I was taught that the Crusades were a Catholic movement against the Muslim infidels…and don’t have a bad thought about the present Catholic Church because of it, and don’t know anyone else who does.

To blame one Pope for the Crusades would be to name a scapegoat for the belief system of more than half of Europe. The principals the Catholic Church taught was in practice long before that Pope was even born. There is no one person responsible for the Catholic Church’s belief that it was the Supreme authority under God and was in fact ordained by God to convert or destroy God’s enemies. This was the method in which the Church operated throughout most of history and we are all aware that the Catholic Church of old is not the Catholic Church of today.

I don't condone degrading religions in schools either...but talking about what religions taught and how they behaved in history does nothing to degrade what a religion teaches and practices today.

There is not one religion that has not changed in what they believed their duty to God is or how they practice and teach their doctrine. And there is not one religion that has not been responsible for shameful and sometimes violent behavior in the name of their God.

The transformations that different religions have gone through from the past to present IS history in ITSELF...and just as important to learn from, so that the knowledge of past transgressions of every church can continue to shape the growth of those churches in the future.

Public schools do teach this, and just as importantly, they also teach when a religious doctrine abuses power. They are two very different things.



This is not comparable at all. Hitler is one person. A religious doctrine that reigns over 6 countries for over 2,000 years was not being sustained by a small group of people. It was a religous belief accepted by the Catholic majority in Europe.



You are the only person I have ever heard of who took the idea of this seperation to mean that religious affiliations should be sticken from the books.

The purpose of seperation is not meant to cause us to ignore the differences between religions today, it's meant to make sure there are no religious requirements or restrictions to be a public school teacher or public office holder, to keep those teachers and public office holders from endorcement of a specific religious doctrine, and most of all to keep a leader who is of a specific religious belief from ruling our country with its doctrines.

spseration of church and state keeps there from being 'laws' mandating or prohibiting religion

explicitly


everything else is interpretational, either by citizens in discussion or judges in courts,,,

Columbus discovered the present-day Bahamas!
Somewhere between San Salvador,Cat Island and Long Island!
Amerigo Vespucci is considered the Discoverer of America!

And Columbus definitely wasn't the Founder of The United States!

i do see the difference but i don't see that schools teach 'that catholics want blah blah blah.' we're talking history here. if the history class was about the holocaust we wouldn't teach that 'some people commited these atrocities,' we'd teach that the national socialist party, nazis, were the perps. if the topic is the inquisition it's not teaching religion to say that catholics were the perps.

nobody's defining anybody. but the evil deeds did happen and a true representation of history will include such.



the offensive behavior was justified by the religious dogma that the perps adhered to. we're talking about a large group of catholics that condoned these attrocities not simply the behavior of a few criminals. without the teachings of the catholic faith the inquisition could not have happened an many people would have lived out happy lives. but no, the dogma, required that these people suffer in the name of god. yes, we can prevent future atrocities by understanding history but only if history is accurately taught.



who's morality should be taught? that of a kkk klansman? morality, like religion, needs to stay at home and out of the classrooom.

separation of church and state itself is an interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and goes far beyond simply barring laws mandating or prohibiting religion. and of course the only interpretation that matters is that done by federal judges when it comes to separation of church and states. citizen's take on it simply is moot unless of course you wish to push for an amendment.

but he thought he was in india. hense, native americans are called indians.

maybe for once,we could go with Rational Morality!
Would avoid all the pitfalls of Religion!

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

Didn't read the whole thread, interest waned. My point is grade school, as we called it when I attended, was all about the three R's Reading, w(r)iting, a(r)ithmetic.. Not history, that came later. Thanksgiving was about a really yummy meal followed by pumpkin pie and whipped cream and a four day weekend...Easter was about getting a new outfit to wear to church and coloring eggs, Halloween was about dressing up as someone or something else and going trick or treating after which we dumped out our candy and sorted and traded. Young "children" need healthy distractions at school in order to stay engaged, i.e. recess...Oh yeah, we also recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, just the way it was originally written. Somehow, I turned out OK...

and there is always the PARENTS option to counter whatever is being taught in school, at home....

I do it with mine, when certain teachers give their negative input and misinformation about President OBama, or a host of others 'controversial' people or movements in american history.

There is no need to disrupt what I have taught them about respecting authority, but at home I can explain to them when their teachers are 'wrong' or 'mistaken' or just merely stating their 'opinion'(kids sometimes take anything teachers or books say as authoritative and absolute truth).

You must have just barely gotten in there - the decision to mangle the pledge to cater to a special interest group happened just a few years after your birth.

Well, I'm sorry that we are frustrating each other so much.

Looking at our conversations from a different angel I realize that we both want history taught in a true light, but we disagree on what exactly what it is.

I have something to have you consider in respect to religions being discussed or even taught in schools though.

I remember morning prayer over the intercom in my grade school. We had a little Asian boy in my class who did not pray, but was asked to lay his head down on his desk during our prayer time since he did not believe in our God. This head on desk position was the same "time out" position used for naughty kids through the rest of the day.

While I don't believe the teacher intended this to feel like a punishment, even a more appropriate form of exclusion is still exclusion and labels a child as “different” and unapproachable in the eyes of other children. They are uncertain about associating with a boy who must be strange or even evil if he doesn’t believe in God. But did removing prayer from school fix this?

While I do agree with the removal of prayer, if not just for my sympathy for this boy and others like him, I don’t believe removing prayer did all it was supposed to do, and even at that young age felt that even more would be required to make this child an equal to the other children.

This next story demonstrates this...

A girl from India joined our school in the 5th grade, and while she looked different, she seemed just like the rest of us once we got to know her. We no longer had morning prayer at this time, so she was not singled out as different…right? Wrong, because once the students saw her mother with a red jewel on her forehead, she became a strange and scary figure all the same. Rumors spread through our class and school that boys were not allowed to talk to her or her father might kill you! The girl had few friends after this and was always surrounded by rumors like that.

Had we been educated about the cultural and religious differences of these children from the beginning, we would have thought of them very differently. Though we may not fully understand their religious beliefs, we would have understood that there were no real reasons to fear those differences as we had. Understanding is what breeds equality, not just preventing the singling out of a religion.

This is not just something I happen to believe, but have witnessed quite clearly through the model put into practice by my own Mother. When I was in the 3rd grade, my parents had the privilege of sponsoring the family of a foreign dignitary taking refuge in America. I won’t say were the family was from, and certainly not who they were…it’s immaterial anyway. The children in this family had a great deal of trouble fitting into our school due to their cultural differences and even more so due to their religious differences. My Mother brought this to the attention of the school, who would not entertain the idea of educating the other children about their differences due to the rules and restrictions of the subjects involved. Period.

My Mother was the scout leader for a girls scouting troop at the time…again, which one is immaterial… but as most scouting associations do, they had a policy against bringing religious discussions into the subject matter of troop meetings. My mother fought the scouting administration at the risk of being banned from scouting.

She insisted that these children be allowed to openly answer questions during a meeting of their fellow scouts to dispel the fears and concerns the other girls had about them. Eventually she won and the girls were allowed to discuss their differences with the scouting troop, who were allowed to ask any cultural and religious questions they wished. There was not a girl in the troop without a question and they were thrilled to finally get some answers. These girls became normal kids and acceptable friends overnight…due to this education! Way to go Mom!

I believe the obligation to teach children cultural difference still lies at HOME. The schools are having a difficult enough time teaching children academics apparently without the obligation to teach them every possible thing within the WORLD of differences that humans have.


That being said, I do think an educator should EDUCATE earnest and sincere inquiry when possible instead of punishing it. Simply letting a child know , or reminding them, to keep questions and comments relevant to the discussion at hand is much more productive than disrupting their process by sending them from the room and suspending them. Those things, in my opinion, should be for repeat offenders.

Speaking only in terms of "in country" meaning mainland USA, we tend to think we know about all the cultural differences that exist in country. We do not. Children's exposure to culture requires experiences that can be explained or they do not develop cultural awareness. Those children grow and have kids of their own and rarely have the means or the knowledge to teach or expose their own children to these cultural differences. If we can't do it in school the cycle will not be broken.

Now consider the fact that many of the cultures that exist in our own country are muted by the assimilation of individuals into our own culture and what remains obvious is only a fraction of their cultural traditions and beliefs.

If we expect our children to have the best opportunities in their adult life we need to make sure that all children, who have not had a privliged life, at least have exposure via education. This is one of the reasons so many schools in underprivileged areas seek mentorship form the more exerienced adults.




I would agree, we do need to address all inquiries as openly and honestly as possible give the age bracket of those inquiries. But we need to take that a bit further and teachers should be listening for signs that education is needed. Not to press any particular points here, but if educator hear children calling another person a spick or 'ho, or responding "that's so gay", I think it's within bounds that the educator should stop the behavior by providing education rather than punishment.

The reason I give that responsibilit to the educators is specifically because much of that behavior comes from the home environmens in which there is no cultural awarness.

I think exposure to culture is important too. I just dont think others should decide which cultures should or should not be included in the school environment, which would ultimately become the dilemma.

The best approach, in my opinion, is to use the school environment/students to allow for open discussions about the cultural differences between those STUDENTS, and not to enforce any pre determined curriculum for cultural education. This allows children to deal with each other and once such cross cultural education occurs,, children can go on to apply that to whatever other cultures they cross in life.

I absolutely agree. Leaving cultural and religious awareness of others to the parents would be leaving the blind to the blind...or even worse, leaving it to people who think they know based on their own biases and prejudices toward a culture. This is senseless when most of the biases and prejudices out there are based on misinformation that was handed down from their own parents. The only way to break this cycle is to educate people of it.

It does not take an education on each and every culture to accomplish opening a child’s mind against bias and prejudice. Schools do not have to spend any time or resources at all really in order to break this cycle. When a student of another culture is introduced into a school, protecting that child from the prejudices they will be held to by the other students by educating the students about THAT child's culture, is enough make a child doubt and question for themselves when they hear other prejudice views concerning other cultures and beliefs. It's really that simple.

I know a teacher who happens to be a Buddhist. This knowledge entered his classroom through his outside activities…something he is entitled to. Now that it is common knowledge, if a child in his classroom is ever going to be affected or distracted by his religious beliefs, it will be because he is not allowed to explain the workings of Buddhism to his students and not because of his beliefs themselves. He hears rumors that the children believe that Buddha is a God or that Buddhist are Atheists. Since neither is correct, it pains him that his children are so misinformed. He does not wish to convert them, or make his classroom Buddhist friendly...he just wishes he could tell them truth so their speculation will not become a source of distraction to even one of them.

I don’t believe that because this school has a Buddhist teacher, that Buddhism should be worked into the cariculum. As I suggested concerning a child from another culture entering a classroom; I do believe they are entitled to hear the truth instead of beling left to their immaginations or their parents opinions. Who better to give them the bit of education they need than the very source of their curiosity. The parents of this teacher’s children were only able to tell them what they themselves think Buddhism is…which only confused them all the more.


Edit: Didn't have time to edit multiple punct. and sp. errors, so will apologize for them instead.

I am not a believer in "religion". I do however, believe in individual rights and don't think ANYONE (according to the constitution) has the ability to limit a persons belief or reverance to "their" god except when it imposes upon the rights of another.

"Congress shall write NO laws..."

I did not vote to make "religion" politicaly correct in school, the court rooms, my gov't offices or anywhere else.... did you?

I do believe in the fundemental teachings of the Ten Commandments (good rules of thumb) for their basic moral values, but they are what they are, good teachings to follow.

"Religion", faith, is not a bad thing! It is the delivery vehicle that bothers me..... the "teachers".... that some choose to follow. There is good and evil in all things, often guidance is the issue.

In both church and state, I believe it should be a local issue, the will of the people, with NOBODY punished or singled out for their belief, again, accept when it is imposed upon another against their will.

The aurguments for and against "religion" and the beliefs held within it, will forever be a source of conflict in the world. Not because it is good or evil, not for culural reasons, race, color or creed. It will always be because it is a PERSONAL choice, and therefore will always lack the basic principals for open debate.

Like tic-tac-toe....... there are no winners, only players, both with tallied wins and losses, looking for a mistake in judgement by the other, to win, but for a moment.

(sorry, a bit o/t, just my opinion on a partial post read within)

The ambiguous concept of being 'imposed' upon seems to be difficult to determine

IN a truly 'free' country, where we are each supposed to be free to speak our minds(when its not going to cause riot or confusion), we are all imposed upon in some way whenever others speak things we dont agree with

but if its 'religious' its particularly singled out more than any other issue or topic,, which I think is an abuse of what the constitution actually says,,, just as much as allowing everyone to have semi automatic weapons would be an abuse of the second amendment,,,,,