The Texas Observer

By Ryland Barton

Much has been made of the rumored cuts of César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall from Texas public school curriculum, but Thursday’s State Board of Education meeting seemed to suggest that these two historical figures would be retained in Texas classrooms. The six SBOE experts, appointed to conduct a regular review of social studies material, presented their revisions on the 222nd anniversary of the Constitution’s ratification. It was fitting that on this day, the conversation strayed away from historical figures to the separation of church and state, or in this case, the so-called experts’ view that the two are inextricably intertwined.

In his review of the Texas Education Knowledge and Skills curriculum, SBOE-appointed expert Reverend Peter Marshall argues that high school classrooms should explain that critical documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are products of Christian values.  Marshall, who operates Marshall Ministries in Massachusetts, stressed his “Bible-based worldview” in which the Constitutional values of universal human equality are derived from God. His philosophy is expanded in his review of the TEKS, emphasizing: “Religion in America produced the first written civil documents of governance.” Marshall is one of two Christian advocates who were appointed as experts by the SBOE to review social studies course content.

The other is David Barton, former vice president of the Texas Republican Party. Barton did not expand on his previous comments that Cesar Chavez “lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others,” but instead gave an in-depth review of minority historical figures that would be appropriate to review in the TEKS curriculum. Barton appears to have taken a step back from his written review of the TEKS, in which he also suggested the removal of Anne Hutchinson, Carl Sagan, and Colin Powell from the historical figures list. Barton also advocated for the inclusion of religion in the program, counseling that students be taught “inalienable rights as being those rights given by God.”

It’s encouraging to see the First Amendment tested on this Constitution Day. Though our founding documents use the words “creator” and “under God,” it’s not clear we shouldn’t necessarily fasten the Constitution’s attitude of human equality to Christian origins, just as modern society doesn’t follow 18th century morality. Yes, these critical documents influence the way we think about government today, but most people consider their influences as historical information to weigh and consider instead of treating them as roadmaps and relics. For example, our founding fathers wrote in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The author of the First Amendment was almost certainly thinking about their ancestors’ flight from England in which they were dissatisfied with the Church and were not permitted to practice their Puritan faith. Though Puritan states like the Massachusetts Bay Colony were established under this sentiment of “free exercise,” the intention of the First Amendment was obviously not to establish and protect Puritanism. The free exercise of faith ensures that all of America’s modern-day “pilgrims” may live in a country free of imposed religion.