Canadian Grade Eight Social Studies: Who Is The Prophet Of Muslims?

page: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
OP sure is trying VERY hard to see the religious overtone in the history books.

yet everything he is quoting to us seems pretty factual and basic. OP gets offended by even the vague use of the word "religious" like its a bad word or something...

if it were up to him, it all would be removed from history like its not a relevant thing to learn.

here is the religious opposite of the OP
www.youtube.com...

i see no real difference... the anger and ignorance is the same. the words are different.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bisman because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
reply to post by Unity_99
 


You are the living proof why goverment should not serve the people. The people don`t know anything and are not in position to demand anything.


Right and the government knows everything? The education system in the North American Union is a joke.

Its people like you who put all their trust in people who are there to make sure you follow the line, you trust and believe them because they have a Status, a title.

All through history, I often asked why even learn such a subject. Since all the people involved in those historic events are dead and are usually misrepresented.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by hououinkyouma
reply to post by Unity_99
 


From my point of view they are only teaching facts about the history of some religion. I don`t see a big problem there, it`s part o history too.


No its not. College religious studies, maybe. But no bible, torah, or any muslim religion material is suitable in any school system. Its not history, not even close. Its the easter bunny, but a mean psycho one, that has destroyed this world in slavery and abused so many women and children throughout history that it needs to be exposed and removed. Its not suitable in a secular education to even mention this.

AND THIS IS BEING DEALT WITH.



I'm afraid the OP is right. Social Studies is not for studying religion. The only time religion should be brought up in social studies is when in reference to real historical war caused by religion.

I.E.

Covering the Crusades. We can talk about religion in this context because it's the basis for the war. We don't talk about religious practices.

The only classroom the subject of "Most important Jewish book" should come up in, is a Jewish synagogue, or school.

If it's a public school, this should be off limits, abso-effin-lutely.

If you can't see the difference between "George Washington was who, before he was the first president?" and "Who do the Muslims worship?" there is something wrong with you.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


Yes, sanity. Thank you. I seriously thought the Haida earthquake took us down a dimension or two because no one is getting it.

This text is so disappointing, to see the Canadian Government giving into the demands of the UN and pushing a propaganda type of text. The whole outline, could have been so much more than it was. Upon looking over the entire text and reading large portions of it, I kept thinking this has potential. Introducing lands and people and poetry, a touch of historical sociology versus our typical focus on wars and domination, empires, as most of history seemed to be, this has the human touch. It could be dusted off and rewritten and be a really good text but it would require a whole overhaul.

They used layout, and boxes to draw the eye and put some Sharia teachings or misogyny in history as a brainwashing technique. Slipping in words to transform their message. The west imperialism and inquisitions were horrendous, of course they were, but in this text only the west was terrible. The Islam wars were all about strategy and good planning, and their empires were fair, giving more to the farmers than the poor wretched struggles they had before.

But in other portions, womens rights and Canadian values were upheld. I almost thought of it as a generic, adaptable text, if your class was predominantly western you could focus on certain parts but if you had alot of immigrants and various other groups, you could focus on other parts.

But chapter 13 headed by the title, China the World Power, really showed its stripes.

No child should be subjected to propaganda as an education.

And our consitutions and laws should be the safeguards we need to stop this.

Instead our laws are set up that Government officials and ministry can pretty do as they please, and create portals to allow anything they want in, and they can create unlawful, unconstitutional legislations at will as well, and no one is willing to stand up en masse to say, NO WAY. And have them all systematically overturned, by non partisan people judges (because corrupt judges are another problem).

I keep thinking our battles should be legal, and people need to be made aware with unity and responsiveness to all tactics to overturn our sovereign freedoms and human rights.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bisman
OP sure is trying VERY hard to see the religious overtone in the history books.

yet everything he is quoting to us seems pretty factual and basic. OP gets offended by even the vague use of the word "religious" like its a bad word or something...

if it were up to him, it all would be removed from history like its not a relevant thing to learn.

here is the religious opposite of the OP
www.youtube.com...

i see no real difference... the anger and ignorance is the same. the words are different.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Bisman because: (no reason given)


Well pretty hard to miss it, since this is the FIRST TIME I'VE EVER SEEN RELIGION MENTIONED LIKE THIS IN CANADIAN SCHOOLS.

And I not only graduated but come from a family of educators.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Exactly, it's the first time YOU have seen it but the rest of us who have attended British Columbia schools in the last two decades already have.

The root of discrimination is ignorance.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
@Unity "Yes, sanity. Thank you. I seriously thought the Haida earthquake took us down a dimension or two because no one is getting it. "

Because you've found 1 other person who agrees with you, that's sanity?
There are dozens of other people on this thread who don't. In total, 2 maybe 3 people agreed with your viewpoint.
This does not equate to sanity whatsoever. (Thinking that people are following you around, unless you are a spy or something, is not sane. I hope you've spoken to someone about this. Sincerely.)
But, you weren't looking for sanity.
You're looking for someone who agrees with you.
I again state that you are taking the material out of context. You're misinterpreting it to confirm your preconceived notion.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Exactly, it's the first time YOU have seen it but the rest of us who have attended British Columbia schools in the last two decades already have.

The root of discrimination is ignorance.


It's not discrimination.

I don't have any problem with muslims/jews/christians/catholics... I view people as people -- however, I would never teach my children any of that non-sense. Classification = Divide. Divide -> Discrimination. We are this way. You are that way. Therefor; I don't like you.

If you believe in God or not, if you believe in the basic moral ethics handed down by all religion -- written by man, then what does the rest matter?

It's all semantics and I'd rather my children [if/when I have them] not be roped into this non-sense. The only thing that matters is if you are a good person or not. What your ideological/philosophical beliefs are have no bearing on this unless they are sinister, like eugenics, satanist, etc.

If I want my child to learn about Jews/Muslims etc... I'd explain it to them. We don't need homework assignments for this.

Learning about religion is an ADULT process. Teaching it in any capacity to kids is teaching a bias every time. Before you are old enough to make rational decisions is a bad time to teach someone something that has no rational sense in it.

It's essentially the root of brainwashing. If a kid never hears about religion and you explain it to him as an adult, fully educated in everything else -- it becomes that persons unbiased decision in where to place their faith. If you teach a kid one thing, that becomes his faith through ritual.

This is the very act of brainwashing.

Propaganda IS strategic brainwashing.

This is propaganda.

There is no disputing it logically or rationally. Some people are okay with it, that's fine -- you're entitled to your own opinion, however, that opinion doesn't transform a spade into a club. A spade is always a spade. Lets just be real about it.

There is no educational merit in these teachings. There is no applicable knowledge. It's just philosophy.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Yes, and if you felt that the educational system was teaching/exposing them to things you didn't approve of, then I'd imagine you'd make the choice to homeschool them.
Unity doesn't want to do that. She wants to send her kids to public schools, and to decide for all of us what is or is not appropriate. At the same time as telling us how 'enlightened' and 'for equality' she is.
We were trying to point out how hypocritical that is.

Have you read the whole thread?


This isn't about schools teaching them what to believe, it is teaching them about what others believe.
Our countries are made up of people from all these different religions. Your children will have to interact with them.
If you don't want your children learning that, then again, I guess home schooling is your option.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


The OP is taking it out of context. It is a Social Studies class that looks at History and Social processes and one of the biggest influences on both through majority of human existence is Religion. The students are not being taught that religions or their teachings are right, just what they are. It is the same as when you learn about political systems, just because you're taught feudalism doesn't mean you have to agree that it was the right system. Just that it existed.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
And her saying that this is new? It is not, as many others noted.
She was also calling it criminal, though would not, and I suppose cannot, cite the laws or regulations she imagined were being broken.
Opinions are opinions.
Facts are facts.
As I stated previously in this thread, much of what I learned in school I consider to be propaganda, religious teaching being the least of it. (the UN are the good guys, our military are peacekeepers, the government works for us...)
Yes, this is your job as a parent - to teach your kids to think for themselves, not believe everything they're told, whether it is in textbooks, newspapers, on the news, etc etc.
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: correction



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Laykilla
 


The OP is taking it out of context. It is a Social Studies class that looks at History and Social processes and one of the biggest influences on both through majority of human existence is Religion. The students are not being taught that religions or their teachings are right, just what they are. It is the same as when you learn about political systems, just because you're taught feudalism doesn't mean you have to agree that it was the right system. Just that it existed.


As I said previously, [because I didn't miss that], the only time teaching of religious materials of any kind in public schools is acceptable -- is when specifically teaching about a general historical event and only in reference.

If you can't see the difference, even without context, between;

"What was George Washington, before he became the first president?" and "What is the most important Jewish book?"

Then this conversation is lost on you.

What the most important Jewish book is has no association with any events in history. There is no applicable knowledge in this question.

The answer to that question hasn't changed history. It doesn't matter what their most important book is, while it totally mattered that George Washington was a General of the Military before being president. As the tales go, he was pretty important in founding America.

A different example;

Teaching the Holy Crusade. We can teach that it was Catholics vs Muslims, but "What is the most important Catholic Book" still isn't important in any way to that historical event. One religious group had differences with another religious group and slayed millions to get back what each thought was their holy land suffices. Anymore than that, it's a religion class.

Therefor;
There is no general educational merit to teaching this. Hence, it doesn't belong in public schools.

This is the kind of material that should be taught in universities in classes like Macro Socio-Politics. In which it has general educational purposes to those taking those courses by choice.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Well I'm sorry Laykilla, we will have to agree to disagree.

When the President of your country gets up on TV and says "Gawd is on our side", and when our President's and Prime Minister's talk all day long about who is more of a friend to Israel, then yes, I think that religious teaching has some place in education.
Again, not what to believe, but what others believe, so that they can put into context the things that are happening in the world RIGHT NOW. As well as their interacting with people of these religions as part of their daily life.
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: (no reason given)

(I've assumed you're American, this may not be true, but the point is the same.)
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
Well I'm sorry Laykilla, we will have to agree to disagree.

When the President of your country gets up on TV and says "Gawd is on our side", and when our President's and Prime Minister's talk all day long about who is more of a friend to Israel, then yes, I think that religious teaching has some place in education.
Again, not what to believe, but what others believe, so that they can put into context the things that are happening in the world RIGHT NOW. As well as their interacting with people of these religions as part of their daily life.
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: (no reason given)


Children up to 13 don't understand what's going on in our world RIGHT NOW -- it's not suitable material to teach children.

Children aren't voting, they are learning how to multiply and divide. They are learning how to read. They are learning what a subject and predicate are. They are concerned about how cool they are respective to other class mates. They are learning how to be friendly and social and maintain responsibility. They don't need to be learning about God.

They aren't watching Obama's debates with Romney, if they are -- they don't understand a word of it. Those children, will parrot everything they hear. If you teach them Romney is a good guy, they will tell everyone Romney rocks.

Etc.

There is no debate here, if this was high school/college you might have a point, we are talking grade school here -- k-8.

edit on 2-11-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well, it's not k-8 we're talking about, it's grade 8 period.
There IS a debate here, and you and Unity are in the minority. It's the other parents you will need to convince if you want it thrown out of public school. I would guess this thread could be a small snapshot of your own community.

But, again, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I do have to say I think it's ridiculous that a teacher might find themselves in this position:
"...and in the crusades, one religious group had differences with another religious group and slayed millions to get back what each thought was their holy land..."
"But what were they fighting about? Why did they disagree so much?"
"Well, I'm sorry, I can't mention that because it is against the curriculum, we are not allowed to mention any specifics...basically they disagreed, let's just leave it at that..."
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


What you are suggesting is the same as letting kids read books but not allowing them to have a dictionary.

How do you explain the Crusades as Christianity versus Muslims without discussing the fundamental differences in their belief systems? How do you talk about Hitler's persecution of anyone not Christian? The Croatia-Serbia genocide?

Religion is integral and essential for Social Studies because it is a social process that did not only influence the past but influences the present. It isn't a coincidence that our "weekends" days both fall on Sabbath days.

It is about preventing discrimination. If History has proven one universal truth about humans it is that we hate and fear what we do not understand. To build a strong society we have to understand each other and build upon that mutual understanding.



edit on 11/2/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
Well, it's not k-8 we're talking about, it's grade 8 period.
There IS a debate here, and you and Unity are in the minority. It's the other parents you will need to convince if you want it thrown out of public school. I would guess this thread could be a small snapshot of your own community.

But, again, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I do have to say I think it's ridiculous that a teacher might find themselves in this position:
"...and in the crusades, one religious group had differences with another religious group and slayed millions to get back what each thought was their holy land..."
"But what were they fighting about? Why did they disagree so much?"
"Well, I'm sorry, I can't mention that because it is against the curriculum, we are not allowed to mention any specifics...basically they disagreed, let's just leave it at that..."
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: add comment


Last time I checked, 8 was in K to 8th. And yes -- basically that's mostly correct. You would be focusing on the battles, not the entire war.

I guess you want to explain to 8th graders that the crusades never stopped either, and that America is currently the Muscle for Israel too right?

The conflict in the Middle East, IS -- the crusade. The same fight, between the same people, over the same holy ground. And the US is best buds with Israel.

Because both of these are fact. Yet, both, don't belong being taught to 8th graders.

Also, everyone keeps ignoring what I said. You laser focus on that we disagree, but you don't challenge the why.

It's because I'm right. There is no reason to even teach that to children. There is no educational merit to it. They aren't learning anything FROM it. They are being purposefully injected with biased rhetoric that serves to lay the foundation for the religion most focused on.

When you can challenge the issue of educational merit, then it's a debate, until then -- you're not even having a conversation. You're just saying, well then, I don't agree, and all of us that don't agree think you're smelly.

Literally the worst argument ever.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Laykilla
 


What you are suggesting is the same as letting kids read books but not allowing them to have a dictionary.

How do you explain the Crusades as Christianity versus Muslims without discussing the fundamental differences in their belief systems? How do you talk about Hitler's persecution of anyone not Christian? The Croatia-Serbia genocide?

Religion is integral and essential for Social Studies because it is a social process that did not only influence the past but influences the present. It isn't a coincidence that our "weekends" both fall on Sabbath days.

It is about preventing discrimination. If History has proven one universal truth about humans it is that we hate and fear what we do not understand. To build a strong society we have to understand each other and build upon that mutual understanding.





I learned about WWII and Hitler without learning the Jewish religion just fine. Your analogy is also a false one.

Kids reading books without dictionaries.

It's not at ALL like that. It's more like, not teaching an 8th grader nuclear physics. Why? Because they can't really understand it.

WWII was covered when I was in the 4th grade. It was then re-covered when I was in the 8th grade. It was then re-covered in highschool.

Each time teaching things more complicated than the last. Things I wouldn't have been able to understand at those age brackets.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I made that comment because when you say k-8, it sounds like they are getting this all through elementary. It's one grade they're getting this.

You're saying you don't want your 8th grader learning this, I'm saying I'm fine with my 8th grader learning it.
You say it has no educational merit, I'm saying it does.
Again, it is not about what *I* think or what *you* think, it is about convincing the majority of parents, teachers and whoever else that it needs to be removed from the curriculum.

If you want to make that your crusade, as Unity does, more power to you.
edit on 2-11-2012 by curiouscanadian777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


My example is perfectly fine because it suggests trying to learn without definitions which is exactly what you and the OP want by excluding religion from Social Studies. In an earlier post I also compare it to teaching Chemistry without the periodic table of elements. It can't be done.

If you leave all religious studies at home all you are going to get is "We are [insert religions domination here] everything else is wrong/bad". That mindset is why you have genocides.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join