A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
I rather agree, but on the grounds that the Bartons lack proper scholarly accreditation. Ms. Rodda is similarly unqualified to address the students, as I am myself.
The grounds of Establishment Clause do not hold in my view and I think the principal was wrong on this narrow ground: "delivering a healthy dose of Christian nationalist historical revisionism" is of course Ms. Rodda's own contentious scholarly opinion, but had an accredited scholar like Daniel Dreisbach [J.D., PhD] of the University of Virginia been brought in to lecture on America's forgotten religious history, it would be entirely proper as an academic exercise and not "establishment" atall.
In fact, the rise of the Bartons has been chiefly a reaction to attitudes like the principal's [if Ms. Rodda's account is accurate]: in the interest of "neutrality" and avoiding establishment Clause issues, the teaching of American history has often bleached out its religious content, say Washington's First Inaugural Address.
"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
2 comments:
I rather agree, but on the grounds that the Bartons lack proper scholarly accreditation. Ms. Rodda is similarly unqualified to address the students, as I am myself.
The grounds of Establishment Clause do not hold in my view and I think the principal was wrong on this narrow ground: "delivering a healthy dose of Christian nationalist historical revisionism" is of course Ms. Rodda's own contentious scholarly opinion, but had an accredited scholar like Daniel Dreisbach [J.D., PhD] of the University of Virginia been brought in to lecture on America's forgotten religious history, it would be entirely proper as an academic exercise and not "establishment" atall.
In fact, the rise of the Bartons has been chiefly a reaction to attitudes like the principal's [if Ms. Rodda's account is accurate]: in the interest of "neutrality" and avoiding establishment Clause issues, the teaching of American history has often bleached out its religious content, say Washington's First Inaugural Address.
"...it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."
Bold face mine.
Well said, Tom. Well said.
Post a Comment