Maybe I am getting a little paranoid, but I am beginning to
see science deniers and fundies everywhere I look and hear them on almost every channel and airwave. I don’t know what rocks they’ve all decided to crawl out from under, but I would really like them to crawl back. They’re beginning to reach critical mass, and they are destroying more and more of this country everyday. I fear if we don’t do something soon to combat the hate, ignorance, and demagoguery they’re spreading, everything this country stands for will be
lost.
So yes, I have lost all patience with the fundies and science deniers. I’ve given up trying to talk with them. What’s the use? They refuse to live in a reality-based community where science, evidence, and facts hold meaning. Faced with a video, audio, and written record of their hypocrisy, they deny its relevance or truth. Shown years of scientific evidence that proves the earth is millions of years old, they deny its factual basis and instead present a literal reading of a text that has been translated and revised so many times that we cannot even trace its origin. The earth isn’t millions of years old as the rocks, and sediment, and bones, and carbon dating and so many other discoveries have taught us. No, it’s 10,000 years old because that’s what the Bible says. Evolution is just as much a contested theory as is the myth of creation, global warming is a scientific conspiracy, the founders of this nation were Christians, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I get it. Everything I have learned is wrong, and everything the fundies believe is right. But what I don’t get is this: if their beliefs represent an all-powerful truth, why do they fear others questioning them? Why are they hell-bent on destroying public education, stifling learning, and forcing others to believe as they do? I'm not a scientist, but I know a few, and I can't name one who fears people questioning the results of scientific study; in fact, they welcome such challenges. It’s one of the ways we learn new things, make new discoveries, and rethink things we thought we understood. If someone wants to debate whether it’s better for a nation to feed those who do not have enough to eat, and clothe and shelter them and provide them with health care, or to establish a free market economy in which the haves get to have more and more while the have-nots lose whatever they have, I am happy to accommodate them. Come on, let’s chat. What’s to fear? If someone has a better argument to make, I am willing to hear it. And not only will I listen, I will consider what others have to say.
But that’s not the case with the fundies and science deniers. They cannot tolerate other points of view. They need to control the narrative, so much so, in fact that they’re now trying to rewrite American history and our foundational documents. It’s not enough for them to destroy public education and erect the Christian version of the Madrasa (a.k.a. charter schools) all over the US. No. They have to reach back in time and erase the liberal philosophies that led our forbears to break free from the tyranny of England.
Now, I am not saying the work of our forbears was perfect and should not be questioned. Their thinking was flawed in a number of ways, not the least of which can be found in Article 1, clause 3 of the US Constitution where they declared that the states’ representation in congress and the taxes paid by their citizens would be calculated based on the numbers of white, land-owning men to which would be added “those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Which is to say that propertied white men and even indentured servants were citizens, while “all other Persons” (i.e. black people, women, and Native Americans were not). If we had not questioned this definition of citizenship and made necessary changes in the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the US Constitution, this would still be the case. Thus far, we’ve had 27 amendments to the US Constitution, and, we will likely have to amend our Constitution once again to right the wrong done by the recent SCOTUS decision to allow corporations to buy politicians and elections (Citizens of US vs Federal Election Commission). So that will make twenty-eight amendments over 222 years. Our forebears were flawed, but the were pretty damn smart when it comes to representative democracy.
But I digress. My point is this: most of us don’t think we have to rewrite history to make it fit with our beliefs. But the fundies do, as the story in today’s New York Times Magazine makes painfully clear. The all-powerful Texas Board of Education is in the Fundies’ control (thanks a lot Ralph Reed) and are in the process of developing new social studies curriculum guidelines “that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years” (36). Among the many changes being made is the inclusion of Margaret Sanger and her followers as promoters of eugenics, requiring “that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan’s ‘leadership in restoring national confidence’ following Jimmy Carter’s presidency and that students be instructed to ‘describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association’ “(36). And, since Texas’ $22 billion education fund “is among the largest educational endowments in the country,” what they want is what textbook publishers provide. Thus Texas’ new social studies guidelines will shape the textbooks students have access to in Virginia, and Connecticut, and Michigan, and Wyoming, and Oregon, and Florida, and Oklahoma, and New York, and. . . . I think you get the picture. In fact, the only state whose students who might escape these guidelines is California, but given the golden state’s economic woes even its commitment to a quality education might be destroyed by Texas’ view of social studies. (California has the largest textbook market, but the state has long had such specific standards about what its students should learn that few other states adopt its curriculum. As a product of California’s public schools, I can attest to the quality of the state’s curriculum standards.)
In addition to the above, school board members have also voted to have students taking US government classes “to identify traditions that informed America’s founding, ‘including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law)’ and to ‘identify the individuals whose principles of law and government institutions informed the American founding documents,’ among whom they may include Moses” (37). While the board members couch these changes as addressing concerns about standards of education, what actually drives them is the desire to force Christianity onto the founders and into public school curriculum, the separation of church and state be damned. Oh, and about that establishment clause. That really wasn’t about the absolute separation of church and state. What is was really about was the importance of weaving together church and state (I must admit to being unable to present this argument clearly because frankly it makes no sense to me whatsoever).
According to those who rule the Texas Board of Education, America was founded on the principles of Christianity, the founders were Christians, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution espouse Christian doctrine and that America was destined to be the city on the hill, the light that serves as a beacon of hope and Christian charity. Just to be clear, most of the founders were Deists who espoused liberal philosophies, as I learned in my American literature courses, that city on the hill and beacon stuff comes from William Bradford’s On Plymouth Plantation and not from the Declaration or the Constitution, but hey, since facts and evidence don’t promote your claims, declare them worthless and move on, right?
Given these changes, I’m ready to go. Where’s the closest line?
So yes, I have lost all patience with the fundies and science deniers. I’ve given up trying to talk with them. What’s the use? They refuse to live in a reality-based community where science, evidence, and facts hold meaning. Faced with a video, audio, and written record of their hypocrisy, they deny its relevance or truth. Shown years of scientific evidence that proves the earth is millions of years old, they deny its factual basis and instead present a literal reading of a text that has been translated and revised so many times that we cannot even trace its origin. The earth isn’t millions of years old as the rocks, and sediment, and bones, and carbon dating and so many other discoveries have taught us. No, it’s 10,000 years old because that’s what the Bible says. Evolution is just as much a contested theory as is the myth of creation, global warming is a scientific conspiracy, the founders of this nation were Christians, blah, blah, blah.
OK, I get it. Everything I have learned is wrong, and everything the fundies believe is right. But what I don’t get is this: if their beliefs represent an all-powerful truth, why do they fear others questioning them? Why are they hell-bent on destroying public education, stifling learning, and forcing others to believe as they do? I'm not a scientist, but I know a few, and I can't name one who fears people questioning the results of scientific study; in fact, they welcome such challenges. It’s one of the ways we learn new things, make new discoveries, and rethink things we thought we understood. If someone wants to debate whether it’s better for a nation to feed those who do not have enough to eat, and clothe and shelter them and provide them with health care, or to establish a free market economy in which the haves get to have more and more while the have-nots lose whatever they have, I am happy to accommodate them. Come on, let’s chat. What’s to fear? If someone has a better argument to make, I am willing to hear it. And not only will I listen, I will consider what others have to say.
But that’s not the case with the fundies and science deniers. They cannot tolerate other points of view. They need to control the narrative, so much so, in fact that they’re now trying to rewrite American history and our foundational documents. It’s not enough for them to destroy public education and erect the Christian version of the Madrasa (a.k.a. charter schools) all over the US. No. They have to reach back in time and erase the liberal philosophies that led our forbears to break free from the tyranny of England.
Now, I am not saying the work of our forbears was perfect and should not be questioned. Their thinking was flawed in a number of ways, not the least of which can be found in Article 1, clause 3 of the US Constitution where they declared that the states’ representation in congress and the taxes paid by their citizens would be calculated based on the numbers of white, land-owning men to which would be added “those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Which is to say that propertied white men and even indentured servants were citizens, while “all other Persons” (i.e. black people, women, and Native Americans were not). If we had not questioned this definition of citizenship and made necessary changes in the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the US Constitution, this would still be the case. Thus far, we’ve had 27 amendments to the US Constitution, and, we will likely have to amend our Constitution once again to right the wrong done by the recent SCOTUS decision to allow corporations to buy politicians and elections (Citizens of US vs Federal Election Commission). So that will make twenty-eight amendments over 222 years. Our forebears were flawed, but the were pretty damn smart when it comes to representative democracy.
But I digress. My point is this: most of us don’t think we have to rewrite history to make it fit with our beliefs. But the fundies do, as the story in today’s New York Times Magazine makes painfully clear. The all-powerful Texas Board of Education is in the Fundies’ control (thanks a lot Ralph Reed) and are in the process of developing new social studies curriculum guidelines “that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years” (36). Among the many changes being made is the inclusion of Margaret Sanger and her followers as promoters of eugenics, requiring “that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan’s ‘leadership in restoring national confidence’ following Jimmy Carter’s presidency and that students be instructed to ‘describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association’ “(36). And, since Texas’ $22 billion education fund “is among the largest educational endowments in the country,” what they want is what textbook publishers provide. Thus Texas’ new social studies guidelines will shape the textbooks students have access to in Virginia, and Connecticut, and Michigan, and Wyoming, and Oregon, and Florida, and Oklahoma, and New York, and. . . . I think you get the picture. In fact, the only state whose students who might escape these guidelines is California, but given the golden state’s economic woes even its commitment to a quality education might be destroyed by Texas’ view of social studies. (California has the largest textbook market, but the state has long had such specific standards about what its students should learn that few other states adopt its curriculum. As a product of California’s public schools, I can attest to the quality of the state’s curriculum standards.)
In addition to the above, school board members have also voted to have students taking US government classes “to identify traditions that informed America’s founding, ‘including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law)’ and to ‘identify the individuals whose principles of law and government institutions informed the American founding documents,’ among whom they may include Moses” (37). While the board members couch these changes as addressing concerns about standards of education, what actually drives them is the desire to force Christianity onto the founders and into public school curriculum, the separation of church and state be damned. Oh, and about that establishment clause. That really wasn’t about the absolute separation of church and state. What is was really about was the importance of weaving together church and state (I must admit to being unable to present this argument clearly because frankly it makes no sense to me whatsoever).
According to those who rule the Texas Board of Education, America was founded on the principles of Christianity, the founders were Christians, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution espouse Christian doctrine and that America was destined to be the city on the hill, the light that serves as a beacon of hope and Christian charity. Just to be clear, most of the founders were Deists who espoused liberal philosophies, as I learned in my American literature courses, that city on the hill and beacon stuff comes from William Bradford’s On Plymouth Plantation and not from the Declaration or the Constitution, but hey, since facts and evidence don’t promote your claims, declare them worthless and move on, right?
Given these changes, I’m ready to go. Where’s the closest line?
Wow, Desert. Another blow-me-away-right-on-sister post. What can we DO about these clowns? They were once a minority but their interventions into education may enlarge them into a majority. We don't have control of the media; they do. We don't control the content of elementary education; increasingly, they do. If things continue in this way for another ten years it may become impossible for any liberal or atheist to say what she thinks in public (and maybe in private).
Maybe Malkin is right: concentration camps will be built. But they will be for us, not her.
Posted by: Aspasia | Feb 15, 2010 at 08:18 AM
I like the writing structure of your blog and it does a pretty decent job of presenting the material.
Posted by: manolo blahnik shoes | Sep 27, 2011 at 09:38 AM
I follow you VIA GFC and I love your blog!
Posted by: moncler netherland | Oct 14, 2011 at 12:02 AM