PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Nazis Declared War On Christianity In Public Schools Just As The Radical Left Is



MeerkatMadden
Jul 8th 2008, 09:37 PM
The Nazis hated Christianity and tried to completely eliminate it from schools and public life. Check out what this Nazi tract from 1941 entitled "Gott und Volk" had to say about children:

“With parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments… The education of the youth is to be confined primarily by the teacher, the officer, and the leaders of the party. The priests will die out. They have estranged the youth from the Volk. Into their places will step the leaders. Not deputies of God. But anyway the best Germans. And how shall we train our children? Thus, as though they had never heard of Christianity!”

And there are many more historical quotes and facts which prove this point about the Nazis:

http://theendtimesblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-you-know-that-hitler-and-nazi-party.html

The reality is that the socialists of the radical left of today that are trying to eliminate Christianity from our public schools are very similar to the national socialists (Nazis) of the 40s.

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 8th 2008, 09:40 PM
You know, any time we run into whatever we consider to be the next great evil, it always gets compared to the Nazis. It gets tiring, sometimes.

TrustingFollower
Jul 8th 2008, 10:31 PM
Are you aware that when Jesus comes to rule and reign for the 1000 years, this world will be a socialist society. In fact that same socialist society will also carry over to the new heaven and new earth.

Luke34
Jul 9th 2008, 12:41 AM
The reality is that the socialists of the radical left of today that are trying to eliminate Christianity from our public schools are very similar to the national socialists (Nazis) of the 40s.
Socialism is an economic construct. The in- or exclusion of religion from state-supported schools has nothing to do with economic policies; it is a social issue. And arguing that social liberals are like the Nazis is pretty much ridiculous: Socially, of course, the Nazi Party went 'round the far edge of extreme right-wing policies into the magical land of a totalitarian police state.

Also, claiming that something is evil just because it looks vaguely like something the Nazi Party/Hitler did is a fairly well-known logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 9th 2008, 03:05 PM
Socialism is an economic construct. The in- or exclusion of religion from state-supported schools has nothing to do with economic policies; it is a social issue. And arguing that social liberals are like the Nazis is pretty much ridiculous: Socially, of course, the Nazi Party went 'round the far edge of extreme right-wing policies into the magical land of a totalitarian police state.

Also, claiming that something is evil just because it looks vaguely like something the Nazi Party/Hitler did is a fairly well-known logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

I'm going to reduce everything to hitler from now on.

Jesusinmyheart
Jul 9th 2008, 08:34 PM
I think the issue is not so much that this is something that compares to something in the past, but the fact that it is allowed to continue to go on under an umbrella of a new name, for new reasons and for the sake of efficiency and society.

It says in Ecclesiastes that there's nothing new under the sun, and therefore this should not be such a suprise. What is shocking though how long the enemy has been working on this scheme and that it's not been stopped, and that in fact it continues to this day.

Tanja

Luke34
Jul 9th 2008, 08:41 PM
I'm going to reduce everything to hitler from now on.
Yeah, well, you know who else talked about Hitler all the time? Hitler.

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 9th 2008, 09:00 PM
Yeah, well, you know who else talked about Hitler all the time? Hitler.

I think we should ban cars. You know who wanted a affordable cars for all of his people? Hitler. Hitler loved cars.

Athanasius
Jul 10th 2008, 03:48 AM
//Insert drive by post to the tune of Mambo #5:

A little bit of Nietzsche in my life
A little Mussolini by my side
A little bit of Stalin is all I need
A little bit of Hume is what I see
A little bit of Voltaire in the sun
A little bit of Lyotard all night long
A little bit of Derrida here I am
A little bit of deconstruction makes me your man

thunderbyrd
Jul 10th 2008, 06:56 PM
since i have spent alot of time reading about hitler and the nazis, i can't help but chime in on this, though i'm not an expert on the subject.

but i can't resist: whenever i see the "liberals are like nazis" thing, combined with the "nazis hated Christianity" thing, i gotta jump up and down and wave my arms :ppand say, "Well, it's true that hitler hated Christianity and wanted to wipe it out, but did you know that hitler represented himself as a believer, and his party as the protectors of Christianity, as long as it served his political purposes to do so?"

not unlike some present-day radio demagoges i could name....


(sorry, i don't know how to spell demagogs)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 10th 2008, 07:09 PM
The logical fallacy isn't actually a logical fallacy. For instance, if someone comes forward and says, "I think we should eliminate all weaker people and races and embrace national socialism," then we are justified in comparing the person to the Nazis or to Hitler. Likewise, if someone says, "We should kill babies with down syndrome or other genetic defects in the womb and outside the womb" we are again justified.

Instead, the reductio ad Hitlerum is a juvenile "fallacy" that is merely composed of different types of the association and cause fallacies.

Apologies on diverting, but it's one of my pet peeves when people bring this so-called 'fallacy' up.

More to the point of the topic:

Multiple governments have tried to remove Christianity from schools - communist governments, secular democracies, monarchies, Islamic - thus Facism is not the cause of Christianity being removed from schools.

Luke34
Jul 11th 2008, 12:20 AM
The logical fallacy isn't actually a logical fallacy. For instance, if someone comes forward and says, "I think we should eliminate all weaker people and races and embrace national socialism," then we are justified in comparing the person to the Nazis or to Hitler. It might be correct that this person's ideas or some such are similar to Hitler's, and so comparisons could technically be drawn. However, it would still be fallacious to imply that these things are evil because Hitler supported them, which is what the Hitlerum fallacy involves. These things (ethnic cleansing, for example) are evil, but not because Hitler supported them--they were evil before that and they would be evil whether Hitler existed or not. Similarily, with ideas that are not accepted by all as inherently evil (socialism, for example), one cannot logically argue that they are de facto evil because Hitler agreed with them. It is possible to argue that Hitler's not-universally-abhorred concepts are wrong or evil, but this must be done by considering the concepts' content and effects, not its proponents.

Comparing opponents to Hitler means nothing in a logical sense, and is merely inflammatory for the sake of being so.

CoffeeCat
Jul 11th 2008, 06:39 AM
//Insert drive by post to the tune of Mambo #5:

A little bit of Nietzsche in my life
A little Mussolini by my side
A little bit of Stalin is all I need
A little bit of Hume is what I see
A little bit of Voltaire in the sun
A little bit of Lyotard all night long
A little bit of Derrida here I am
A little bit of deconstruction makes me your man

If I could rep you again, I would. :lol:

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 11th 2008, 02:56 PM
The logical fallacy isn't actually a logical fallacy. For instance, if someone comes forward and says, "I think we should eliminate all weaker people and races and embrace national socialism," then we are justified in comparing the person to the Nazis or to Hitler. Likewise, if someone says, "We should kill babies with down syndrome or other genetic defects in the womb and outside the womb" we are again justified.

Instead, the reductio ad Hitlerum is a juvenile "fallacy" that is merely composed of different types of the association and cause fallacies.

Apologies on diverting, but it's one of my pet peeves when people bring this so-called 'fallacy' up.

More to the point of the topic:

Multiple governments have tried to remove Christianity from schools - communist governments, secular democracies, monarchies, Islamic - thus Facism is not the cause of Christianity being removed from schools.

Hitler could possibly have made an argument like that.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 11th 2008, 03:20 PM
It might be correct that this person's ideas or some such are similar to Hitler's, and so comparisons could technically be drawn. However, it would still be fallacious to imply that these things are evil because Hitler supported them, which is what the Hitlerum fallacy involves. These things (ethnic cleansing, for example) are evil, but not because Hitler supported them--they were evil before that and they would be evil whether Hitler existed or not. Similarily, with ideas that are not accepted by all as inherently evil (socialism, for example), one cannot logically argue that they are de facto evil because Hitler agreed with them. It is possible to argue that Hitler's not-universally-abhorred concepts are wrong or evil, but this must be done by considering the concepts' content and effects, not its proponents.

Comparing opponents to Hitler means nothing in a logical sense, and is merely inflammatory for the sake of being so.

However, Hitler systematized it like none before him and was able to put it into a system that the general populace accepted, again, like no one else before him. Thus, such comparisons can be logically founded when we are appealing to the method of a person instituting his or her beliefs. This is why I think the fallacy is a joke as it just relies on other fallacies - why not have a Reductio ad Stalin or [/i]reductio ad Pol Pot[/i]? Instead, when referring to method, if the person is following a Hitler-like method, it's completely justifiable to compare the two.

My apologies, I just think that this fallacy is just a joke - it's merely combining multiple fallacies and applying them in the incorrect manner. If it just meant, "You can't compare something to Hitler to indicate its evil, you have to substantiate it further than that," I'd be fine, but then it wouldn't be a new logical fallacy, so there'd be no point in naming it.

humblefollower
Jul 11th 2008, 03:25 PM
You know, any time we run into whatever we consider to be the next great evil, it always gets compared to the Nazis. It gets tiring, sometimes.

I completely agree with you. What the Nazis did to the Jews was absolutely horrific. When people try to take a lesser offense and compare it to the regime it minimizes what the Nazis did. Online people are constantly using it as an attack (as in "so and so is a Nazi because they won't let me post what I want"). It makes me wonder if they have absolutely any idea what the Jews and other folks went through at the hands of the Nazis. The sad thing about America is that you do not get a real view of history until you are in college and even then, depending on the college you go to, it is slanted. We really need to modify the way we teach history in our schools. The true version of world history is horrific, but watering it down has made generation upon generation of clueless people who accept what they are spoon fed. If you are going to compare anything to the Nazi Regime you better darn well make sure that it is horrific to the point of having no words to be able to describe it. The Nazis, tortured, experimented on, raped, murdered and attempted to annihilate an entire race of people.

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 11th 2008, 03:42 PM
why not have a Reductio ad Stalin or [/i]reductio ad Pol Pot[/i]? Instead, when referring to method, if the person is following a Hitler-like method, it's completely justifiable to compare the two.

The wikipedia link addresses that....

apothanein kerdos
Jul 11th 2008, 07:28 PM
The wikipedia link addresses that....

Which shows the absurdity of the rule. Like I said, it takes already established rules of logic and attempts to personify them with certain types of people - it's an unnecessary step.

Luke34
Jul 12th 2008, 08:37 PM
However, Hitler systematized it like none before him and was able to put it into a system that the general populace accepted, again, like no one else before him. Thus, such comparisons can be logically founded when we are appealing to the method of a person instituting his or her beliefs. This is why I think the fallacy is a joke as it just relies on other fallacies - why not have a Reductio ad Stalin or reductio ad Pol Pot? Instead, when referring to method, if the person is following a Hitler-like method, it's completely justifiable to compare the two. Only if you make the comparison neutrally. If you make it to imply that the person or their idea is evil, then it is fallacious. And Hitler comparisons are used most often in inflammatory nutjob debates, so he gets the fallacy name.


My apologies, I just think that this fallacy is just a joke - it's merely combining multiple fallacies and applying them in the incorrect manner. If it just meant, "You can't compare something to Hitler to indicate its evil, you have to substantiate it further than that," I'd be fine, but then it wouldn't be a new logical fallacy, so there'd be no point in naming it. It's not exactly a "real" fallacy, I suppose--it's obviously a form of the association fallacy--but fallacious negative comparisons to Hitler (like this thread) are so common that I guess a sub-fallacy was invented for negative versions of the association fallacy. And it's not saying all comparisons to Hitler are incorrect, only that you cannot make such a comparison to imply that an idea is evil.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 12th 2008, 08:53 PM
It's not exactly a "real" fallacy, I suppose--it's obviously a form of the association fallacy--but fallacious negative comparisons to Hitler (like this thread) are so common that I guess a sub-fallacy was invented for negative versions of the association fallacy. And it's not saying all comparisons to Hitler are incorrect, only that you cannot make such a comparison to imply that an idea is evil.

Fair enough, and I do see humor in the fallacy (in that people make it so much). It's just one of those pet peeves that illicit irrational anger for literally no reason every time I see it used. ;)

Luke34
Jul 16th 2008, 11:18 PM
Fair enough, and I do see humor in the fallacy (in that people make it so much). It's just one of those pet peeves that illicit irrational anger for literally no reason every time I see it used. ;)
Like with me when people use "ironic" to mean "coincidental"? Oh, no, wait, there's a reason for that, which is that WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Sorry, just felt like ranting.

teddyv
Jul 17th 2008, 02:47 AM
Like with me when people use "ironic" to mean "coincidental"? Oh, no, wait, there's a reason for that, which is that WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Sorry, just felt like ranting.
You should have a talk with Alanis Morisette.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 17th 2008, 03:36 AM
Like with me when people use "ironic" to mean "coincidental"? Oh, no, wait, there's a reason for that, which is that WORDS MEAN THINGS.

Sorry, just felt like ranting.


It's ironic that you would say that to someone that often makes that mistake. ;)

Luke34
Jul 17th 2008, 04:06 AM
You should have a talk with Alanis Morisette.
I'm not sure who that is. Isn't that ironic?

teddyv
Jul 17th 2008, 05:42 PM
I'm not sure who that is. Isn't that ironic?

Canadian rock artist who wrote a song called "Ironic", where all the incidents described in the lyrics are not ironic but coincidental. Coincidently, it's playing on my computer right now as I'm typing this.:)

Clavicula_Nox
Jul 21st 2008, 02:53 PM
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm260/clavicula_nox/1177659602121.jpg

MeerkatMadden
Aug 12th 2008, 09:04 PM
The Nazis were against Christianity in their public schools.

So are the "liberals" of today.

I don't see where that is an unfair comparison.

Vhayes
Aug 12th 2008, 10:46 PM
I think we should ban cars. You know who wanted a affordable cars for all of his people? Hitler. Hitler loved cars.
Better tear up the highways too. That was another thing Hitler was behind.

Vhayes
Aug 12th 2008, 10:50 PM
The Nazis were against Christianity in their public schools.

So are the "liberals" of today.

I don't see where that is an unfair comparison.
I am NOT a liberal.

I am against school prayer.

WHY????? Well maybe because someday I fear that Christians will no longer be in the majority. And I certainly don't want my grandchildren to be forced to kneel and pray to Mecca.

A quiet moment at the beginning of the day so each student can silently say what they feel led to say? Sure - I can get behind that but not prayer said aloud, led by a teacher whose religion I have no control over. No way.

Luke34
Aug 12th 2008, 10:51 PM
The Nazis were against Christianity in their public schools.

So are the "liberals" of today.

I don't see where that is an unfair comparison.
So what's the point? Just because Nazis support an idea doesn't mean it's ipso facto a bad one.

SirTanTee
Aug 13th 2008, 12:50 AM
Remember: separation of Church and State was never meant to protect the State, but to protect the Church. Early in American history, many colonists were Protestants fleeing from European persecution. Think of how often religion has been twisted by governments in order to control and harm people throughout history. It may begin with the government slightly favoring a certain religion, but tumbles into dictating religious practices, slipping propaganda into religious messages and instigating witch-hunts against dissenters. It has happened countless times, in every corner of the globe. Even though our modern American society seems fairly safe from this phenomenon at the moment, it could always happen. I always think that the separation is better; it's simply a safeguard for everyone. We don't want our religion - or any religion, as a matter of fact - exploited in order to manipulate citizens.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 13th 2008, 02:49 AM
I am NOT a liberal.

I am against school prayer.

WHY????? Well maybe because someday I fear that Christians will no longer be in the majority. And I certainly don't want my grandchildren to be forced to kneel and pray to Mecca.

A quiet moment at the beginning of the day so each student can silently say what they feel led to say? Sure - I can get behind that but not prayer said aloud, led by a teacher whose religion I have no control over. No way.

Uh oh, sensible post alert!

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm260/clavicula_nox/car_34.gif

Lorren
Aug 13th 2008, 03:24 AM
I am NOT a liberal.

I am against school prayer.

WHY????? Well maybe because someday I fear that Christians will no longer be in the majority. And I certainly don't want my grandchildren to be forced to kneel and pray to Mecca.

A quiet moment at the beginning of the day so each student can silently say what they feel led to say? Sure - I can get behind that but not prayer said aloud, led by a teacher whose religion I have no control over. No way.


But there's a difference between being against school prayer and being against Christianity in the schools. Children are given failing grades for doing Christian art projects just because they are Christian, they are told that they can't have Bibles in class, but they can be told that they have to say Moslem prayers and play jihad games in some classrooms (the ones that use the Across The Centuries textbook).

Vhayes
Aug 13th 2008, 03:40 AM
But there's a difference between being against school prayer and being against Christianity in the schools. Children are given failing grades for doing Christian art projects just because they are Christian, they are told that they can't have Bibles in class, but they can be told that they have to say Moslem prayers and play jihad games in some classrooms (the ones that use the Across The Centuries textbook).
They really are asked to say say Islamic prayers in class?

As far as the text book goes, do they also "play" Crusade games? History is history. The Islamic prayer thing bothers me a bunch. Is that happening in schools where you live?

Thanks in advance -
V

Lorren
Aug 13th 2008, 06:27 AM
The following is an analysis of the 7th Grade Textbook "Across The Centuries" used in California:

http://www.textbookleague.org/113centu.htm

An article regarding its use in Byron, California (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335)

An article about Islamic teaching in Nyssa, Oregon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335).

Vhayes
Aug 13th 2008, 01:17 PM
The following is an analysis of the 7th Grade Textbook "Across The Centuries" used in California:

http://www.textbookleague.org/113centu.htm

An article regarding its use in Byron, California (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335)

An article about Islamic teaching in Nyssa, Oregon (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52335).
History is history. Apparently they teach about Christianity as well, so where is the bias? Chapter 13 is about Martin Luther and the Reformation. These ARE world religions and no one is telling children they are to become Muslim.

Have you read excerpts from the textbook? I haven't, so I hesitate to say anything about the course work. I read where they had a Muslim come in and talk to the class about her religion - that she said, "Christians have their bibles and we have our Qu'ran". What is so troubling about that statement? It's true.

Children do need to learn about other cultures. They need to see that not everyone is the same as they are - not better and not worse, different. If they were to teach these children that Islam is the "True Religion", then I would have a serious problem. But that doen't appear to be what they are doing.

i read the article and didn't see anything at all about children being forced to pray an Islamic prayer.

Thanks for the information. I did read the articles and did a bit of research on the textbook.
V

AngelAuthor
Aug 14th 2008, 12:24 AM
History is history. Apparently they teach about Christianity as well, so where is the bias? Chapter 13 is about Martin Luther and the Reformation. These ARE world religions and no one is telling children they are to become Muslim.
History is history. Religion is Religion. I just took a course in college entitled "World Religions" where I got an extensive earfull about Islam.

My question is, why are our public schools teaching world RELIGION (disguised as history) when they fail at teaching the basis such as reading, writing and math? Teachers for more than a hundred years have been complaining that so much more is added to the curriculum required for school but NO TIME HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE SCHOOL DAY. Okay, so the question is, if History is important for kids to learn (and it is), why is world religion something important for them to spend their limited time on?


Children do need to learn about other cultures.
Islam is not a culture, it is a religion. Arabic/Middle-eastern is a culture. African is a culture that has many sub-cultures. Mexican is a culture. Chinese is a culture

Culture does not = religious instruction. Not to this level.

The public schools of this country were STARTED to instill a good, fundamental standing of reading, writing, math and THE BIBLE. Fine, they've tossed the Bible out. I don't need them adding a watered-down version of history that includes all sorts of cults and godless practices in its place.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 12:36 AM
Islam IS a culture. Islam has completely taken over the Middle East, and I should say that an area's major religions have quite a big impact on the development of those areas. How can you study the history of Europe, while leaving out the Celtic pantheon, the rise of Christianity, and the subsequent rise of small-medium sized cults which began to dominate regional provinces?

How do you study the Danes, Swedes, Jutes, Norse, etc, without studying Wodan, Walhalla, Ragnarok,Loki, and Surt?

How do you study India without studying Rama, Kali, and Shiva?

How do you study Japan without understanding their mix of Buddhism and ancestor worship?

I could literally go on all day, but the fact is that you cannot separate religion from history, not if you want to teach honestly.

*edit*

You mentioned watered-down history, but that is exactly what your censorship stance would be.

Vhayes
Aug 14th 2008, 02:24 AM
Ah, I see - so Martin Luther had no impact in history. Minarets and Mosques don't figure into the culture.

Silly me.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 02:53 AM
Ah, I see - so Martin Luther had no impact in history. Minarets and Mosques don't figure into the culture.

Silly me.

Or the desecration of the Hagia Sophia after it's seizure by the Ottoman Turks.

AngelAuthor
Aug 14th 2008, 05:59 AM
Islam IS a culture. Islam has completely taken over the Middle East, and I should say that an area's major religions have quite a big impact on the development of those areas. How can you study the history of Europe, while leaving out the Celtic pantheon, the rise of Christianity, and the subsequent rise of small-medium sized cults which began to dominate regional provinces?

How do you study the Danes, Swedes, Jutes, Norse, etc, without studying Wodan, Walhalla, Ragnarok,Loki, and Surt?

How do you study India without studying Rama, Kali, and Shiva?

How do you study Japan without understanding their mix of Buddhism and ancestor worship?

I could literally go on all day, but the fact is that you cannot separate religion from history, not if you want to teach honestly.

*edit*

You mentioned watered-down history, but that is exactly what your censorship stance would be.
Are you saying that all studies of history before what today's public school education were useless? Personally, I went through LOTS of World History classes in high school and grammar school and I learned that those in the middle-east were predominantly Muslim...PERIOD.There was no reason to go into intimate, exquisite detail about what Islam is in order to teach me about the history of the reigion. I learned about Rome and how they worshipped Gods of Greek and Roman Mythololgy. PERIOD. there was no need to go into sick details of what that worship was about. I learned about The far east and their religious influences were Buddhist (not a God-Centered religion) and Hindu (a polytheistic religion) and the histories of those nations, PERIOD.

No...a 9th grader does not need all of the twisted detail of Islam in order to study the history of the Middle-East. That is an advanced level of "history" (more religious studies) that is not required for a basic, public school education. As I said, at 36 years old, they weren't teaching that to me in High school almost 20 years ago, nor anyone else that I know...our education is not incomplete as a result. Culture covers MANY aspects of a society and it is quite possible to delve VERY VERY Deep into a society and culture without touching significantly on the relgious. It all depends on your angle. For example, when studying psychology in college, we spoke very much and very deeply about many Asian cultures and their histories and how their societies are more family-oriented rather than individualistic like Ameican society. In weeks of studying various countries in Asia and how their PSYCHOLOGY is different than ours, we touched on their religions not-ONCE.

You can't tell me that what I learned in that course was insufficient for its particular task or goal. Neither would I accept the idea that a high school, non-focused, general history course needs to delve this deeply into any culture's religion to be complete.

The Middle Eastern culture is many things; It is food, it is clothing, it is psychology, it is literature, it is (rich) scientific history, it is family structure, it is dance, it is art, and yes, it is religion.

No. You do NOT need to focus on a culture's religion to teach high school students about it.

And you called it censorship. That's wholly inaccurate. It is no different than why they do not teach architecture in high school. It is a specialized area of science that, if you are interested in learning about, you go on to do so in college. No one considers it "censorship" that our students are taught the very basics of physics and building design and nothing more.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 01:06 PM
No. You do NOT need to focus on a culture's religion to teach high school students about it.

I didn't say one word about high school.

AngelAuthor
Aug 14th 2008, 04:12 PM
This thread is discussing the public schools (grade through high school) and the whacked curriculum that is being foised upon our students. My argument was that our public schools used to teach the Bible extensively because that is a distinct part of the American heritage and history. Now that they've chosen NOT to teach the Bible, they shouldn't be replacing it with extensive instruction in cult/pagan religions instead. There's plenty else of importance for teachers to educate our children on.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 04:48 PM
This thread is discussing the public schools (grade through high school) and the whacked curriculum that is being foised upon our students. My argument was that our public schools used to teach the Bible extensively because that is a distinct part of the American heritage and history. Now that they've chosen NOT to teach the Bible, they shouldn't be replacing it with extensive instruction in cult/pagan religions instead. There's plenty else of importance for teachers to educate our children on.

I re-read it, and saw that I skipped over that.

There is a really good reason to teach a larger cultural studies at the public school level and that is this: Americans are ignorant of other cultures. Americans are ignorant of their own culture. Americans are ignorant of history, and ignorant Americans in these fields are why people in other places assume that Americans are fat, lazy, and uneducated. In many ways, it's true, but that is because we lead soft lives without much in the form of challenges.

The education system is surely broken, the emphasis now is more on the students "feelng good about themselves" than learning anything. What is needed? I'm not sure, probably a shake-up of our society of some form.

*edit*

I also want to add that other religions and belief structures have shaped the world into what it is today. Ignoring them doesn't change that.

Lorren
Aug 14th 2008, 05:23 PM
So putting up a banner saying "Allah is God" is acceptable in the Public Schools? Is that necessary in order to learn history?

Another textbook, History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond, has also generated controversy. "Parents against it characterize it as an insidious form of Islamic proselytizing - definitely not sitting well with a Marin County mother who spoke to PRB News." source (http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4845)

I like history as much as the next person. I read history books in my free time, even though I have my degree already. There are plenty of ways to learn about a culture, their society, and their history, without immersing yourself in a culture's religion.

I remember when I was in 7th grade (the year that these textbooks are most often used) I made medieval dolls and dressed them in medieval clothing. We learned about Arabia, their art, that they were Islamic, etc. (I read the entire textbook even though our class did not get through it all), and it did not amount to Islamic propaganda. It taught about it without trying to hold it up onto a pedestal.

HisLeast
Aug 14th 2008, 05:46 PM
So putting up a banner saying "Allah is God" is acceptable in the Public Schools? Is that necessary in order to learn history?

Did anyone suggest that?

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 05:54 PM
So putting up a banner saying "Allah is God" is acceptable in the Public Schools? Is that necessary in order to learn history?I'm trying to find the part of my post that says this, but I'm having trouble; maybe you can show me?

AngelAuthor
Aug 14th 2008, 06:36 PM
I re-read it, and saw that I skipped over that.

There is a really good reason to teach a larger cultural studies at the public school level and that is this: Americans are ignorant of other cultures. Americans are ignorant of their own culture. Americans are ignorant of history,

All very true, but as I was pointing out, a larger cultural exposition in public schools does not necessarily have to include deep or extensive religious education. There's far more to every culture in the world than just its religious influences, that may merely be touched on in the most basic ways. This I say, mind you, in perfect harmony with our government's position of wanting to separate religion from schools.


The education system is surely broken, the emphasis now is more on the students "feelng good about themselves" than learning anything. What is needed? I'm not sure, probably a shake-up of our society of some form.
What is needed is a revolution. There are several groups of organizations that need to be rounded up and driven out of this country on a rail after being tarred and feathered because their net worth to the American Society has not simply been ZERO, it is clearly a negative. I'll put the ACLU at the top of this list and include - relative to the current discussion, the NEA as well.


I also want to add that other religions and belief structures have shaped the world into what it is today. Ignoring them doesn't change that.
I suppose we simply disagree on how much of that influence is required in public education where religion is supposed to be separate from the state. As I stated before, I received a perfectly rounded education 18 years ago WITHOUT learning so much about Islam. Such detailed religious instruction (indoctrination) is best left to the wiser, more established mind, and as a matter of option, such as in college.

Clavicula_Nox
Aug 14th 2008, 06:43 PM
I don't think we disagree quite so much, and you're probably right in saying the majority of young minds aren't quite ready to handle a more in-depth study of other cultural ideas and belief structures.

AngelAuthor
Aug 14th 2008, 07:39 PM
Agreed: Our public schools could use more cultural education. It's even fun in a way depending on the focus. I remember dressing up in Mexican garb around the time of Cinco de Mayo

mmmmm...mayo...:P

learning about Mexican Conquistadors, the Mexican exploration of what is now the American Southwest including California, and all of the Santas (Barbara, Dimas, Capistrano, Catalina, etc.), and trying to cook some Mexican flavors in classroom as well.

Being raised in Southern California, the public schools thought it important (for obvious reasons) to fill our education with lots of information on the culture of Mexico. We didn't get into Catholicism, though.

I agree with you that our schools should be giving much more of this teaching, and I'd LOVE to see high schoolers exploring, for example Arabic foods, the language, their rich scientific history from the Medieval Period and before, their clothing and social customs, etc. All of this would serve to make our children much more well-rounded as they graduate and ready to face the "Global World" and I'd be all for it. :pp

Vhayes
Aug 15th 2008, 02:55 AM
I agree with you - we can teach without beating people over the head with religion. I will say there are certain aspects of history that make no sense unless they are in the context of religion (The Crusades, The Reformation, etc.) but in the oer all scheme of things, children in public schools shouldn't be taught about religion. That means Christianity as well as Islam or Shintoism or Taoism or Judaism.

My first post to this thread was to question what was being taught to children. When I looked up the text book, I found it had a section on Arabia and how Islam has shaped it but it also had a section on Christianity and how Christianity has shaped the West.

It seemed an unbiased text. That was my point. And nowhere did I read that children were required to pray to Allah.

Thanks for the discussion -
V