195 replies to this topic

[caligirlz]

Your examples of religion remind me of what I was taught when I had to do my California mission project versus what my son learned when he did his. The version I was taught was how the Monks were doing the Native Americans a big favor by bringing them religion and everybody lived happily ever after. My son learned what was more the truth which is that the Native Americans weren't treated well and didn't like being forced to convert to Christianity and having their culture taken away from them.

The things that you are talking about happened under the "name of Christianity" but it doesn't mean that the people were real Christians (aka followers of Jesus Christ). Most of the people who did horrible things to other people (i.e., the Crusades, the inquistion, witch hunts, the Roman Persecution, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc) were following a sect or religious branch of Christiandom, but not Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his disciples in the Bible...and yes, there is a big difference.

[ducky]

The things that you are talking about happened under the "name of Christianity" but it doesn't mean that the people were real Christians (aka followers of Jesus Christ). Most of the people who did horrible things to other people (i.e., the Crusades, the inquistion, witch hunts, the Roman Persecution, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc) were following a sect or religious branch of Christiandom, but not Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his disciples in the Bible...and yes, there is a big difference.

I understand that. It was all about power under the guise of religion. Thing is, it's still happening.

Oh, and the real question... Do you think they should have just kept teaching the propaganda one-sided version or the more accurate portrayal?

[Chris]

I do think it's speculation until I know for a fact what is going to be taught. There are some examples in that article that I don't think would be appropriate at all, but I also don't see it happening.

Your examples of religion remind me of what I was taught when I had to do my California mission project versus what my son learned when he did his. The version I was taught was how the Monks were doing the Native Americans a big favor by bringing them religion and everybody lived happily ever after. My son learned what was more the truth which is that the Native Americans weren't treated well and didn't like being forced to convert to Christianity and having their culture taken away from them.

Which one is the real truth....? Remember, back in the day it was more conservative and when you came through the schools it was more liberal in the public school teachings and definitely "anti religion" and "anti Catholic" (Franciscan Friars....) from 1970 and on in the public schools as I remember from being there, in both Catholic and public schools. Do we really know the truth...? And as the Missions go, I am pretty sure the natives flocked to living around them because of the food supply (agriculture technology and animals that the Europeans brought...) that the missions provided. Just try to live off of the land in California in the year 1700....! Your gonna have to find a lot of Oak trees and grind up a lot of acorns to live marginally at best....... This land was hard to live on and did not support as many people per square mile as the plains or back East. Just look to your history books for the real story. Chris

[caligirlz]

Oh, and the real question... Do you think they should have just kept teaching the propaganda one-sided version or the more accurate portrayal?

I don't have a short answer for that question. It's yes, but....

I would hope that the educators would be able to write a balanced version of history, despite the proven fact that history is constantly being revised based on whomever is in control.

Is a governmental sponsored educational system "capable" of even writing a fair & balanced school book, in these days & times? And if it's not the government educational system, then "WHO" is writing or rewriting the school books, and what is their agenda? Are we going to let every special interest &/or the current pet minority group write their own opinion to be compiled into one politically correct school book?

What constitutes "propaganda" depends on who is defining the term, and who is in control.

[rpo]

The things that you are talking about happened under the "name of Christianity" but it doesn't mean that the people were real Christians (aka followers of Jesus Christ). Most of the people who did horrible things to other people (i.e., the Crusades, the inquistion, witch hunts, the Roman Persecution, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc) were following a sect or religious branch of Christiandom, but not Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his disciples in the Bible...and yes, there is a big difference.

Then by the same reasoning, I expect to never to see you nor anyone else blame Muslims for 9/11 or any other terrorist acts.

[caligirlz]

Then by the same reasoning, I expect to never to see you nor anyone else blame Muslims for 9/11 or any other terrorist acts.

I don't understand you reasoning, since Islam is not considered biblical "Christianity". They are another religious system under the Christiandom umbrella.

[cw68]

I don't understand you reasoning, since Islam is not considered biblical "Christianity". They are another religious system under the Christiandom umbrella.

Beasts operate under the guise of Christianity. They also operate under the guise of Islam. Religion is often used and scapegoated as the reason/excuse for many nasty actions and beliefs.

[the_professor]

I totally agree with you Chris.

However, your line of reasoning with the example of religion will be rejected by the gay lobby, because "religion is a CHOICE, and homosexuality is not". Even though there is no other evidence in nature, of a homosexual human reproducing another homosexual. I am aware of the alleged research showing that "homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." However, there is still no human homosexual gene, and human homosexuals do not reproduce homosexuals.
***Disclaimer: this does not make me a homophobe. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. Nor is this hate speech. ****

Humans are equal to primates and gut worms?

[the_professor]

Which one is the real truth....? Remember, back in the day it was more conservative and when you came through the schools it was more liberal in the public school teachings and definitely "anti religion" and "anti Catholic" (Franciscan Friars....) from 1970 and on in the public schools as I remember from being there, in both Catholic and public schools. Do we really know the truth...? And as the Missions go, I am pretty sure the natives flocked to living around them because of the food supply (agriculture technology and animals that the Europeans brought...) that the missions provided. Just try to live off of the land in California in the year 1700....! Your gonna have to find a lot of Oak trees and grind up a lot of acorns to live marginally at best....... This land was hard to live on and did not support as many people per square mile as the plains or back East. Just look to your history books for the real story. Chris

Seriously? They did fine until Europeans arrived. There is more to life than "supporting people per square mile".

[the_professor]

Reading is fundamental, she said homosexual behavior not human behavior

pay attention

I read good! She is comparing human homosexual behavior with the behavior of primates and worms.

[Harold]

The things that you are talking about happened under the "name of Christianity" but it doesn't mean that the people were real Christians (aka followers of Jesus Christ). Most of the people who did horrible things to other people (i.e., the Crusades, the inquistion, witch hunts, the Roman Persecution, the Holocaust, Hitler, etc) were following a sect or religious branch of Christiandom, but not Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or his disciples in the Bible...and yes, there is a big difference.

Every missionary I know of is a practicing real Christian, but they inherently discount native peoples religion and culture teaching that their own beliefs are the only true religion and that they need to convert or be damned to hell. To deny that real christian people have been spreading the word of God like this for 2000 years is denying the truth. Wake up and smell reality.

[sweetpeasmom]

I think that all relevant history should be taught regardless of whether the person who created it was straight, gay, white, black, etc. Why do we need to single out sexual preference or race when discussing accomplishments. Didn't Martin Luther dream about a society that was colorblind? How about just saying so and so was a great explorer. Do we need to know who or what he did in his bedroom?

Just sayin......

Barb

I am in COMPLETE agreement with you! Worthwhile contributions need to be noted - what their sexual orientation was does not! Or their race, gender, or whatever was...........