[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by nguirado

1. Witchcraft: I think most of that violence was popular, meaning that the Church didn't go looking for witches

Church or general public, it was Christians doing the killing. And the public was doing it with the support of the church.

2. America. Disease happens. I don't think you're going to hold a grudge against Mongolians for bringing the plague.

I wasn't talking about the "new cultures meet; they swap diseases; the one previously more isolated dies more." I was referring to the smallpox-infested blankets deliberately given to Native tribes in an attempt to kill them.

3. Slavery. Yes. I agree that slavery as practiced in the US was especially bad because it was of the chattel type, meaning that they had no human rights.
Slavery was a universal condition. You know that a healthy percentage (maybe the majority) of ancient Greeks were slaves.

Slavery of ancient Greece is not directly relevant to Texans today. Slavery less than 150 years ago, in this nation, is still having an impact on politics and social dynamics.

4. ... American racism is kind of unique, tied up as it was with the Enlightenment idea, Southern economics, and slavery. I wouldn't use it as an example of the Christian view of race. Or, I don't know of any miscegenation laws in Europe.

It was very much a Christian view of race. I'm not claiming it's "the" Christian view--but it "separate but equal," and the claim that different races shouldn't marry (or rather, that White people shouldn't marry people who weren't White; nowhere did we have laws preventing a Black person from marrying an Asian person) was supported by Christian arguments. These same arguments are being used again to insist that two men or two women should not marry, because it's against some people's religion.

I am not saying "Christianity has been a vile force throughout history." I am saying that glossing over these details, and showing Islam or other religions as power-hungry or oppressive or violent, is skewed.

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

is it appropriate for non-Texans (or Texans for that matter) to try to influence the direction of Texas' texbook standards?

It is if they're using tax dollars to promote a religion.

Why does no one question WHY Texas has so much influence? Population wise, it's a large(ish) state, but certainly not the largest. I simply don't get it.

It's the second-largest state by population; it and California both have this much influence over publishers. California doesn't get the same kind of flak (it does get some) because its ideologies don't hit the "religion" button in the public debate arena.