You're Not Helping

but at first, the letter seemed almost a parody piece. I well remember what it was like to be a young skeptic who loved breathing fire on bullshit and taking my political opinions too far. But I cringe at his (hopefully) tongue-in-cheek remark about praising The Origin of Species. I'm sure he intended it to be humorous, but putting it in a religious context bugs me. I'd probably like the kid, but his opinions could use some knowlegde and thought, and his writing could use a lot of refinement and restraint.
And he does take his opinion too far into other peoples' rights. A private entity could certainly restrict what speech could appear. But if Adam really cares about free expression, he would not suggest that such extreme limitation would be appropriate at a state university, particularly in such a frivolous aspect as a charity brick. At least not unless everyone else's viewpoints were censored as well, which would accomplish nothing except to provide less freedom and more suck for everyone.

Richg:A kudo and a complaint.
I like that you took the time to bust the guy's balls regarding his ridiculous assertion about the right of religion to be in the public eye. Makes me wonder where he's been living!
But then you dive into a little b.s. of your own. Knowing a little about the extremely religious nature of many of the original colonists, it surprises me that specific religious goals aren't mentioned more often in the documents of the time. There is a reference in the Mayflower Compact about advancing their religion, but it is only mentioned in the beginning prelude along with other cultural intangibles like "for honour of the King," and "for the glory of God." Every other culture uses similar general pleasantries, but those watered down "convictions" are not explained or expounded in the document. The rest is the meat, which is all about working together and establishment of a government of people, and contains no further religious specifics.
As the colonies grow, the language becomes more watered down, and by the Declaration of Independence the scant religious references are about a deistic god, literally equivalent to the "Laws of Nature," used as no more than a legal fiction, a more powerful word for "will" or "conscience" to be used when rebelling against a King and church leader. Even the Declaration makes it clear that it is the will of the PEOPLE that makes a just government possible. Any god, any icon, any religion could be substituted in those religious references, and not change the intent of the documents a whit.
Yes, the majority of Americans have always been at least culturally christian. And I agree that many great political movements have had at least partially(sometimes mostly) religious bases or underpinnings.
But the official documents were astoundingly areligious for the time, and it has only helped the religious(of all faiths)and the non-religious. Some of the most prolific and influential Founders were moderate-liberal christians, deists, freethinkers, or atheists. Many struggled to keep government as secular as possible, and the leaders of various sects were wise enough to see the fairness of the approach.

In the case on textbook censorship you present, I am curious. There doesn't seem to be much religious content to omit, and there is no reason to omit it from a high school text. I can understand editing flourishes for the younger readers, maybe, but in high school?
I can assure you that my experience in school was quite different. I graduated from a California high school in 1991, and my American History classes had plenty of religious history. In my opinion, the religious motivations of the colonists were overplayed in my classes and textbooks, and there was almost no focus on the economics and politics behind the events.
In fact, I would have to say that at least in my time in school, there were many examples of christian and politically conservative propaganda and censorship. I had to do my own research to get any info on eastern religions. I had to do my own research to find out anything about communism and socialism that was more detailed than republican name-calling. I got a little taste of Native American history, but not much. That one stings a bit, since I have hundreds of unnamed Chickasaw and Cherokee relatives whose corpses still fertilize the plains of the midwest. The closest I ever got to a balanced approach was a study of McCarthyism in a junior year AP history class. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about claims of anti-christian bias. If things have changed that much in a few years, it slipped by me.