Editing textbooks=violating liberty?

{ March 5, 2010 @ 5:00 pm } · { Uncategorized }

       So, this is my last current event blog. It is kind of sad because it did help me to build up my writing skills, and I, who barely care about news, can become less ignorant about what’s happening in the society. Anyway, the longest article that I have to read thoroughly in order to write a blog is this one from The New York Times.

 

     The author states that Christian conservative activists are not only obstinate about gay marriage, abortion and government spending, but their opinions are also based on the belief that the United States is founded by Christians. Without referring to any data base, not even the intent of the founders, they call the country a “Christian nation.” Recently, when the state of Texas, the governing state in education domain, is revising its guidelines for textbooks, the activists asserts that it is time to re-write the history and educate children from perspective of religion. Since they see Christianity in the founding of the country, they feel that the history of religion was covered for a long time, and that it is now necessary to “tell the truth.” Their goal is to “use courts and public schools to fuse Christianity into the nation’s founding.” They urge the change by applying direct pressure to textbook companies

      The author also provides the views from opposing side. They have five strong arguments. First, they retort activists’ truth-uncovering theory by revealing their real ambition, which is obviously to influence the next generation as much as possible, thus they can have more supporters. Also, according to many observers, seeming unlikely to be achieved soon, activists’ goal could have “far reaching consequence”: the more closely they relate Christianity to the founding, the easier they can dominate the future supreme court. The fate of Bill Martin Jr. also demonstrates the ignorance of people in the board: there were two Bill Martins and they confounded them. The direct pressure was also criticized: the publishers merely care about getting their book listed and they did not care about what is true and what is false. This allows the potential of including errors.

      It seems like activists are satisfied enough with the revision. Opponents acrimoniously critiques that they could still “use tiny fragments to wage war on publishers.” Activists eventually decided to turn to political actions, and not to do the transformational change in front of the whole public.

      This debate reminds me of the early European kingdoms. Their countries were dominated by religion. So are the Christians trying to do the same thing? It could be an extreme result of this act. I don’t like this kind of “furtive” change. If they have a plan, why don’t they show it to the whole country and let the people to judge? This is like trying to brainwash the people. This reminds me of a definition of freedom in the constitution, which is that people have the right to choose their belief. The activists have better not to overplay this game, or it might become a violation of liberty.