It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:23 PM

It's not teaching the kids a religious belief. Or discussing a religious issue.

It's teaching the history of this country.

It's not saying that it's right, or that the founders were correct. It's saying "This is why we came here, because they believed this."

Jeeze. Look at British history. If it wasn't for the different beliefs on divorce, things would be completely different. You have to explain to the kids, when you teach that part of history, "This is what one group believed and some people believed otherwise because they were coming from this religious perspective, so they broke off from the main group."

You can't say "Well, they just didn't like each other."

That's how it is with tons of parts of history. How are you supposed to teach the Crusades without giving kids an intro to all the religions involved? It's necessary.

For Darwin's sake, I'm a freaking atheist and they taught us about religions when they were involved in a conflict. We learned about Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam when learning about India, we learned about Catholicism and Protestantism while learning about England, we learned about Taoism and Buddhism when learning about China. We learned about more. Judaism and Islam and Christianity in the Middle East. And we learned about Protestantism and the Quakers and this and that when learning about the foundations of America. It happens. If anyone would make a big deal, it would be me.

I don't even remember all of it. Hearing about the religions did not make me feel differently, except maybe hate religion a tad more for all the problems that it starts. But honestly I learned about it like three years ago. I knew all of it beforehand, I didn't think it was weird. I was more like "Hey, I know these old guys believed this stuff. That's why we do this and that and this and that. Nothing I can do to change that, we wouldn't be here if people didn't believe in that stuff."

But this is historical. Right, we didn't learn about all the minor religions. We did learn about the Druids when learning about early Europe. We learned about the Aborigines when learning about Australia. We didn't learn about Wicca or Polynesian religions because they're polytheistic and apparently not that important and because the Christian majority of parents would flip out if we did. But they didn't have anything to do with any major conflicts we learned about.

You can't teach about all religions equally. It would take too much time in school. I think it's the parent's responsibility to do that. But like, if you're learning about the foundations of America, teaching more about Buddhism would be REALLY counterproductive. But teaching about Christianity and what the founders wanted because of their religious beliefs.... that's really important.

And again, I freaking hate religion. I'm just saying that teaching about it in a historical perspective is necessary. They're not making the kids practice it- that's what all those private schools are for.

[edit on 7/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:33 PM
what does morality have to do with religion? Have you ever read the old testament? Its nothing but murder rape conquest and god killing people. yeah great thing to teach kids.

If you disagree with someone just invade and destroy them as long as your god says its ok?

Treat others the way you want to be treated thats it, i don't need religion for that. Doesn't seaseme street do a better job anyway?

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers
apology accepted. What hasn't been brought out yet (I think) is that a six member board has been chosen to review the books(that have not been published, if I understand correctly) and the board, consisting of 3 liberals and 3 conservatives, and make a choice.
The reason for this is simple. Texas is one of the largest, if not the largest, purchaser of text books. Text books are expensive to publish, and if the states don't buy them the publisher loses money.
There is a big movement in Texas, as well as a great many other states, to get back to basics when it comes to history.
We can't just skim over Korea and the Cold War as if they never happened.
By the way, one of the books, barely mentions 9-11 and gives no reason for it. Basically, just some crazy guys got hold of some passenger planes and crashed them, just for kicks.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:54 PM
the christian fanatics should not try to implement their revisionist history in public schools in Texas. I agree that the school system should tell students about how religion shaped the country, but claiming that the US would not exist if it wasn't for their imaginary god is crossing the line in my opinion. If they want a religion class, then fine. Just make sure the class gives information about ALL sorts of religions around the world. Including those religions that are considered mythology by many. In addition, the teachers should be agnostic, because a religious teacher would be biased toward his/her own belief system and downplay all the other religions. An atheist would probably ridicule the subject he/she is teaching. An agnostic, however, would be probably more neutral in the topic. Telling students that the god/goddess/gods and goddesses may or may not be true. (In fact this could lead students to choose their own religion and belief system if they so decide).

In addition, those who believe morals can only be derived from religion are 100% wrong. I'm an atheist and I do not go around killing/raping/stealing like a maniac. Morals can be learned from the family. A class about morality and virtues could also be helpful, but there really is no need to include god into those teachings.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by rogerstigers

Please try clicking on the link before making a judgement on it.

Er, how do you suppose I managed to quote excerpts from the article if I didn't read it? I must be better than I thought.

It read like a blog, seemed one-sided enough to my eye, and was pretty thorough in pointing out the faults of those on the side of teaching true history... thorough enough that I mentioned some misgivings I myself had about the proposal, despite my being openly Christian.

Can we agree that history should be taught as it happened, without censoring important events due to the possibility of mentioning a religious (or otherwise Politically Incorrect) cause for them? That is my only concern, and the only thing I am debating here.


top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in