TX education board conservatives succeed in whitewashing history

[Starving_Artist]

Exactly.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@SteveG1

We are in full agreement. A class in comparative religion (as it is sometimes called) would be a good idea. Students would learn that there are more similarities than differences, and that someone is not The Enemy or The Heretic, just because they go to some different church or temple.

Are such classes at that level not particularly common over there?

[John_Mace]

@Revenant_Threshold

Are such classes at that level not particularly common over there?

When I was in school, you might see it as an elective in High School. It might be touched on in a social studies class in lower grades, but wouldn’t be an entire class.

[SteveG1]

@Revenant_Threshold

Are such classes at that level not particularly common over there?

Way back when, in New York, our high school and college had it, but I am not aware of it happening here in Cali, or in Texas when I was there. To be honest, I didn’t bother to ask or look either.

[sleeping]

@Starving_Artist

You guys are aware of course that all this sturm und drang over teaching creationism in school is just a backlash resulting from left-wing attempts to quash religion in the first place don’t you?
…
It wasn’t until the left began trying to remove every bit of religious symbolism (Christian, that is. Curiously nobody seems to mind other forms of religious expression) from public view and verbally assailing religion outright that religious people on the right began trying to force religious teaching in schools to begin with.

Bullshit.

And don’t forget, one of the principles this country is founded upon is the principle of religious freedom - a freedom protected by the establishment clause in the Constitution. Lefties are real big on government prohibiting that “establishment” thing and taking it to ridiculous lengths, but somehow never pay any attention to the rest of that sentence which reads “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not mean restricting it to churches and private homes. The whole idea is that people should be free to think and believe and practice their religion as they see fit, free from government interference. So it’s only natural that when certain people become politically invested in trying to quash that religious expression, it’s believers are going to become politically invested in trying to promote it.

When has any left-winger advocated the prohibition of a religion? This doesn’t even rise to the level of a strawman; it’s just a pile of biproducts.

Religion should not be taught in schools because that would mean the state was involved in religious matters. There is nothing wrong with being educated about the world’s religions, including Christianity. And that’s what generally happens.

@Starving_Artist

Speaking for myself, I’d be quite happy if people were taught about all religions in school. Religion is an important element in other cultures worldwide and is as apt a subject with regard to other counties around the world as are their geographic layout, agriculture, economic systems and gross national product.

I went to a public high school in that den of iniquity conservatives love to hate, New York City. Freshman year included world history, and we were explained the basic principles of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. No one objected because we understood the difference between being taught about religion, and being compelled to participate in religious practices. However, this distinction appears to elude conservative curriculum makers.

[SteveG1]

@sleeping

I went to a public high school in that den of iniquity conservatives love to hate, New York City. Freshman year included world history, and we were explained the basic principles of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. No one objected because we understood the difference between being taught about religion, and being compelled to participate in religious practices. However, this distinction appears to elude conservative curriculum makers.

Apparently some people still understand that…
According to the news, these guys are being (or have been) voted out. That means people aren’t buying into their “thing”.

[sqweels]

@Starving_Artist

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not mean restricting it to churches and private homes. The whole idea is that people should be free to think and believe and practice their religion as they see fit, free from government interference.

But the massive blind spot that you’re dancing around is the distinction between venues that are govenment-run and others. “Private” doesn’t mean that you’re not allowed to do it outdoors. You can carry a sign, you can rent a billboard, you get up on a soapbox and preach in the literal public square. If you don’t see a lot of religious expression from businsses or on TV, it’s becuase they’ve made the business decision to remain secular.

But the thing is, when you express your religion in public, it becomes your politics. And yet religion maintains a stance of, “we get to be right all the time, we don’t have to prove anything, and no one is allowed to criticize us”.

…and verbally assailing religion outright…

Projection! Just listen to how religious conservatives and their handmaidens in the right-wing media verbally assial liberals, etc. And apart from the internet, where is all this assailing of religion taking place? Non-religious people usually bend over backwards to to avoid disputing things that religious people say, because the latter go around with their sensitity on hair trigger. They’re always on the lookout for you to say something that they can say is an insult or mockery.

So while there are a few people like Bill Maher who pull no punches, by and large there’s a chilling effect.

So it’s only natural that when certain people become politically invested in trying to quash that religious expression, it’s believers are going to become politically invested in trying to promote it.

So apart from the fact that they’re bearing false witness, you’re not saying that their view of history is correct, you’re admitting that they’re trying to use government to promote or establish religion, and the only justification you cite is that it’s “only natural”.

[sqweels]

@Starving_Artist

I would posit they don’t mind them because they aren’t primarily associated with America and traditional American values.

Why don’t you ask them what they think instead of telling them what they think?

[elucidator]

Well, then you’re obliged to listen. Duh.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@sleeping

When has any left-winger advocated the prohibition of a religion? This doesn’t even rise to the level of a strawman; it’s just a pile of biproducts.

Did you mean by-products, or are you actually talking about products that swing both ways?

[tagos]

@Sage_Rat

Well yeah, because “representative democracy” means “republic”.

No it doesn’t.

[tagos]

@Laudenum

If people elect other people to do that for them, then that is a republic.

No it is not.

[sqweels]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Did you mean by-products, or are you actually talking about products that swing both ways?

Well I suppose KY fills the bill.

[elucidator]

Indictment pending.