The Texas Board of Catechism

By a strange combination of political and economic forces, the fate of American public education seems to rest, disproportionately, in the hands of the Texas Board of Education. The Texas Board of Education decides what will and will not be taught in the schoolbooks used by the State of Texas. Publishers of American schoolbooks then design their books to reflect the demand of the American market – which is dominated by Texas. Consequently, American schoolbooks tend to reflect the demands of the Texas Board of Education.

Unfortunately, the Texas Board of Education has become the Texas Board of Catechism. Authoritarian Christian conservatives now dominate that Board, and they have succeeded in their demands that Texas schoolbooks reflect their worldview. Bizarrely, this will reportedly mean that the U.S. government will no longer be described as “democratic.” Even worse, American students in Texas, and possibly in other states, will no longer be taught about Thomas Jefferson. Instead they will be taught about John Calvin!

It is true that, as a political philosopher, Thomas Jefferson was not as original as Rousseau, Locke, Mill, or Montesquieu. But he was able to blend their ideas together into a political philosophy that has served us for over 200 years and inspired us with its call for democracy, liberty and equality. It may be that the Texas Board of Education dislikes the fact that he regarded Jesus as “a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion,” rather than a part of God. Or perhaps they dislike the fact that he believed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution built “a wall of separation between church and state.”

What we do know is that their preferred historical figure, John Calvin, was a Christian theologian. Among other things, he believed that people are inherently unequal: that God has preselected some people, the “Elect,”to be saved from eternal damnation, regardless of their sinfulness or any other characteristic. They are predestined to receive God’s mercy and eternal life. Everyone else is a “Reprobate,” regardless of their actions or beliefs, and they will receive God’s justice, i.e., eternal death and damnation. Calvin did play a role in the politics of Geneva, Switzerland, because there was a period of time during which the city was practically a theocracy and Calvin was its religious leader.

In that role, Calvin participated in the city’s punishment and execution of "blasphemers” and “heretics.” The most famous case was that of “Michael Servetus,” a Spanish theologian who outraged Calvin by proclaiming [among other things] that God was a singular entity, not a “trinity.” Calvin swore that, if Servetus ever entered Geneva, he would not leave it alive. And that is what happened. Servetus fled France to escape the Catholic Inquisition, and for some reason he went to Geneva, where he was promptly arrested for heresy. Calvin prepared the charges against Servetus, prosecuted the case against Servetus, and asked that Servetus be executed. Servetus was burned at the stake.

So, who do you believe had a greater impact upon the political philosophy and history of the United States of America: the man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and served as our President; or the French theologian who believed that all men are not created equal, and that religious heretics should be executed?

In my opinion, only a board of Christian catechism would pick the latter.

Parlor Wit

Between speeches, half-term governor Sarah Palin
relaxes by hunting field mice

Note to FOX viewers: This is satire.

The Mother of All Commencement Addresses

Will Ferrell, Harvard University, 2003 [excerpt]

It’s Not in the Constitution!

Republicans like to note that there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which expressly grants U.S. citizens such things as a right to privacy, a right to healthcare, or a “freedom from religion.” This is true, if your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is limited precisely and exclusively to the very words which appear in it. Of course, such a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would also preclude many ideas which are dear to Republicans:

• “God,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Christianity.” Not in the Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Let me repeat that for Fox viewers: No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion.

• “Zygote,” “Fetus.” Nowhere in the Constitution. Not protected. The Constitution does, on the other hand, confer rights upon persons, citizens, and specifically “natural born citizens.” But it makes no specific mention of the rights of fertilized human eggs, so there is no literal basis in the Constitution to claim that they have rights, too.

• “Corporation.” The word does not appear in the Constitution. As stated previously, the Constitution only talks about persons, citizens, and specifically “natural born citizens.” That being so, there is no literal basis in the Constitution for claiming that corporations are entitled to the same rights as “persons” and “citizens.”
  

• “Flat tax.” Not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It lacks Constitutional basis. It goes “beyond the Constitution” as much as “progressive taxation.”

• “Balanced budget.” Does not appear in the Constitution. Probably because wars tend to create deficits.

• “Racial Profiling.” Not in the Constitution. The Constitution originally excluded “Indians not taxed” from the census for representation, but that provision was removed long ago and appears to have been based on a factor other than their race or ethnicity.* If you institute racial or ethnic profiling, you are going “outside” the Constitution.

You see, Republicans often squeal that Democrats are enacting programs that go beyond the scope of the Constitution – and then they seek to do likewise, to satisfy their constituents.

*This entry has been corrected to reflect insights provided by Dante Atkins

Sources: U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights