Mugambi Jouet writes in Mother Jones about the origins of the phrase “Make America Great Again.”
He traces it back to the Republican party’s obsession with the phrase “American exceptionalism” and demonstrates how the use of the term skyrocketed after Obama’s election.
He writes:
Did you ever wonder why Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan took such root among the Republican base? Did it symbolize a return to an age when wages were higher and jobs more secure? Or was it coded racial language designed to signal a rollback to a time when people of color (and women) knew their place? In the soul-searching and recrimination among Democrats after Hillary Clinton’s defeat, both theories have their champions.
But a closer look at conservative rhetoric in recent years reveals that “Make America Great Again” was not Trump’s invention. It evolved from a phrase that became central to the Republican establishment during the Obama years: “American exceptionalism.” People often equate the expression with the notion that God made America “a city upon a hill,” in the words of the Puritan colonist John Winthrop. However, as University of California-Berkeley sociology professor Jerome Karabel noted in a 2011 article, this usage only came into vogue after Barack Obama became president. Previously it was mainly used by academics to mean that America is an exception compared with other Western democracies, for better or worse, as illustrated by its top-notch universities or its bare-bones gun control.
Prior to 2008, “American exceptionalism” appeared in news articles a handful of times a year, but after Obama was elected the references skyrocketed, largely because of a drumbeat from Republicans. Once the tea party wave made John Boehner speaker of the House in 2010, for example, he summarized the growing consensus among Republicans: Obama had turned his back on the Founding Fathers to the point where he “refused to talk about American exceptionalism.” (In fact, in 2009 the president had stated, “I believe in American exceptionalism.”) The phrase’s popularity in GOP talking points—often in attacks on Obama’s “socialist” policies—paralleled the spread of conspiracy theories about his citizenship and supposed jihadi sympathies.
Republicans implied and said that Obama wasn’t a real American. He was probably born in Kenya, and he thought that America was no different, no more special, than any other country.
The irony, not mentioned in this article, is that Trump has already showed–dramatically–that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. When asked by conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly why he speaks so highly of Putin (“a killer”), Trump responded that we were no better than Russia.
But maybe it is not ironic at all. David Corn wrote in the same publication in June 2016 that Donald Trump said that he rejected the term “American exceptionalism” because it was insulting to other countries.
Corn quoted from Trump’s remarks to a Tea Party group in Houston:
Here is Trump’s complete answer:
“I don’t like the term. I’ll be honest with you. People say, “Oh he’s not patriotic.” Look, if I’m a Russian, or I’m a German, or I’m a person we do business with, why, you know, I don’t think it’s a very nice term. We’re exceptional; you’re not. First of all, Germany is eating our lunch. So they say, “Why are you exceptional. We’re doing a lot better than you.” I never liked the term. And perhaps that’s because I don’t have a very big ego and I don’t need terms like that. Honestly. When you’re doing business—I watch Obama every once in a while saying “American exceptionalism,” it’s [Trump makes a face]. I don’t like the term. Because we’re dealing—First of all, I want to take everything back from the world that we’ve given them. We’ve given them so much. On top of taking it back, I don’t want to say, “We’re exceptional. We’re more exceptional.” Because essentially we’re saying we’re more outstanding than you. “By the way, you’ve been eating our lunch for the last 20 years, but we’re more exceptional than you.” I don’t like the term. I never liked it. When I see these politicians get up [and say], “the American exceptionalism”—we’re dying. We owe 18 trillion in debt. I’d like to make us exceptional. And I’d like to talk later instead of now. Does that make any sense? Because I think you’re insulting the world. And you, know, Jim, if you’re German, or you’re from Japan, or you’re from China, you don’t want to have people saying that. I never liked the expression. And I see a lot of good patriots get up and talk about Amer—you can think it, but I don’t think we should say it. We may have a chance to say it in the not-too-distant future. But even the, I wouldn’t say it because when I take back the jobs, and when I take back all that money and we get all our stuff, I’m not going to rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. Let’s not rub it in. But I never liked that term.”
Corn then wrote:
“When Trump finished those remarks, the crowd was largely silent, and McIngvale moved on to another subject. Yet Trump had just trampled one of the mainstay tenets of GOP ideology—and undercut a line of attack often used by Republicans.”

What Trump is running into with Judicial Review is a form of what ACTUALLY makes America Great. It’s the tri-part self-correcting system and all that goes along with it–and that he and Bannon and Miller are trying to destroy. Didn’t Miller really show his fascist hateful heart yesterday when he went on all those talk shows. How dare the court !!!! And Trump thought he was “great.”
Trump is also NOT Republican. He’s a party unto himself and is merely using the Republican party to do what he wants to do. And they are still kissing his ring.
LikeLike
Ronald Regan’s slogan in 1980 was “Let’s Make America Great Again”
LikeLike
I recall Reagan’s slogan as “It’s Morning in America.”
It was a very downbeat time. Iran was holding some 400 American hostages. The oil cartel had formed and oil prices were skyhigh. Interest rates were high. Mortgage rates were double digit. President Carter told us to turn down the temperature and wear sweaters indoors.
Unlike Trump, who seems to have a permanent scowl, Reagan was sunny and optimistic. He spoke of America being “a shining city on a hill,” he spoke of the great things that could be accomplished when Americans set their minds to it and worked together.
I had always read that Reagan was a horrible, mean-spirited reactionary, but he came across during his campaign as warm, self-deprecating, kind, and easy-going.
This is not a political analysis but a personality contrast. Trump comes across as mean, uncaring, pessimistic, dour, warning of “American carnage,” and looming disaster. He alone can save us, so he says.
The only thing that Reagan and Trump have in common is the party label. Reagan inspired hope. Trump sows hatred, fear, division.
LikeLike
Untrue…the idea of American Exceptionalism has been around for decades and has nothing to do with Obama’s presidency per se…..the U.S. is like the biblical “City upon a Hill”—a phrase evoked by British colonists to North America as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[5] The theme of exceptionalism is a frequent target for attacks from liberals and groups that adhere to Democratic Party ideologies.[4][6]
The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. can be traced to the French political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the country as “exceptional” in 1831 and 1840.[7]
LikeLike
Actually, true…the article focuses on the politicizing, partisan, proselytizing of the term. The examples you cite use the term in the sense of distinctive, not superior.
LikeLike
sense of being distinctive
LikeLike
Yes, and Obama himself has been a big proselytizer for American exceptionalism, which stands to reason, since Trump will likely be the most long-lasting part of Obama’s legacy.
LikeLike
I concur, Pam.
The article was only referring to media references to the term “American Exceptionalism”. You know as if the media gods are the only important thing, but then ol MoJo is now an established part of the establishment media. Self-importance matters in the Lame Stream Media.
LikeLike
…and if there is any “exceptionality” to our form of gov’t and culture it is because of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and how it evolved over time from the European and British concepts of “natural law”, “law of conscience” and “inalienable rights”. Look at areas of the world where oppression and injustice are the greatest, and these reflect an absence of a biblical influence. It is our heritage that makes us more accountable and righteous, but not “better”, because all of the kingdoms of humanity are fallen and corrupt.
LikeLike
Oh brother. I think you left out a “self-” in front of righteous.
LikeLike
NO, my righteousness is in the belief and faith of One who is perfectly Just and Righteous, along with the realization that I am NOT and I need forgiveness. Now, maybe I’m no more self-righteous than you are ignorant of the role of religion and ideologies upon gov’t, society and culture.
So, you deny that the atheism and materialism of the godless states of China and USSR produced “bad fruit” and the millions have been slaughtered in the name of Marxism and “humanistic progress”.
Our “free speech” rights are derived from the axioms and corollaries that: 1) all people are equal before their Creator 2) if some violate the rights of others then you can speak out and confront injustice, leading to social change and “good fruit”.
The entire Civil Rights Movement would have never started, or been efficacious if it was not for the Biblical faith and action of those in it. I don’t see civil rights movements in any atheistic states, in general.
So, your point?
LikeLike
There are so many logical and factual contradiction in your first paragraph, even within sentences that I’ll not get into them all here. I doubt you really give a damn what I think since I’m not as “accountable and righteous” as you, which, despite your protestations, does make you think you are “better” than me and a whole bunch of other folks. This overly simplistic view of history, of putting people, institutions and countries into nice and boxes that fit a preconceived world view is a tidy ideology. Try not to mistake “godless states” with ethical individuals. My point is that this is pseudo-intellectual drivel.
LikeLike
Wow, somebody’s feathers are ruffled. If one points out the direct link between evolutionary sociobiology leading to Naziism (undeniable, and documented) or the relationship between the Southern Baptist Church and the Civil Rights movement (undeniable and documented), then they are creating “boxes and categories” to neatly place history into??? Really??? Is that all you can accuse me of? I guess you’ve put me into a box that you wish you could dismiss with your pretenses. “Pseudo-intellectuals” get upset at others for attempting to make valid points, because those points refute their own skepticism or paradigms????
LikeLike
The faith beliefs of those like Rick are just that a faith belief which means that anyone can believe anything as long as their faith dictates it. For example:
My faith says that there is a perfect teapot with perfectly brewed tea circling the sun in an elliptical orbit between Mars and Jupiter that will be attainable to enjoy when one dies. Now some of my faith claim that the tea is green and others black. But it doesn’t matter because it will be what you want. Nifty, eh!
What say you Rick? That yours is the only god, the god of Middle Eastern 2,000 year old desert tribal myths that trumps any and all other faith beliefs??? Hey, it’s your faith belief, you can believe anything you want including that “One who is perfectly Just and Righteous” exists, at least in your mind.
Being nice, Rick: Gimme a break with your faith belief.
As you feel compelled to bring up ancient mythology as true belief I am compelled to confront such falsehoods as anathema in discussing a better education for all.
LikeLike
Duane, your rabid no-faith tirades are humorous and disturbing. Humorous, because you failed to address, or refute, my thesis that much of the justice and righteousness that guides our US policies and Gov’t has some basis in a Judeo-Christian heritage. It cannot be denied, anymore than trying to deny the Southern Baptists role in catalyzing the Civil Rights movement. Do you hate faith so much as to deny it can produce good fruit?
Your comments are disturbing, to me, because they reveal SO MUCH ignorance about the historical facts (ex. archaeology) that support the OT and NT narratives. You almost sound like a Holocaust-Denier with your dismissal of Biblical faith as some “myth of a tribal legend”, when a myriad of historic fact and data support the stories. You may not like the concept of Judgment and Moral Accountability (nobody really does), and that is maybe the root of the matter and the key to your “faith has no facts” ad-nauseum foolish statements.
It is not my job in a public school to rate faiths, evaluate faiths or rank faiths. We talk about the historic facts surrounding Mohammed or Jesus or Joseph Smith, if the discussion comes up in class and a “teachable moment” arises.
I’d love to be a student in your class and challenge your atheism, if that what it is.
No, please don’t comment, because more of your “faith has no facts” mindless dribble and hate-intended dialogue will do nothing to shed light in our dialogue. Grace!
LikeLike
Rick,
We are a nation of tolerance. You are free to practice your faith. And express it as you wish. As I am free to praxtice and express mine. As others are free to have none at all. We are all Americans.
LikeLike
Agreed Diane. My point is that Duane is with passion and vehemence attacking “faith” in general, as if religious texts have no historic or factual support. I never attacked or decried anyone, just pointed out at the beginning that it is because of our Judeo-Christian heritage and the principles and applications of Scripture that have given us some of the just and righteous concepts we live and act upon. No one can refute that, but just mentioning that brings at the fangs and claws of some.
LikeLike
Rick, without invoking any particular faith, I agree that the Judaeo-Christian tradition gives society a moral and ethical anchor. I don’t I terpre Scripture literally, but I do believe that society needs that anchor
LikeLike
No, I won’t not comment. Religionistas are very limited by their faith beliefs in what they consider legitimate dialogue and obviously as shown by “hate-intended dialogue”, can’t fathom that their little sugar coated “word” and world leave them “blinded by the light”. Your attempt to silence me only arouses my ire all the more.
Your assumptions of my intent, of my world views and onto-epistemological foundations are gross misjudgements and false accusations. How xtian of you!
Your knowledge of biblical history is limited due to your faith beliefs. So with that in mind you might want to read (well probably not as it tends to explode your limited biblical world view) the link and it’s various pages on the bible:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm
LikeLike
You still have not dealt with the issue of biblical beliefs being a foundation for our civilized Western developments (that does not make them absolutely true, just a positive influence in culture). Your website has and is refuted. You accuse me of selected evidence to prop up my beliefs, but you are guilty of the same. No, Genesis 1-11 was not derived from Babylonian or Sumerian legends, and solid scholarship has refuted all those false narratives.
At the beginning of this dialogue I just proposed a connection between faith ontology and epistemology upon culture and society, but you attacked me personally first as if all we believers have are myths (as if skepticism is built on anything better????).
Give me your email if you want to go “toe to toe” and I’m more than willing to debate with you, though at the end of it all if there is only “nothingness” to meet us, then why should any of us get very passionate about defending said nihilism????
LikeLike
I don’t understand your having a problem with my not having “dealt with the issue of . . . Western developments. Of course, the xtian beliefs of the time held sway as The Church, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic had inserted themselves into secular governments a long time before the European “discovery” of the the “Americas”. And that sway was quite powerful, no doubt. Does that satisfy your fixation?
The fact is that many of the founding fathers were “deists” and not xtians. And having just come through a century of religious slaughter and atrocities in Europe they wanted to prevent that from happening here, hence the First Amendment.
And yes, I stand by “all we believers have are myths” and those myths include the bible itself, not just the over 2,000 year old prior myths upon which that supposed “good book” is based. Faith beliefs are those grounded in supposed self identified sacred books and there can be no doubting allowed for “true believers” like yourself. Continue on in your archaic beliefs if they serve you but do not come to a public forum to contend that those beliefs are anything other than myth based stories from long ago.
LikeLike
Waiting for your email, if you want me to comment. I’d rather not waste my time and resources in a blog which must be metaphysically-neutral (and I respect that position, and will abide by it). Leave me to my delusions and I will leave you to yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rick,
I allow all sorts of expressions that I don’t agree with. I block a few that are abhorrent. Ignore those that are annoying. Take whatever value you can from the discussion and add as you wish.
LikeLike
Rick, my grandmother taught me never to get in an argument with a zealot, so I’ll keep it short. (BTW, one “?” suffices.) You claim to dismiss evolutionary theory but then write: “If one points out the direct link between evolutionary sociobiology leading to Naziism (undeniable, and documented) or the relationship between the Southern Baptist Church and the Civil Rights movement (undeniable and documented)…” Thanks for making my case about being a pseudo intellectual! (Note, one “!”.) On the former, I’m guessing you’re referring to the discredited “scholarship” of Goldhagen. So you believe in determinism. I doubt you understand the implications of this.
Second, your rewriting of history of the civil rights movement ignores the segregation of the Baptist Church; not all Baptists thought that civil rights were a good thing. That’s why the SCLC was formed. And the SCLC wasn’t just made up of African American Baptists. There were, among others, atheists, Jews, Catholics, other Protestants who played key roles. Taylor Branch’s books are a good start if you
It truly frightens me that you are a teacher. You’d be better suited as faux scholar at the Kentucky Ark park. Checking out of this tirade.
LikeLike
No, I’m not a determinist and realize there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between axioms and epistemes, ex. one can be an atheist and still have moral and ethical principles (though where they are derived from is to be understood). Yes, there is hypocrisy and contradictions in many people of faith, though that is the problem (denying the clear text they claim to believe in). The OT is one, if not the only, text that explicitly condemns slavery (as being taken against one’s will and forced into labor), a crime worthy of capital punishment. So, any believer that tries to justify it is a hypocrite (a wolf in sheep’s clothing), The Bible is pretty much the only book in history that never condones racial favoritism of any type. So, if I’m to love even my enemies and “do good to those that harm you”, then any form of oppression is to be resisted and condemned (pretty simple).
LikeLike
So, if “survival of the fittest” means purifying the human gene pool from all “less fit” genes, then is not what eugenics believes in and would practice not an inevitable (or highly likely outcome) of evolutionary sociobiology? Where does one find the protection of the weak and alienated and “lessers” within such a paradigm? Where does one find the axioms and corollaries for acts of social justice for righting wrongs and redeeming the oppressed?
Is there even a true “wrong” within evolutionary ethics? If having more money or social influence is evidence of “success” and “progress”, then who should really care about the poor and oppressed? If they have less chance at survival, does not that mean the dominant group gets more resources? Why should I save the whales, if according to implications of evolutionary theory the human is more “advanced or adaptable” and the extinction of other species could mean more resources for ours? After all is not extinction an inevitable outcome of evolution? Should one really care when it happens (have death, decay and suffering always been part of the system?)?
Now, I do believe in resource stewardship, but I derive those from my faith perspective, not evolutionary materialism. Where does one find axioms (if they exist) to build their epistemological house upon?
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth: to your question: “Now, I do believe in resource stewardship, but I derive those from my faith perspective, not evolutionary materialism. Where does one find axioms (if they exist) to build their epistemological house upon?”
The works that I referred you to in my previous note answer that question with clarity and inclusiveness.
LikeLike
Thanks, I will read it. Yet, I have a “trustworthy saying” compiled that gives me answers too. If there is such a thing as a real-answer, of which nihilism proposes there is not.
PS – maybe Satre was right and all this “nausea” I feel from skeptics is the best the universe has to offer.
LikeLike
Not believing in God requires you to get comfortable with the phrase “I don’t know.” There are limits to what the human race knows.
LikeLike
FLERP! Yes–and that’s why they call it “faith” and not “knowledge.”
LikeLike
Yet, much of faith is built upon knowledge that has been confirmed and verified by 2-3 or more witnesses. This notion of “knowledge-less” faith is puerile and useless. As Einstein said “science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame”. Faith need not be a fact-free endeavor, except for those that want a “shot in the dark”. PS – the axiom of the initial conditions of the Big Bang singularity is as much a faith-position as Gn 1:1.
LikeLike
“the axiom of the initial conditions of the Big Bang singularity is as much a faith-position as Gn 1:1.”
My understanding is that the Big Bang is a theory that is essentially an extrapolation of (1) a huge set of observed phenomena and (2) the operation of scientific “laws” or theories that have been deemed reliable after ad nauseum testing, sometimes over hundreds of years. Whatever else the Big Bang may be, it isn’t something that was developed through “faith,” at least not in any meaningful sense of the word “faith.” (I suppose one might say that every time I leave house I’m exercising “faith” that the principle of gravity will prevent me from floating off into outer space. But I don’t suppose a scientist would say that.)
LikeLike
There are many anomalies to the BB and the assumptions required for the initial starting conditions have been worked out and extrapolated back in time. Yet, the event can never be tested, is unrepeatable. Any non-repeatable origin event transcends the limitations of experimental science, and that is why many philosophers of science distinguish the levels of knowledge and certainty between operational science and origin-event science. Singularities are by definition events that can neither be predicted or explained because they transcend or violate known laws of science, ie. the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The belief that from a “quantum vacuum of nothingness” out came all matter is as much a faith postulate (materialistic atheism) as Gn 1:1.
LikeLike
This is where my limited time impinges on my willingness to consider alternatives. I do still await a link to your peer-reviewed research, and I will read it if you send it. But I have to say that anyone who thinks there is no more empirical evidence to support the Big Bang than there is to support the creation story of Genesis –that the former is as much a “faith postulate” as the latter — is not someone worth taking seriously. This actually worries me about my children’s science education, but thankfully I don’t live in Florida.
LikeLike
Here is a link to a peer-reviewed astrophysical article by a PhD from a major secular university. It cites many articles from other journals. Just because it is from a creation-based group doesn’t make it any less scholarly or reliable than secular groups. Remember how Piltdown Man sat in the British Natural History Museum only to be proven a faux-fossil, or hoax, or many other evidences for the “tree of life” that have been discarded (ex. the fraudulent Archaeoraptor reptile-bird link fossil promoted by Nat’l Geographic).
So, fraud and deceit are a problem anywhere and peer-review is no guarantee of solid science, but may just be a filter to reinforce questionable dogmas and keep out criticism (that is what Kuhn said happens in times of status quo “normal science”).
Don’t worry about science education in my class room. We discuss all the facts whenever possible, talk about paradigm frameworks and the good or bad (bias) effects of them, and talk about the reality that many theories have anomalies that cannot be explained and that building models of origin events can be messy, full of conjectures and untestable axioms. At the end of it all, I believe students have their minds more open and prepared to deal with the dynamics of theory, data and reality more than a “darwin-only” pedagogy (no, I don’t promote YEC, only talk about facts and data).
I guess my peers believe I’m doing a good job here in Miami-Dade Co Public Schools. I was the county Science Teacher of the Year in 2001, and the president of the local secular Dade County Science Teachers’ Association, and have made presentations about problems in geochronology to my peers, being well received.
The fact of the materialist community being so “anathema” over any research that points to design-intent-purpose (which does not promote any specific religion, but only questions atheism) is a sad-point in the debates. Top notch researchers in their fields (ex. David Coppedge at JPL in Pasadena) have their careers jeopardized the moment they “come out of the closet” and confess to holding some theistic-views. Apparently, it is the materialists that are doing the witch-hunts now.
http://creation.com/stars-dont-form-naturally
LikeLike
True, we are not omniscient. Yet, maybe, unbelief and skepticism blind us to knowledge, answers and solutions that are already there? There’s nothing wrong with “I don’t know”, but “I’m not willing to consider an alternative” keeps us back from growing in the dialectic.
LikeLike
“Yet, maybe, unbelief and skepticism blind us to knowledge, answers and solutions that are already there?”
Indeed. Mankind knows more about the universe than ever before. I expect that one day we will know things that are inconceivable today — assuming the sciences continue to be funded and scientists continue to search for better and better explanations for why things are as they are.
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth says: “…and if there is any “exceptionality” to our form of gov’t and culture it is because of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and how it evolved over time from the European and British concepts of “natural law”, “law of conscience” and “inalienable rights.”
I think, in the main, you are right. The “however,” however, is that there is a difference between (1) good influence on a culture and political order, which is absolutely true; and (2) turning that culture and political order into a formal Judeo-Christian theocracy, which is completely wrong headed and is what DeVos is up to if the literature about her is even close to being correct.. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s . . .and to God what is God’s.
The distinction is between a theocracy and a free political culture based in (not kingship but) a highly developed Constitutional Democracy, where Freedom of Religion is a basic tenet. Whereas a theocracy is a single-religion State order where the State supports, sanctions, and excludes others; and where education teaches to a particular set of religious doctrines. The latter is a recipe for world conflict. Jefferson knew that as did the other Founding Fathers. God bless them.
I agree with you that denying our Judeo-Christian heritage is downright silly. But there is this little thing called The U.S. Constitution that thankfully both enables me to be Catholic or whatever, and my neighbor to be Muslim or whatever; and no State authority can interfere with those choices. It’s up to us personally, then, and through our religious institutions to make peace with and even celebrate our neighbors as we can an should.
And as an aside, as a Catholic, it is my view that the Church (all of them) are derelict in their duty to impact the SOCIAL and CULTURAL arena in ways that support and bring forward that heritage–and what is good about all religious texts, persons, history, and communities. Instead, most of what we see and hear on the airwaves that is named “religious” are totalitarian fantasies and recalcitrant money-grubbers. You have to go local to find any authentic religious people and programs. There is so much bad-cred out there about religion, I am constantly embarrassed about it.
LikeLike
Agreed, and I in NO WAY support the attempts at “church-state” unions, or those that want to take public monies and use them for religious reasons (though, what defines a “religion” can be broad or narrow). The forefathers, many of sincere faith, were weary of any state-church collusion, because many of them had suffered some kind of persecution by the Anglican church-state in England, or the Catholic church-states in Europe.
Yes, there should be a division between the Kingdom and Caesar. Jesus himself confronted the hypocrisies of the “church-state” of the Pharisees all day long.
LikeLike
I support Thomas Jefferson on Wall of Separation
LikeLike
Yes, but the “separation” clause or intent is not in the 1st amendment, because the Founders never imagined a “religion free” state and many of their writings reveal their belief in the role of religion in maintaining a moral populace.
My own take is this: 1) we can expose students to metaphysical and religious ideas (it’s diffused in much curriculum) 2) students can explore religious ideas in reading and writings (it’s already done in much curriculum) 3) all in the environment of no-establishment, the school remaining neutral and neither prohibiting or promoting a specific religious doctrine or dogma.
LikeLike
Rick,
Most of the Founders were believers.
They did not want to bring Europe’s religious wars here
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth: Three things: First, the First Amendment reads from the beginning: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . “ So your statement is cloudy, if not at least partly false. That is you say: “Yes, but the ‘separation’ clause or intent is not in the 1st amendment, because the Founders never imagined a “’religion free’ state and many of their writings reveal their belief in the role of religion in maintaining a moral populace.** The distinction is clearly political and formal, but as you seem to be saying, “free exercise thereof” is an open invitation in the moral and ( would say) socio-cultural arenas of the nation.
Second, Jefferson was quite clear in other writings about the place of education in a democracy, but (and I’ll try to find the reference) I think the founders were reluctant to be more specific about education in the Constitution as they were trying to placate the Southern states–in those states, it was unlawful to educate slaves, or for slaves even to learn to read. They thought that a coverall deferred-to Constitution, with regard to education of all, would be inherently conflicting to those states.
It was a part of the “snake-under-the-table” bargain they made that we haven’t been able to reconcile yet, and that is going to get us in trouble with DeVos and her ilk as we go forward. We CAN argue from what is clear about the foundations of democracy as such–that is, we cannot keep a democracy without an educated populace–but, take it from me, trying to talk foundations with a closed-minded ideologue who doesn’t already want the implications-on-policy of what you are saying, is a waste of time.
Third, you say: “1) we can expose students to metaphysical and religious ideas (it’s diffused in much curriculum) 2) students can explore religious ideas in reading and writings (it’s already done in much curriculum) 3) all in the environment of no-establishment, the school remaining neutral and neither prohibiting or promoting a specific religious doctrine or dogma.all in the environment of no-establishment, the school remaining neutral and neither prohibiting or promoting a specific religious doctrine or dogma.”
We’ve talking about this here before, but I will repeat it briefly–embedded in what you say, but not clearly distinguished (and that makes ALL the difference) is that curricula include discussing history to its fullest, including (of course) the influence and import of religion on any and all cultures. However, in a secular institution (and often in my experience in Catholic education), the student and the teacher “bracket” their own religious meaning, doctrine, group, and institution to learn ABOUT their own and others’ religious meaning, including atheism and the Greek mythologies (and on and on).
The essential point is that, and though I am sure there are many failures in particular circumstances, there is a prohibition on promoting a specific religious doctrine or dogma, especially if it’s exclusive of other religious meanings or none at all.
A good example is on display in many state accredited Catholic schools who draw a fine but clear line between (a) bracketing and “learning about,” which they think is essential, and (b) “promoting and taking as your one and only” religious doctrine, again, as opposed to other doctrine (indoctrination/proselytizing). Some religious schools do both. But secular schools are supposed to only “teach about” in terms of their specific curriculum, e.g., history or social studies, but not indoctrinate or teach “a religion” as the only truth and as as necessarily opposed to other religious meaning.
In that letter to the Trump/Devos administration, and regardless of what the Constitution doesn’t say about education, there is a clear encroachment there, in several places, on that Constitution. In the letter, they ask that everyone read it; but they seem to have failed to read it themselves.
But the “world view” that they talk about is (as you say) already informed in many good ways by the Judeo-Christian tradition. They don’t want openness or bracketing, however. They want indoctrination, and they cannot see anything that isn’t already Christian as the same, but now: anti-Christian indoctrination.
However, as secular and by bracketing, the institutions of education seek to inform, but leave open that religious world view for parents, churches, and students to develop on their own. But the writers of that letter purport to think that freedom of religion as a state mandate, along with “secular” ideas, are evil; and that if it’s not the Judeo-Christian religion as a formal State-endorsed religion as fully effective in the public sphere, then evil will reign and THEIR rights are being infringed upon–in my view, they therefore set about destroying all the good that the Church can and should do.
This is too much for this blog, on the one hand, but also not enough that could be said, on the other. Sigh . . . . .
LikeLike
Thanks for the feedback and comments. It is nice to have input into this dialogue which doesn’t come from a rabid “faith is a joke” perspective; written by those that forget that if all faith is just fairy-tale, then so is theirs. And if so, then why are they getting so upset? At the end of time, if there is no truth, then who cares and why debate it. Leave me alone to my delusions and I’ll leave them (FLERP and Duane) alone to their delusions.
LikeLike
I can’t wait for my kids to take Biology-plus-Islamic-ideas Geology-plus-Mormon-ideas.
LikeLike
FLERP, you and Duane love to reply with “red herring” “knee jerk” reactions that reveal much heat and emotional response, but little light and logical thinking. For example, my public school in Miami FL assigns students papers on “The 7 Deadly Sins”, as a study in metaphors, or reality. They analyze issues about the theology of the Reformation in AP European History, and discuss the oxymoron’s of having an “evolutionary view of environmental ethics” (ie. if humanity is more evolved, then the extinctions of other species may not be that big a deal, after all with no Creator to mandate moral choices about stewardship then “survival of the fittest, or most dominating” is one’s only starting point”).
All of this is done by teachers have have faith, no faith and diverse faiths, and done to stimulate the Dialectic of comparing thesis with antithesis in order to construct more valid and reliable terms and constructs. There is no indoctrination and not every possible faith-perspective is presented, because we live here in the US, not the rain-forest of New Guinea.
So, your fear of what open-ended and comparative curriculum may lead to is erroneous and misplaced, because it is already happening in all good curriculum and nobody is getting offended or crying (except those with such narrow, shallow and fragile worldviews, that they fear it being questioned or the exposure of alternatives).
Peace!
LikeLike
There is a logic to my comment, Rick. Pop quiz: Can you identify it?
LikeLike
” not every possible faith-perspective is presented, because we live here in the US, not the rain-forest of New Guinea”
We have a fair number of Muslims and Mormons in this country, Rick. Also Jews (not “Judeo-Christians,” but “Jews”). I don’t want my children’s class time being wasted by some moron who believes, and wants his students to seriously consider, that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Consider it an expression of my parental right to guide my children’s education.
LikeLike
Neither do I want some “moron” indoctrinating my students that apes over time, via mutations and natural selection, became H sapiens (when every supposed link has been refuted). Even S J Gould admitted that most if not all supposed transitional sequences required by evolution are not supported (refuted?) by the fossil evidence. For example, the imaginary lineage of Eohippus (badger-like) to Equus (horse) has been disproven, with the more “modern” Equus types found in fossil strata dating older than the supposed predecessor. The problem of the “grandchild existing before the grandparent” is rife within paleontology. Maybe you should do more research (ie. all the chronometers that don’t support billions of years) before you make stereotypical and moronic comments.
In my science class we discuss and explore any and all facts (if teachable moments arise) and bring up the issue that faith is required by any and all tenants (ex. faith in a Big Bang, or little whimper), and I let the kids decide for themselves. I guess I’m not like you, who only presents the facts in a preinterpreted paradigm and never discusses anomalous data. My job is to get students to think, not indoctrinate into the majority paradigm, of what Kuhn points out may one day be refuted (as the history of science points out).
LikeLike
I think the better solution would be for us both to do more research, obtain doctorates in the field, publish our research in peer-reviewed journals, and set a time and place to discuss this matter further as two qualified experts. Alternatively, neither of us morons should be teaching anyone science.
LikeLike
I’m all but dissertation in a PhD in science education, and I’ve had research published in ERIC. If you want my email, so that we can continue this in private I’d be more than happy to give it to you. I’ve been on both sides of the fence and am convinced “the grass is greener on one side”.
LikeLike
Hey, I’m ABD, too, although not in any science field, and I don’t don’t list it on my resume. So unfortunately I don’t think we have the makings of two leading experts in the field.
LikeLike
I’ve read from all the experts on all sides of the debate. BTW, which “expert” is not without their bias and a pre-commitment to their paradigm. Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” dispels the notion of science moving forward by “objective pursuit of truth” because people get entrenched within a dominant paradigm and quit asking the hard and refuting questions. SJ Gould an expert, again stated that most, if not all, transitional sequences used in many state-adopted textbooks have been refuted, along with the developmental biology myth of Ernst Haeckels, “ontology recapitulates phylogeny”. The number of falsified and discarded “evidences” for evolution is to numerous to document, ex. Piltdown Man. I believe in change, microevolution and adaptation, but phylogenetic macroevolution has yet to be documented, and all honest experts will admit that. Ever read any books from Stephen Meyer, ex. “Darwin’s Doubt”?
LikeLike
Rick, I’m not going to debate you about whether the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I’m not competent in that field of study, and I wouldn’t want myself teaching anyone’s children about geology or physics or biology. I also don’t think you’re competent in these fields of study, and I would prefer you weren’t teaching anyone about any of those subjects. The fact that you have taken graduate courses at an unnamed institution but have not written a dissertation does not substantially bolster your credibility in my view.
LikeLike
My PhD will be from an accredited FL ST university, and your accusations of my lack of knowledge of science is a slander, but that’s OK because it’s an easy thing to do.
I never accused you of being limited in knowledge, only that some of you views have been refuted. I study from all sides of the issues, and am not “worldview blind-shackled” as many supposed “ex-spurt” textbooks indoctrinate. Keep an open mind, my friend, and I will do the same. Peace!
LikeLike
Rick, you don’t need to accuse me of being limited in knowledge, because I have openly acknowledged that myself. And it is my distinct impression that while you may be a reasonably smart guy and may have read a lot of books about evolution, you are not an expert in any of the fields I’ve mentioned. This is a pretty reasonable assumption, given that (a) you don’t appear to do research in any of those fields, (b) you do not appear to be affiliated with a major research institution, (c) you do not have a doctorate in anything, and (d) you appear to find it engaging to debate evolution with total laymen.
By all means send me a link to some of your peer-reviewed work and I’ll read it with an open mind. Although I must warn you, if your work presents any original research, I likely will not understand it, because, as I said, I am limited in my knowledge of these fields.
LikeLike
Rick Lapworth: Kuhn was, and was not, without paradigm. That is, his thought was an embrace of empirical method–where we and our various sciences rest in the knowledge and paradigms of thought that we have, but are open to new questions that may and often do move us forward–where we can see both what is solid and what is to be left behind of our prior thought. If you can call it a “paradigm” or “world view,” it was more about the dynamism of the human spirit than doctrinal; more centered in the acknowledgement that human knowledge comes with a small “k” and our paradigms with a small “p,”but that the human spirit is always in a search for the large “K” and the most comprehensive “P.” Call it God or scientific faith–whatever–it was more about method than some to-be-shot-down doctrine, scientific or otherwise.
Implied in the fact that we still have questions, however, is that we don’t know all there is to know. So there’s a humility to be had in the recognition of our knowledge situation as “merely” human. Still, what we DO know serves us well until the next paradigm is shown to be unsatisfactory and the next set of questions emerges from the openness of some scientist or poet or writer of song or fiction.
In a general sense, then, the “paradigm” is empirical and methodological, or from the bottom-up, so to speak. Whereas a faith horizon is (to use the same metaphor) a view from above-downward. That’s why we call it faith and not knowledge. Though I would say there is such thing as religious knowledge, it’s not in the same ball park, so to speak, as are the roots of empirical science and it’s certainly not something one can find by reading and recounting what we find in a book.
If that’s the case, and I think it is, then the problem I see emerging here on this site, again, in a general sense, is the sense of encroachment of one “vector” of understanding on the other. We certainly cannot work that out here. But on that score, may I refer you to Bernard Lonergan’s two major works: (1) “Insight, A Study of Human Understanding,” and “Method in Theology.” I don’t usually recommend these on such sites for many reasons, and they are certainly not for those who do not wish to spend time working through their own presuppositions about such matters–but I think you are an exception and can gain much from having understood what this philosopher-theologian has to say about both science and religion. FWIW
LikeLike
FLERP!: That is a candidate for comment of the month.
LikeLike
Duane, Catherine and FLERP!: Last night I watched “Inherit the Wind” on TCM. It reminded me of my favorite episode of “This American Life” called “Heretics,” which I listened to again today. You may enjoy if you have time to listen: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/304/heretics/
LikeLike
I don’t think America is EXCEPTIONAL or FIRST. I think we have a corrupt society, which feeds on others … FOR PROFIT and POWER.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Amen, as the “Lord of the Rings” declares, “all kingdoms of men are corrupt”. Is there out there somewhere a true and righteous king and kingdom?
LikeLike
Elvis and Graceland.
LikeLike
Every year, the World Happiness Index surveys numerous people from various countries around the world in search of, as the name implies, which country has the happiest population. This year’s winner is Denmark, followed closely by Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway. The US ranked 13th.
So how do the researchers come up with this list? The process is actually rather simple, as the Index’s website explains: “The rankings are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This is called the Cantril ladder: it asks respondents to think of a ladder, with the best possible life for them being a 10, and the worst possible life being a 0. They are then asked to rate their own current lives on that 0 to 10 scale.”
In short, the researchers straight-up asked people to rank their own happiness. These answers are then weighted based on six other factors: levels of GDP, life expectancy, generosity, social support, freedom, and corruption.
………
The US ranked behind Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Israel, and Austria. I’d say we have a long way to go to make American exceptional. I think we’re looking in the wrong direction. Are the billionaires in Trump’s cabinet going to start caring about happiness as a goal? Doubt it.
LikeLike
“Caring about happiness as a goal” is a fool’s errand.
LikeLike
There are definitely factor that make for happiness. I don’t believe that those truths are a fool’s errand. For starters: proper education in which creativity can be encouraged, enough decent food, livable home conditions, available health care, decent water to drink and social freedom from deterrents such as those inherent in poverty…killings by guns, drugs, etc. These are things that a society can work towards improving. Leaving everything to the individual, the GOP philosphy, as in “Pull yourself up by the bootstraps’ when the person has no shoes, doesn’t work.
LikeLike
Happiness is a state of mind, feeling of contentment. But as a goal it will forever remain elusive. At least that is my life’s experience. I’ve given up on “searching for happiness” and am all the more calm and relaxed for it.
“social freedom from deterrents such as those inherent in poverty…killings by guns, drugs, etc.”
Those societal problems you mention are not “inherent in poverty”. The vast majority of the poor do not succumb to those things. The meme you cite is, well, elitist.
LikeLike
I substitute taught part time in the inner city of Chicago. One day, I was in a special class of teenage students. They were considered in need of help and were labeled as slow.
The afternoon was spent discussing what their short lives had observed. They all talked about killings, often in their family, the prevalence of drugs, police actions against relatives who had been out the night before. It was dismal. Knowing that this is happening and destroying lives is not ‘elite’. It is reality in the inner city.
One teacher told me not to come back to that school. It wasn’t safe for me there.
The teacher parking lot was filled with uneven dirt, scraggly weeds and cut glass. I’m not saying all school children in the inner city are having this much difficulty, but it does exist for way too many children.
LikeLike
Duane: Just a thought: The term for “well-being” in the Aristotelian Greek is commonly translated into “happiness” in English. I’ve often thought how “well-being” would have played in the translation of “pursuit of happiness” if our Constitution has read: “the pursuit of well-being.”
LikeLike
And the “well-being” meaning is probably more to the intention of the writers of the Constitution, at least from what I’ve read about it. Thanks for the note on the meaning!
LikeLike
Maybe it was just a typo and the Declaration was actually supposed to read “life, liberty and the pursuit of hippiness” .
I can’t say for sure cuz I’ve never been a hippy, but I’d bet that hippiness is probably an easier goal to achieve, especially when there’s lots of hemp around as there was back in the late 1700’s
Hippies are many
But happies are few
I can’t think of any
Happy hippies, can you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, have known quite a few who understood/stand that happiness is not a goal in life.
P.S. Never considered myself a “hippie” as I was just a tad young to “be” one. I would tell you about what I call “The Last Hippie Party” of Columbia, MO on the 4th of July, 1977 but it’s Diane’s living room and what went on isn’t really about “a better education for all”. But we sure had a blast!!
LikeLike
Can you at least tell us whether it was an education for all who were there?
LikeLike
Let me just say it was an eye popping experience for a couple of naive people.
LikeLike
Having spent a lot of time in all those countries except New Zealand Australia and Israel, they all share a sense of community, social security (writ small), and humility. Here’s an excerpt of a review I wrote about a YA book on Danish resistance in WWII that sums it up:
“But in true Danish style, this story is about regular people who love their country and anonymously go about their business to build a better society. They don’t beat their chests or try to tell the world how great they are; they just do the best they can.” And their best is pretty good.
LikeLike
GregB: Donald Trump really is a picture of all that is worst about American life. Of course that’s not all there is to it; however, it’s often what others see first and most often.
LikeLike
The irony, of course, is that Donald was correct in the quote that David Corn cites. But it has been discarded in the name of political expediency.
The connection between the idiotic term American exceptionalism and Donald has its own delicious irony. The more people cite how great they are, the more it exposes a deep sense of insecurity and weakness.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is true, but if “Make America Great Again actually did “evolve from a phrase that became central to the Republican establishment during the Obama years”, how did it end up on Ronald Reagan’s campaign buttons and posters in 1980?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again
Did Marty McFly have a hand in this?
LikeLike
For Donald, plagiarism passes for scholarship and originality.
LikeLike
In this case it is about the author of the MoJo piece who certainly took a very very narrow slit-like view of what constituted the basis of her piece: That it was media usage of the term that supposedly proved the point. I found the piece to be a joke. I’ve seen better essays written by middle schoolers.
LikeLike
Read Andrew Bacevich’s 2008 book titled “The Limits to Power: The End of American Exceptionalism”… I read it when it first came out and believe it’s message is relevant today…
LikeLike
Here are photos of white Americans showing their ideas of how to “Make America Great Again”. It’s a shame on American values but has been brought out by Trump’s hatreds and fears of anyone not white.
My Muslim friend says, “It’s alarming.”
Hate in the Age of Trump …Photos in New Republic
Taken together, Milano’s images make it impossible to deny that white supremacy is alive and well in this country. Powered by social media platforms, and
encouraged by the rise of Trump-as-champion, America’s hate groups have emerged from the fringes with a newfound sense of respectability. In 2015 alone, the number of homegrown hate groups jumped by 14 percent—a proliferation
unprecedented in recent times….
https://newrepublic.com/article/140110/hate-age-trump-photo-essay-van-jones-johnny-milano
LikeLike
I agree that if the killing of a white American by two Indian immigrant men had occurred Trump would be Tweeting more of his hatred and the news coverage would be non-stop. Trump’s “Make America Great” means “Make America White” again.
This is an example of the hatred that Trump is encouraging and doesn’t notice.
………….
Quartz: The infuriating silence of Donald Trump over an Indian engineer’s murder in Kansas
WRITTEN BY
Devjyot Ghoshal
…the voluble president hasn’t uttered a word on the shooting in Kansas that killed 32-year-old Indian techie Srinivas Kuchibhotla and injured two others. Kuchibhotla and his colleague, Alok Madasani, were grabbing a beer at a bar in Olathe when they were attacked by 51-year-old Adam Purinton, who apparently mistook them for Middle Eastern men. Ian Grillot, a patron who tried to intervene, was seriously injured.
“Get out of my country,” Purinton allegedly shouted, before opening fire.
So far, the Trump administration has said precious little. When White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked about a possible link between Trump’s rhetoric and rising racist violence, his response was this: “Obviously, any loss of life is tragic, but I’m not going to get into, like, to suggest that there’s any correlation I think is a bit absurd. So I’m not going to go any further than that.”
Trump’s silence is unsettling—and infuriating—for more than one reason.
By choosing not to openly condemn the attack in Kansas at a time when the US is deeply divided along racial lines, Trump risks giving the impression that he cares little for America’s influential Indian immigrants—or Indians in general.
“If the situation in Kansas were reversed, if two Indian immigrants attacked a group of white patrons to intimidate the larger community, there’s little question that Trump would respond with anger and condemnation,” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie wrote last week….
https://qz.com/919678/srinivas-kuchibhotla-muder-the-infuriating-silence-of-donald-trump-over-an-indian-engineers-murder-in-kansas/
LikeLike