Schools in VA Shutting Down because of Islam Homework Assignment

[hasu]

Why can't we just say that children under voting age should not be taught any religion. When they are mature enough to understand politics let them decide that on their own.

There is no reason to bring God and religion into the class-room to teach Calligraphy.

 

[hasu]

Do you think it's possible to understand world history without a basic understanding of the world's major religions??!

In order to learn what happened in Hiroshima, would you detonate an atomic bomb?

 

[Brainonska511]

Why can't we just say that children under voting age should not be taught any religion. When they are mature enough to understand politics let them decide that on their own.

There is no reason to bring God and religion into the class-room to teach Calligraphy.

How can you understand history if you leave out context? Religion plays an important role in the geopolitical makeup of the world, both historically and in the present. There is nothing wrong with teaching students about different religions. There is something wrong with using the government to force a specific set of religious beliefs on students.

 

[Homerboy]

Indoctrination? Really?

"The calligraphy assignment came from a workbook created by teachers called "World Religions." It was not an assignment LaPorte made up herself. The instructions for the assignment said, "Here is the shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, written in Arabic. In the space below, try copying it by hand. This should give you an idea of the artistic complexity of calligraphy."

and:

"Initial reaction from some Christian parents included calls for LaPorte's firing for "violating children's religious beliefs." However, both the Virginia Department of Education and Augusta County Superintendent Eric Bond have reviewed the material and found it in line with state standards and said the lesson did not violate student rights."

http://www.newsleader.com/story/new.../77483594/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

PLEASE read the above quote.

I can't believe the ignorance being posted in this thread (well, I guess I can believe it, it just is ridiculous.)

 

[hasu]

How can you understand history if you leave out context? Religion plays an important role in the geopolitical makeup of the world, both historically and in the present. There is nothing wrong with teaching students about different religions. There is something wrong with using the government to force a specific set of religious beliefs on students.

I don't understand the need to "understand" any religion "subjectively" to learn history. Like I said before, you don't need first hand experience to know how bad it would be to be in a city bombarded by an atomic bomb.

Kids should be taught to think more objectively. Encourage them to question everything they see or hear. Religion can be taught in schools objectively too, meaning without pupil falling for any of the religion because of that class. Religion is a faith, not the truth. So while teaching religion, it is teachers' duty to bring awareness of that fact. Let them arrive at their own conclusion. None of this imply that there is no God. God and religion are two different things. God can very well exist but no one knows the truth for sure.

 

[zinfamous]

And yours is a grand deflection. I wasn't talking about government-sponsored religion in schools, etc. Lefties demanded the removal of all traces of Christianity from schools, public spaces, etc. They did NOT fight for the removal of any other religion and they actively sanctioned them. It's totally fine for muslims to publicly pray in public schools, but kids aren't allowed to form their own Christian groups and do the same.

Double-standards - the left is rife with them.

citation needed.

your brush, it is broad and filled with ignorance.

 

[HomerJS]

And yours is a grand deflection. I wasn't talking about government-sponsored religion in schools, etc. Lefties demanded the removal of all traces of Christianity from schools, public spaces, etc. They did NOT fight for the removal of any other religion and they actively sanctioned them. It's totally fine for muslims to publicly pray in public schools, but kids aren't allowed to form their own Christian groups and do the same.

Double-standards - the left is rife with them.

Christians and Muslims are not prevented from publically praying in school. Neither can have a school sponsored group.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't understand the need to "understand" any religion "subjectively" to learn history. Like I said before, you don't need first hand experience to know how bad it would be to be in a city bombarded by an atomic bomb.

Kids should be taught to think more objectively. Encourage them to question everything they see or hear. Religion can be taught in schools objectively too, meaning without pupil falling for any of the religion because of that class. Religion is a faith, not the truth. So while teaching religion, it is teachers' duty to bring awareness of that fact. Let them arrive at their own conclusion. None of this imply that there is no God. God and religion are two different things. God can very well exist but no one knows the truth for sure.

Understanding the various religions and the shifting power structure within each era is essential for understanding the underlying motives for what we have historically labeled as important moments or decisions necessary for discussion.

You can't just say: "well, there was this schism in the catholic church and protestants happened, because some religious people" and expect that to explain the following 3+ centuries of geopolitical turmoil throughout Europe. You have to understand why Luther split, why the Popes were angry, whey there were dual popes and what this meant to power in France vs Italy vs the Austrian empires. Why Henry the VIII wanted to form the CHurch of England is rather important as well. It isn't simply because his wife wouldn't give him a male son (that is pretty huge, of course--but like all examples of European history, understanding the underlying Christian motives and theology used to legitimize such decisions is incredibly important).

I mean, if you want some highschool sophomore class that doesn't teach you anything, fine. You certainly aren't going to learn anything about European literature without a solid understanding of Christian history and theology.

understanding context is the pillar of objective thinking. You are essentially arguing that withholding the entire context of the subject is necessary for objective thinking.

 

[zinfamous]

PLEASE read the above quote.

I can't believe the ignorance being posted in this thread (well, I guess I can believe it, it just is ridiculous.)

Yeah, that's really all that needs to be said. No foul in anything really.

Can't see why bigoted righties should be butthurt here about copying a phrase that means nothing for the kids' faith (unless they are arguing that simply writing these words, that they can not read, is tantamount to renouncing their Jesus, on the spot? If so--lol at the fucking idiots). It's a world religion class, so the phrase is proper.

Likewise, no reason for superliberal lefties to be butthurt over activities in a religion class specifically devoted to lessons on world religions. This is education. It is not endorsement.

Any righty arguing that this class somehow violates the liberal cry for removing religion in public schools is, well, a fucking idiot. Full stop: A goddamn idiot.

 

[Subyman]

In order to learn what happened in Hiroshima, would you detonate an atomic bomb?

Horrible analogy. To understand the affects of nuclear radiation on a populace you would need to learn the basics of nuclear science and biology.

 

[Subyman]

I don't understand the need to "understand" any religion "subjectively" to learn history. Like I said before, you don't need first hand experience to know how bad it would be to be in a city bombarded by an atomic bomb.

Kids should be taught to think more objectively. Encourage them to question everything they see or hear. Religion can be taught in schools objectively too, meaning without pupil falling for any of the religion because of that class. Religion is a faith, not the truth. So while teaching religion, it is teachers' duty to bring awareness of that fact. Let them arrive at their own conclusion. None of this imply that there is no God. God and religion are two different things. God can very well exist but no one knows the truth for sure.

You have to have a basic understanding of the teachings of a religion to understand the motivations of the people. It is really not that hard to understand. You do not have to believe the religion to understand its teaching though. Religion in history was tightly coupled with their governing systems. You'd need to know what democracy is to understand the US, correct?

 

[hasu]

Understanding the various religions and the shifting power structure within each era is essential for understanding the underlying motives for what we have historically labeled as important moments or decisions necessary for discussion.

You can't just say: "well, there was this schism in the catholic church and protestants happened, because some religious people" and expect that to explain the following 3+ centuries of geopolitical turmoil throughout Europe. You have to understand why Luther split, why the Popes were angry, whey there were dual popes and what this meant to power in France vs Italy vs the Austrian empires. Why Henry the VIII wanted to form the CHurch of England is rather important as well. It isn't simply because his wife wouldn't give him a male son (that is pretty huge, of course--but like all examples of European history, understanding the underlying Christian motives and theology used to legitimize such decisions is incredibly important).

I mean, if you want some highschool sophomore class that doesn't teach you anything, fine. You certainly aren't going to learn anything about European literature without a solid understanding of Christian history and theology.

understanding context is the pillar of objective thinking. You are essentially arguing that withholding the entire context of the subject is necessary for objective thinking.

So you mean to understand sectarian violence in any religion you have to be a member of that religion first?

 

[hasu]

You have to have a basic understanding of the teachings of a religion to understand the motivations of the people. It is really not that hard to understand. You do not have to believe the religion to understand its teaching though. Religion in history was tightly coupled with their governing systems. You'd need to know what democracy is to understand the US, correct?

Exactly. In order to understand a religion you don't have to be part of that, and you will understand that religion only if you don't follow any other religion blindly. Does that make sense?

Edit: I like Darwin333's signature quote:
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful"

And that is what we should teach in school.

 

[Victorian Gray]

PLEASE read the above quote.

I can't believe the ignorance being posted in this thread (well, I guess I can believe it, it just is ridiculous.)

Folks tend not to let little things like facts get in the way of enjoying some good, satisfying outrage.

 

[Darwin333]

Why can't we just say that children under voting age should not be taught any religion. When they are mature enough to understand politics let them decide that on their own.

There is no reason to bring God and religion into the class-room to teach Calligraphy.

So you are advocating that we effectively stop teaching children history all together?

 

[Darwin333]

It is called abrogation. Verses said later (chronologically) cancel out older verses. There is some contention within the muslim community whether this is true, but the majority believe it. It is a big difference between the books. Where Christians constantly wrestle with contradictions, Islam hand waves them away by saying Muhammad's later words carry more weight.

I wonder how the inspired word of God is so often proven wrong by later versus? You'd think that an all knowing God wouldn't fuck up his own religion and would easily get it right the first time around.

Which verse changed the entire stoning of people who work on Sunday's thing?

 

[Darwin333]

So you mean to understand sectarian violence in any religion you have to be a member of that religion first?

Where in the hell did he say that you had to be a member of that religion? What I read is that you need a basic understanding of said religion in their historical context in order to understand the historical events they are studying.

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you think it's possible to understand world history without a basic understanding of the world's major religions??!

All fine and good if they were in a WORLD HISTORY Class. The article say it was a World Geography Class.

Religion has nothing to do with Geography.

 

[pcgeek11]

Like he said, there isn't much to say, you clearly haven't been following along.

From the OP you didn't read;

If it were a World History Class. I could see it.

The article says World Geography Class.
.

 

[shortylickens]

In order to learn what happened in Hiroshima, would you detonate an atomic bomb?

We did.
Many times before we dropped them on Japan. And thousands of times since then.
We used uninhabited islands.
Learned a lot actually.

 

[ivwshane]

If it were a World History Class. I could see it.

The article says World Geography Class.
.

Do you even know what geography is? Apparently you don't!

From Google

Geography is the study of places and the relationships between people and their environments. Geographers explore both the physical properties of Earth's surface and the human societies spread across it.

Educate yourself, please!

http://www.rgs.org/geographytoday/what+is+geography.htm

 

[pcgeek11]

Do you even know what geography is? Apparently you don't!

From Google


Educate yourself, please!

http://www.rgs.org/geographytoday/what+is+geography.htm

Seems your definition is some what a mix.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908193.html

The study of the physical features of the earth. Includes study of regional formations and their relation to humans.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geography

geography
[jee-og-ruh-fee]

Examples
Word Origin

noun, plural geographies.

1. the science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement, and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries, or states, and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements.

2. the study of this science.

3. the topographical features of a region, usually of the earth, sometimes of the planets.

4. a book dealing with this science or study, as a textbook.

5. the arrangement of features of any complex entity: the geography of the mind.

 

[Brainonska511]

Seems your definition is some what a mix.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908193.html

The study of the physical features of the earth. Includes study of regional formations and their relation to humans.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geography

geography
[jee-og-ruh-fee]

Examples
Word Origin

noun, plural geographies.

1. the science dealing with the areal differentiation of the earth's surface, as shown in the character, arrangement, and interrelations over the world of such elements as climate, elevation, soil, vegetation, population, land use, industries, or states, and of the unit areas formed by the complex of these individual elements.

2. the study of this science.

3. the topographical features of a region, usually of the earth, sometimes of the planets.

4. a book dealing with this science or study, as a textbook.

5. the arrangement of features of any complex entity: the geography of the mind.

You're going to play the semantics game because they chose to name the world history class "World Geography"? Give me a break.

 

[pcgeek11]

You're going to play the semantics game because they chose to name the world history class "World Geography"? Give me a break.

There is a difference.

History is not Geography. No matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Brainonska511]

There is a difference.

History is not Geography. No matter how much you want it to be.

So you're going to get hung up on a name of a class...