This feudal revisionist would-be King could be your president

A new civics training program for public school teachers in Florida says it is a “[b]misconception[/b]” that “the founders desired strict separation of church and state,” the Washington Post reports.

The Constitution explicitly bars the government from “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Scholars interpret the passage to require a separation of church and state.

In another example, the training states that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were against slavery, while [i]omitting the fact that each owned enslaved people.[/i]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has decried what he has branded "indoctrination” in public education.

DeSantis has instituted new civics curriculum since taking office, and this summer is offering optional “civics bootcamps” on how teachers can implement it. Teachers who participate get paid.

What he's saying: “[b]We’re unabashedly promoting civics and history that is accurate and that is not trying to push an ideological agenda,[/b]” DeSantis said at an event earlier this week.

Students in Florida are “learning the real history, you’re learning the real facts,” he added.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

room101 · 51-55, M

I can't stand DeSantis and don't trust a word that he spews out of his gob. However, I've often argued against this notion that America is a secular state and that the founders wanted separation of church and state. Just look at your foundational documents, all three invoke God more times than many chapters in the Bible do.

OK, that's a bit of hyperbole on my part. I've no idea how many times God is invoked and no idea if that number actually beats any Biblical chapters. But, my point stands. How can a nation consider itself to be secular when God is at the forefront of your foundational documents?

Also, let's look at the early settlers that came to the North American continent from England. Puritans who left England because the brand of Christianity practiced there wasn't pure enough for them. Hence their name. And Pilgrims whose primary objective was to create a Christian enclave. Both groups liberally seasoned with opportunists who were more than happy to make money off the back of what the Puritans and Pilgrims were peddling.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@room101 The early settlers included Englishmen who were persecuted by the established Church for their non-conformist religious beliefs and practices. They would have valued more than most the complete separation of church and state.

room101 · 51-55, M

@SunshineGirl Those "Englishmen who were persecuted by the established Church for their non-conformist religious beliefs and practices." were the Pilgrims and Puritans.

And it's their ancestors who embroidered God into the very fabric of Americas foundational documents. So no, the evidence suggests that they did not value the separation of church and state.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@SunshineGirl But the early settlers to whom your referring would be the Puritans, who were indeed persecuted in England. They created the colonies, but absolutely in the name of religion. The founding fathers wouldn't show up for another 150 years, and there's no event or complaint surrounding church and state. They were forming the for a nation that could thrive without England and it's leeching of their resources.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Graylight I would argue that your early English settlers were a mish/mash of Puritans, opportunists and, the economically disenfranchised.

Whether the Puritans were persecuted in England or not is neither here nor there. They came to the North American continent with a very specific goal in mind. To establish a Christian enclave that met with their interpretations of what Christianity should be.

I know that your founding fathers didn't show up for another 150 years. I should have used the word descendants and not ancestors. My bad🤷‍♂️

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@room101 For sure religion was woven into the fabric of colonial society, but were they really seeking to replicate a state established religion? This was an era in which there were "as many faiths as believers". Zealous though some may appear, I think they were above all seeking to practice their faith in peace rather than establishing a true theocracy. The only thing that united these disparate groups was distrust of catholicism. Meanwhile in Maryland, a persucuted Catholic envisaged a colony where different sects would coexist under the principle of religious toleration . .

room101 · 51-55, M

@SunshineGirl I don't think that 400 odd years ago there were as many faiths as there were believers. That phenomenon is relatively recent. Weird thing is, the vast majority of new religions (particularly the newer interpretations of Christianity) have all come out of America.

For a secular country, you guys sure do have a thing for religion🤪

Not only that, there is clearly a significant number of your population who are hell bent (pun intended) on establishing a theocracy. And a number of them are on the SCOTUS bench, in federal government, in state government and in local government. If they weren't seeking to replicate a state established religion, then why, and how, did the inveigle themselves into every facet of government and politics?

Graylight · 51-55, F

@room101 We're of the great Anglo-Saxon tradition here of imposing anything we like on others. And religion is power. Religion can intimidate, shame, humble, energize, coalesce and unite people. It can be used as a shepherd's hook to lead or impose penalty. It keeps the sheep in line.

Marx wrote that religion is “the opiate of the masses” – disconnecting disadvantaged people from the here and now and dulling their engagement in progressive politics. Think for the people and they will adopt a hive mind. It's ugly truth, but it's truth.