Should Christianity be taught in school as a part of American History?

[Fonz 3,138]

I didn't read a word of this. Not even one.

 

Evidently you did, since you actually took the trouble of cutting off the parts I'd quoted from you at the exact places where each of my points began. As a matter of fact, you read all of those words; it's just that you couldn't really respond to any of them.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Black_MiD

[sivispacem 21,583]

The point of comparing STEM to history is to show that history is a simple subject.

I'm not sure whether you've failed to do this because of the lack of coherent argument, or failed because you're wrong. But I don't particularly care; it's easy to dismiss as an opinion, and a pretty questionable informed one at that.

 

I figured you would oppose my view seeing as your undergrad major is political "science".

It's not, though.

 

the adept analyze the present to shape the future while the inept analyze the past to understand the present.

Let's gloss over the fact that huge swathes of scientific research are dedicated to historical analysis for no real purpose other than to "better understand" what came before and how it translates to the present. Can I assume that you also seek to have any backward-looking science endeavours stricken from the curriculum too?

 

No matter how much you want to run from the fact that academia does exist on a hierarchy it won't change that inescapable fact.

This isn't a notion I fundamentally disagree with, but lopping off four-fifths of academic subjects because they don't meet your personal criteria for "worth" is patently ridiculous, as is asserting they're without value simply because you consider them beneath you. Mind you, you consider literally everything beneath you, including bothering to read other poster's replies.

 

In ms and biochem, information that was 6 months old or less was considered ideal; information that was one year old or more was generally considered outdated.

If we're going to get into a weird dick-swinging match where the value of endeavours is directly proportional to their recency, then might I point you in the direction of tactical intelligence, where information older than a few hours is usually outdated?

 

As an aside, the next time you respond to a poster to say nothing more than you hadn't bothered to read their comments will be the last time you post on this forum.

[Eutyphro 3,098]

 

Jesus, you are such an ignorant hack. Your post is only ad hominems and pure tripe. What the f*ck would you prove by posting a STEM paper, and comparing it to a paper on a history subject? I get it that you don't think learning from history is important, or you wouldn't be such a reactionary uninformed idiot.

 

Golden... I went ahead and underlined+bolded what I liked about your post. I think it adequately portrays the type of person you are. What's so interesting about you is that you don't realize that as soon as I leave everyone else will go back to ripping on you, because pettiness is in the nature of you and your friends here. BTW, it is well documented that prevaricators often doubt the veracity of others.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Like I wasn't aware I was using ad hominems against someone who did the same. The difference is that I didn't respond with ad hominens to a reasonable post, and that mine were accurate. I pretty much feel like you are a troll by now, and we're spending far too much time on you. I really think you should just be banned.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Eutyphro

[RedDagger 27,594]

Why is it that my posts in D&D always get ignored

 

Anyway, here's how to hide the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, with my assistant, Chiari the jester:

 

Step 1: make half of your post slinging insults and depreciation as filler, to hide the lack of actual arguments you have to make your post look bigger and more impressive.

 

 

 

Golden... I went ahead and underlined+bolded what I liked about your post. I think it adequately portrays the type of person you are. What's so interesting about you is that you don't realize that as soon as I leave everyone else will go back to ripping on you, because pettiness is in the nature of you and your friends here. BTW, it is well documented that prevaricators often doubt the veracity of others.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

(...)

As with all simple subjects it attracts simple people. I figured you would oppose my view seeing as your [/font]undergrad major is political "science".

(...)

I'm wondering if you'll defend other bottom of the barrel programs like music appreciation, African American studies, liberal arts, english lit and psychology. Let me know. Back2sermo4me.

(...)

I didn't read a word of this. Not even one.

 

Step 2: say things. Say many things. Don't worry about whether they make any sense or actually backing up your points, all that matters is that you say things. We'll deal with the boring "backing up" and "explaining" stuff later.

 

 

 

The point of comparing STEM to history is to show that history is a simple subject. As with all simple subjects it attracts simple people.

(..)

My view on why history should be removed from the grade school curriculum comes down to this: the adept analyze the present to shape the future while the inept analyze the past to understand the present.

(..)

No matter how much you want to run from the fact that academia does exist on a hierarchy it won't change that inescapable fact.

 

Step 3: just kidding, we can't back our points up, instead let's say more stupid things to hide this.

 

 

 

In ms and biochem, information that was 6 months old or less was considered ideal; information that was one year old or more was generally considered outdated.

(...)

Story short? A history degree, along with many others, is bought not earned.

(...)

bottom of the barrel programs like music appreciation, African American studies, liberal arts, english lit and psychology.

 

Step 4: you're done! You've successfully told people your opinions on things that you're definitely knowledgeable about, and you didn't explain them because then they'd actually be able to pick apart your sh*tty reasoning, or see that you have none apart from STEM elitism. You can now kick back, relax, and f*ck off, because you sure as hell ain't gonna be doing any of that "debating" business. That's for English and Politics students, which as we all know are snugly next to Those Darn Blacks on the intelligence deficiency scale.

 

 

And if you're looking for a serious response, then you should start by actually explaining your points instead of gish-galloping a stream of STEM elitist bollocks. And yes, before you try and go for the pointless personal attack like you seem to do with everyone, I study a STEM subject, one which is arguably more pure STEM than playing doctor :]

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

I'm wondering if you'll defend other bottom of the barrel programs like music appreciation, African American studies, liberal arts, english lit and psychology. Let me know. Back2sermo4me.

'Liberal arts' are the things you are complaining about. History, literature, social sciences are all 'liberal arts.' So yeah, I think any thinking person would defend the liberal arts. They'd definitely defend the other sh*t you said like music and psychology.

 

 

Good point. I'm suing bcm for not covering ancient shamanistic rituals and medieval blood-letting... because you know.. history is important.

Maybe your lack of understanding of history is why you support a laughable incoherent political ideology that wants to recreate the unbearable social conditions of early Capitalism?

 

I don't even get what you're saying. Are you saying we should abandon learning about the past at all? Should we shut down all the archaeological dig sites, do you not care how Rome became Italy? Or are you just arguing that everybody who studies history is stupid? Either way you are wasting everybody's time and not thinking through what you are saying.

 

 

 

I didn't read a word of this. Not even one.

I'll sumarise for you: history is a complex discipline with myriad applications, in understanding the development of institutions and norms which govern our lives, all of which came to be through lengthy and multifaceted historical process. You can't grasp this because your fedora is on too tight.

[El Dildo 14,386]

it's trolling at this point.

we're no longer on topic. this is completely irrelevant to the thread itself: should Christianity be taught in public curriculum?

 

are we really doing this?

we're going to devote 2 pages now to addressing this contrarian douchebag? he's not interested in having a serious discussion. he literally just quoted MID's entire post just so he could say that he "didn't read" it.

 

this is not D&D.

[stef_92 936]

Religion is a choice, it's nothing you are born with (although it seems exactly like that but that's another topic). If there is any religious class at school it should be optional for students.

[Johnson Johnson 116]

If you wanna learn christianity mythology go to church

[Mister Pink 12,205]

I certainly think religion should be taught in schools. I don't think religious indoctrination belongs in schools though. I think religious and political ideologies can be left to the parents. School is for education, teaching kids how to be social in their interactions with other school children and academically as well as physical education so as the kids can then go on to further specialized 3rd level education or beyond and become functioning members of society.

 

Religion for me should be personal. It's perfectly fine for people to learn about it, just like we learn history and about World War II. To deny learning about religion is to deny education.

 

But this begs the question. Who then is going to teach religion and not be biased? I was fortunate enough to have one or two religion teachers that didn't teach us religion from a catholic/Christian view, despite me going to a non-secular school. The class was more sociology than religion. It was more about compassion, empathy and understanding that it was about literal readings from the bible. This to me is better to build character for people to be tolerant and understanding.

 

I don't like religions but I'm not against them unless they're forced upon people.

[jpm1 1,952]

if it's done in a neutral way why not. but there's a prob in the US i often notice with my European eye. sometimes in the US you see people, including high responsibles taking decisions that affect the whole community basing themselves only on their believes. i mean their decisions have absolutely no logical basis, except the i do it because it's said in the Bible. i find this totally dramatic not to say pathetic. don't get me wrong i'm christian, but i firmly believe that if a decision isn't based on logical it's the open door to worst obscurantism. i'm refering to some people firmly stating about abortion, or homosexuality while their opinion has absolutely no scientific or logical basis. plus i am also shocked when public people pray in public or state about their confession all the time. again it's not a bad thing to believe in God, but you shouldn't forget you are not the representative of only the people with same confession as you, but all American. but i'm maybe a bit OT there. yeah teaching christianity why not as long as it's neutral without creating an inter-religion competition, as long as we don't incitate kids to wave their religion in public

@ OP: could you give few examples of what according to you, would be interesting christianity related stuff to be teached to kids

Edited October 10, 2017 by jpm1

[Big Fat Paulie 359]

As a Christian, I don't think the schools should try to force a specific dogma of any religion on students. But I do believe that in a purely academic and historical context, Christianity should definitely be explored in schools as a major influence on American history and culture.

 

Like it or not, the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christian philosophy (as well as Greco-Roman philosophical traditions and even secularists like Voltaire) and Western Christianity was very much a massive influence on American culture, especially before the 20th Century.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Big Fat Paulie

[-7- 4,710]

On 2/1/2019 at 9:08 PM, Big Fat Paulie said:

But I do believe that in a purely academic and historical context, Christianity should definitely be explored in schools as a major influence on American history and culture.

 

This.

 

I don't have a specific religion for 15 years, but learning about "insert any religion" is not bad to a piece of personal knowledge.

[trip 14,591]

Weird necro.

 

Subject makes no sense anyway.

 

The US was founded on religious freedom not Christianity. 

 

I will say this:  when I was in university we had to take two semesters of "intellectual heritage" where we studied religions.  Great class.  The arguments between students could get heated.

Edited February 24, 2019 by trip

[Black_Jesus 1,031]

Christianity should be taught in school as a purported to history.  I'm very "seasoned" to religious history and it hasn't made me anything but more appropriate to other beliefs.

[jpm1 1,952]

religion history can be teached, not religion

[Ned Bingham 315]

Firstly, I freely admit to not having read through this whole thread.

 

Once you've taught through the whole Founding Fathers/Plymouth Rock thing I'm sure most kids will have grasped the or at least a christian angle to US history. Then there's a whole history of Christianity in America, but that's a topic for another day, or at least a higher, more specialised course.

 

Seen from the viewpoint of the UK the really weird thing is the sheer amount of christian worship in the US. Must be something to do with all that loneliness in the vast spaces and the vacuity and sterility of malls and parking lots. 

[Eutyphro 3,098]

8 hours ago, Short Stay said:

Seen from the viewpoint of the UK the really weird thing is the sheer amount of christian worship in the US. Must be something to do with all that loneliness in the vast spaces and the vacuity and sterility of malls and parking lots. 

Hence the lack of Jesus adepts in the vibrant and lively warmth of Swindon and Slough.

[Tchuck 3,435]

Did the natives in North America also had to endure catechization? In Brazil, we're taught a bit of Christianity in our history classes, specially the "work" of the missionaries during the early colony days. Natives in Brazil were very pacific, and willing to engage in trading with the Portuguese at first, baubles and bangles for gold and wood. Eventually the church decided that it would be best to save the poor natives of their doom and set about sending expeditions to catechize and turn them to people of faith, largely destroying a lot of the traditions and whatnot. Oh and also slavery.

 

So did the same thing happen in North America? Or were the British more conquering from the start/the natives were more unfriendly? I'd imagine the latter, since there were so many different nations, and many of them quit unfriendly to each other.

[Ned Bingham 315]

On 5/11/2019 at 10:21 PM, Eutyphro said:

Hence the lack of Jesus adepts in the vibrant and lively warmth of Swindon and Slough.

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough, it isn't fit for humans now!

 

Anyone living in Swindon or Slough could well be forgiven for turning to Jesus for succour.