upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a thedocument. Its claimed “non-Christian part” is readily admitted by non biasedexperts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. Byany standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature.


I do hope this helps you.

You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Events that happened before have little if any legal standing. And do you have a valid website that supports your claims about the Treaty of Tripoli? Not that that helps your claims very much, but it what you claim has any merit it would be interesting to know for sure.

EDIT: Don't bother, looked it up myself. It may or may not have been in the Arabic translation of the document. That does not really matter. For the U.S. the legal version does have article 11 in it. That was the one that the Senate ratified. That was the version that says:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

For the U.S. what matters is the version that they signed. The argument still stands.


Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

The FF, much like people here at RF, had various opinions about a lot of things, including religion plus church & state relationships. Just because Joe Schmoe said whatever doesn't make it the "law of the land", nor the Constitution itself.

In the U.N., we are classified as a secular state because we have no official religious affiliation even if most Americans identify as being Christian.

 

[Kenny]

It appears that you are claiming not to understand the First Amendment. Let me see if I can find a primer for you:

Establishment Clause

"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

The act that you mentioned supported Christianity as a religion. That is unconstitutional as explained above. That amendment corrected the error of the Continental Congress.

No... as a Christian nation, we value the freedom of religion.

Please go back to your history. Whoever was King, forced all people to believe as they did. If it was Catholic, then everyone had to be Catholic. If it was Protestant, then it was that particular protestantism that was forced. Thus, those who separated themselves from the Church of England, were called Separatists and were persecuted (though protestants)

You have to understand the history of WHY they created the first amendment. And, thus, there are no laws "respecting the establishment of a religion". Had nothing to do with the reality that it was a Christian nation as I quoted multiple sources that said it as much.

Revisionists want to make it sound that it was a secular nation.

Context:

"Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.

James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support."

I do hope that the historicity helps you understand.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes the Mayflower Compact said that its purpose was:

The Mayflower Compact has ZERO legal authority or standing in America. It's equally legally binding to us as is the Code of Hammurabi.

1) There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence anywhere and there hasn’t beenfor well over 200 years.

So, because the treaty signed by America and another country directly contradicts your views it's revisionist and doesn't actually exist?

 

[shunyadragon]

No... as a Christian nation, we value the freedom of religion.

Please go back to your history. Whoever was King, forced all people to believe as they did. If it was Catholic, then everyone had to be Catholic. If it was Protestant, then it was that particular protestantism that was forced. Thus, those who separated themselves from the Church of England, were called Separatists and were persecuted (though protestants)

You have to understand the history of WHY they created the first amendment. And, thus, there are no laws "respecting the establishment of a religion". Had nothing to do with the reality that it was a Christian nation as I quoted multiple sources that said it as much.

Revisionists want to make it sound that it was a secular nation.

The current trend is to include both in the textbooks. Previous textbooks did include the humanist influence in our history and our Constitution and legal system.

 

[Kenny]

The Mayflower Compact has ZERO legal authority or standing in America. It's equally legally binding to us as is the Code of Hammurabi.

So, because the treaty signed by America and another country directly contradicts your views it's revisionist and doesn't actually exist?

I can see you didn't read the whole thing... why?

 

[Kenny]

The current trend is to include both in the textbooks. Previous textbooks did include the humanist influence in our history and our Constitution and legal system.

I haven't seen that so I can't corroborate the statement

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can see you didn't read the whole thing... why?

I not only read it, I tried to find more about it. But all I found where morons who try to say that "“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" means something other than what it says and twist it around to try to say it doesn't actually say America isn't founded on Christianity but rather there are no religious opinions that would give rise the ongoing conflict that lead to the treaty, and assume that "Almighty" inherently means the Christian god.
And, FYI, Europe has largely been officially religious for a very long time. America was set in sharp contrast when it said it won't respect the establishment of religion (as well as nor prohibit the free exercise thereof).

 

[sooda]

The left alway pushes revisionist American History in publics schools. Obama went on the apology tour blaming the USA for all the troubles of the world, while ignoring the impact of dictators ad socialist atrocities. This was consistent with left wing education.

The left is very insecure, since their propaganda is metastable, and will not take much to knock over, if the students start to discuss alternate ideas. Currently, the left has a monopoly when it comes to forced indoctrination via testing where students have to repeat the lie to get a good test score. They fear others will use testing to force a competing indoctrination.

The main cause of revisionist history, in public schools, is due to the left based educational system, trying to throw all demographics a bone, in terms of teaching history; added more in terms of the role of women and minorities to the lessons. Since the time for teaching is limited, this often misrepresents history, in terms of the impact of the major things, needed to get a proper vision of the overall past.

As a loose example, say a new club is formed. This club was conceived and forms due to the efforts of two members, who were the funding parents. It now has hundred of members. In an attempt to make it "fair", the left will try to add the contributions of anyone, with an alternate demographic; their voter base. Since there is only an hour to teach this history lesson, this added data alters the historical perception, since it does not do justice to the biggest contributions of the two founders, in short time available. History is distorted and revised based on political priority, under the guise of fairness.

The left teaches America from the eyes of the contemporary PC standards, instead of maintaining history in the context of its own time, where people have limited understanding of future times, just as we do. Make America Great does not resonate with those who have learned revisionist history.

The way I look at Creation, is this is connected to the evolution of the human mind. It is not about biology, which is a revisionist history trick to sabotage it. The timing of Genesis; science based carbon dating, coincides with the formation of the first stable civilizations.

Civilization was not based on instinct and DNA. There is no civilization gene. It was based on a profound change in the human mind. Civilization was contradictory to eons of natural evolution based on humans who were wanderers, hunters and gatherers. Staying in one place, to form civilization, while expanding population was not natural. These first civilization humans needed a new mind set, that could willfully chose to ignore eons of instincts and fight the urge to wander.

This was the divine spark that the mythology of Creation teaches. DNA tells us nothing of this psychology change. DNA is only good for superficial things like hair or skin color. Fossils can tell us about their possessions, skills and things, but It cannot tell us what was inside their minds. There is a tendency for science to use revisionist history, to infer the mind set of the past, by the present. The bible, on he other hand, is a record of the mind from that time. It is more like a raw data set of mind data, in terms of what the first "new" people believed. It is part of real history.

You have grossly misrepresented Obama's "apology tour"... That's YOUR revisionism.

 

[sooda]

Christian Fundamentalists aren't pointing any loaded guns towards somebody's head in order to force their version of Christianity to be followed. ....

To insist that it be taught in public schools is a terrible waste of valuable classroom time. If devout people want their children taught creation science, they should take them to a Sunday school that teaches that.

I wouldn't stand for my children to be taught creation science.. and although my grandchildren are devout they reject creation science as science.