ADVERTISEMENT

Need to preserve the present as it is

What is revisionist history?

When the past is “re-written” to fit a narrative today.

I see this a lot in textbooks when it comes to America’s Christian heritage. They make no mention of importance of the Founder’s faith & how it shaped the country we love today. For example, the separation of church & state has been spun to mean something entirely different than its original intent.

 
As a History teacher, I HATE revisionist history. 🤦🏻‍♂️
Can’t blame you. We need to turn it around and leave it like it is. When I was in grammar school I remember our teacher would read a verse from the Bible and after we would we would recite the Lord’s Prayer and pledge of allegiance to our country! Something’s should never have been messed with. You can see the results in our schools today.
 
When the past is “re-written” to fit a narrative today.

I see this a lot in textbooks when it comes to America’s Christian heritage. They make no mention of importance of the Founder’s faith & how it shaped the country we love today. For example, the separation of church & state has been spun to mean something entirely different than its original intent.

You're accusing others of rewriting history while doing exactly that. The Founders explicitly rejected the idea of a theocratic state — that's why the First Amendment exists. "Separation of church and state" comes from Jefferson himself, and the courts have upheld that principle for centuries. Acknowledging personal faith ≠ endorsing religious control over government. Twisting that to fit a modern political agenda is the real revisionism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Double Bogey Dawg
You're accusing others of rewriting history while doing exactly that. The Founders explicitly rejected the idea of a theocratic state — that's why the First Amendment exists. "Separation of church and state" comes from Jefferson himself, and the courts have upheld that principle for centuries. Acknowledging personal faith ≠ endorsing religious control over government. Twisting that to fit a modern political agenda is the real revisionism.

Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016
 
As a History teacher, I HATE revisionist history. 🤦🏻‍♂️
Revisionist history is necessary, particularly as it related to the 20th century.

Now not all revisionism is created equal, but that is true for history as a whole.

You're accusing others of rewriting history while doing exactly that. The Founders explicitly rejected the idea of a theocratic state — that's why the First Amendment exists. "Separation of church and state" comes from Jefferson himself, and the courts have upheld that principle for centuries. Acknowledging personal faith ≠ endorsing religious control over government. Twisting that to fit a modern political agenda is the real revisionism.

The First Amendment only applied to the Federal government, you had states with established churches. Further, the entire notion of "church and state" was largely seen as preventing a dominating Christian denomination, rather than say treating as equal is public life Christianity and Islam or Buddhism (that concept would have been alien to early American leaders.)

The notion that a "separation of church and state" means a state separate of religion is a modern creation. American civic life was cradled in the assumption of Christian moral values, even among those who were personally deist or rational agnostics.
 
Revisionist history is necessary, particularly as it related to the 20th century.

Now not all revisionism is created equal, but that is true for history as a whole.



The First Amendment only applied to the Federal government, you had states with established churches. Further, the entire notion of "church and state" was largely seen as preventing a dominating Christian denomination, rather than say treating as equal is public life Christianity and Islam or Buddhism (that concept would have been alien to early American leaders.)

The notion that a "separation of church and state" means a state separate of religion is a modern creation. American civic life was cradled in the assumption of Christian moral values, even among those who were personally deist or rational agnostics.
The atheist community won that battle.
 
Mixing religion and politics is like mixing 🍦 and 💩. In the end the 💩 is going to be just fine but the🍦 will be forever ruined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -lowcountrydawg
When the past is “re-written” to fit a narrative today.

I see this a lot in textbooks when it comes to America’s Christian heritage. They make no mention of importance of the Founder’s faith & how it shaped the country we love today. For example, the separation of church & state has been spun to mean something entirely different than its original intent.

So what do you think “…. shall endorse no religion” means?
 
Mixing religion and politics is like mixing 🍦 and 💩. In the end the 💩 is going to be just fine but the🍦 will be forever ruined.
The issue is that this presumes that government/politics can be neutral on questions of religion or morality, and it's not.

There are no such thing as value-free political institutions. The question, then, it what is the roots of the values that shape governing institutions. America's founding political institutions were unquestionable shaped by Christian morality, it was the water our founders swam in. Acknowledging that does not require the state establishment of a church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DallasDawg225
The issue is that this presumes that government/politics can be neutral on questions of religion or morality, and it's not.

There are no such thing as value-free political institutions. The question, then, it what is the roots of the values that shape governing institutions. America's founding political institutions were unquestionable shaped by Christian morality, it was the water our founders swam in. Acknowledging that does not require the state establishment of a church.
How many times are God or Christian or Christianity mentioned in the Constitution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TivoliDawg
It doesn't mean an endorsement of atheism, which is what it has become in practice.
And there’s tons of myth surrounding what the signers faith truly was, too. Atheism isn’t a religion…. but I suppose it could be a belief, or rather lack thereof. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing separating church and state. They had endured generations of bad governance, wars, abuse in the name of one “church” or other. SCOTUS hat it correct in banning religion from public institutions too. My wife taught elementary for 40 years. She believed that religion is a topic for parents and families. I agree. The teachers have enough to worry about.
 
And there’s tons of myth surrounding what the signers faith truly was, too. Atheism isn’t a religion…. but I suppose it could be a belief, or rather lack thereof. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing separating church and state. They had endured generations of bad governance, wars, abuse in the name of one “church” or other. SCOTUS hat it correct in banning religion from public institutions too. My wife taught elementary for 40 years. She believed that religion is a topic for parents and families. I agree. The teachers have enough to worry about.
Atheism is a religion. Agnostism could be viewed as passive apathy to deeper questions of the universe but atheism represents the same conviction of faith as any other religion.

The myths around the Founders faith are all attempts to project modern views on them. But it's also irrelevant. Jefferson's own views, for example, dont change the fact that our political traditions came from protestant Englan and America's shares basic moral assumptions were grounded in a Biblical view of the world.

That doesn't mean Americans were united by a sole church. Religious tolerance at that time were largely about clashes between Christian denominations.

Acknowledging this basic reality doesn't require tasking public teachers from adding a sermon to their lesson plan.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT