Why don't they teach about Jesus & God in world history?

[Porcupine]

If the resurrection of Jesus and God's creation of the universe are such an important part of history, then why aren't we taught about Jesus and God in World History classes? I know it's easy for Christians to say because of separation of church & state. But a man rising from the dead, as Christians claim to have happened, and the creation of the universe fall as much - if not more - into the category of the physical history of the universe than they do into the category of church.

[Demigod79]

Christians DO teach this, but only in church since it's illegal for them to do so in public schools in most democracies. They're constantly trying though; the last great battle was in 2004 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.

[Smellyoldgit]

The christ-stains can't even agree on events within their own little sub-cults - how on earth can religotards around the world come to any consensus and teach history with any semblance of consistency? I'll go for the easy answer, it's all a complete crock of shit!

[Broga]

They don't, or can't, do this because their source book, usually the King James version, is full of contradictions, absurdities and atrocities. With the internet these are easy to expose. What the christians want is to deliver selected passages, heavily interpreted, and no questioning. The other problem they have are the atheist best sellers regularly hitting the best seller lists.

[Eternal]

A teacher has a duty to teach what is currently accepted as fact or reality (as per the syllabus). To teach it in history would require a widespread acceptance between historians, due to the evidence that is available to back it up.

There is no evidence for god or Jesus, so no part of it should be taught as fact. When they change the syllabus to include anything like this, presumably science classes all over the world will also become preoccupied about how Santa makes his sleigh fly.

[Broga]

In the UK we have 26 christian bishops in the House of Lords who, tacitly at least, are signed up to agree with the christian superstitions. They don't actually debate them but prefer to pontificate on issues such as assisted dying. The UK also has a wonderful racket going of faith schools where they extract money from taxes to support them. There, of course, they are in a great position to teach superstition and the RCs, in particular, continue to push to get as much as they can. I don't suppose the RC faith schools have much to say about the endemic child sexual abuse, and other cruelties, which infest their priesthood.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I agree, sticking it in RE is like sticking it in pseudoscience and de values the point of having it at all, hint hint.

[Sternwallow]

If the resurrection of Jesus and God's creation of the universe are such an important part of history, then why aren't we taught about Jesus and God in World History classes? I know it's easy for Christians to say because of separation of church & state. But a man rising from the dead, as Christians claim to have happened, and the creation of the universe fall as much - if not more - into the category of the physical history of the universe than they do into the category of church.
You are missing the critical distinction between teaching about the events and forces involved in world history versus the role (none) of religion in teaching a scientific subject.

The religious falsely point to church-state separation, which does not prohibit informing students about the actual history, as though it were the same as prohibiting non-science from science classes.

[Sternwallow]

A teacher has a duty to teach what is currently accepted as fact or reality (as per the syllabus). To teach it in history would require a widespread acceptance between historians, due to the evidence that is available to back it up.

There is no evidence for god or Jesus, so no part of it should be taught as fact. When they change the syllabus to include anything like this, presumably science classes all over the world will also become preoccupied about how Santa makes his sleigh fly.
In history class you teach the truth that great masses of people had huge effects on the world because they believed these things (not taking a position on whether the beliefs were right or wrong).

Was Jerusalem a sacred place to Christians? Yes, historically true. Did that belief instigate and fuel the crusades? Yes, historically true. Was the air in Jerusalem charged by the Holy Spirit, making it a very Holy place? Not a science question; don't teach it in a science class.

[Eternal]

Stern, I see what your saying. It is virtually impossible to teach history without the religious element, especially as religion played such a big role in many historical events, it is therefore correct to include it.

I admit that I was probably being a bit narrow minded in my initial thinking, as I was only really considering history being taught in a religious manner. The content must be accurate and all inclusive, I suspect my worry was more about the manner it was presented rather than what was presented.

I am not a teacher though, so claim no insight into the challenges they face.

[Kinich Ahau]

If I had my way the human right violations, abuses, corruption and downright crimes perpetrated by religions would be compulsory history curriculum in schools.

[West491]

there are plenty of those classes available at any decent university.

[Davin]

Even the gospels aren't in agreement on the life and times of Jesus Christ, and those are the only documents on the matter (the other ones barely mention the existence of Christians, not the Life of Brian... Apollonius... Jesus). So there will never be a consensus on the history of it. Though having a representative from many sex sects of Christians trying to create a history of Jesus might make for a good reality TV show.

[West491]

that last post was directed at Kinich.

[psychodiva]

you may want to start with getting your own history right before you cover the middle eastern stuff :D

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Me/dp/0684818868/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1309461207&sr=8-2

[Sternwallow]

Stern, I see what your saying. It is virtually impossible to teach history without the religious element, especially as religion played such a big role in many historical events, it is therefore correct to include it.

I admit that I was probably being a bit narrow minded in my initial thinking, as I was only really considering history being taught in a religious manner. The content must be accurate and all inclusive, I suspect my worry was more about the manner it was presented rather than what was presented.

I am not a teacher though, so claim no insight into the challenges they face.
You are quite right about concerns over how religious material would be taught in history, Religious doctrines must not be taught as fact and the doctrines of all religions must be taught as characteristics of those religions along with the influence those religions have had historically.

A key understanding that all children must have is the staggering number of religions that are considered by their adherents as the single, total universal truth. God doesn't look so great when you see there are many times a thousand others just like Him.

[Sternwallow]

If I had my way the human right violations, abuses, corruption and downright crimes perpetrated by religions would be compulsory history curriculum in schools.
Right. Do not limit it to schools; home-schooling must also include the facts of all religions, not just the one or three locally influential ones.

[Sternwallow]

there are plenty of those classes available at any decent university.
You need to educate the kids as early as possible, so say the Jesuits.

[Sternwallow]

Even the gospels aren't in agreement on the life and times of Jesus Christ, and those are the only documents on the matter (the other ones barely mention the existence of Christians, not the Life of Brian... Apollonius... Jesus). So there will never be a consensus on the history of it. Though having a representative from many sex sects of Christians trying to create a history of Jesus might make for a good reality TV show.
The point is not to determine which version of Christianity is right and teach the historical effect of that version; it is to teach what the various sects believe as well as what all the other religions believe and the effects they all have had on history.

It is not enough to say that the troubles in Ireland are divided on the Catholic-Protestant line; the motivating beliefs must be shown as well.

You may say that Ireland's troubles are economically and oppression based, but it is differences in religious doctrine that determines which are the oppressors and which the oppressed.

[Porcupine]

Christians DO teach this, but only in church since it's illegal for them to do so in public schools in most democracies. They're constantly trying though; the last great battle was in 2004 with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.
Why do you suppose it is illegal to teach important things about world history such as a man rising from the dead or how the universe came into existence? Those - if true - seem to be fairly important events in world history. Yet we're taught about Krakatoa, polar exploration, the Revolutionary War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

[zdave]

Why do you suppose it is illegal to teach important things about world history such as a man rising from the dead or how the universe came into existence? Those - if true - seem to be fairly important events in world history. Yet we're taught about Krakatoa, polar exploration, the Revolutionary War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Because the education system isn't there to pander to what you want children to be taught... it's about what is best to teach them. What is 'best' is considered regionally, and is always being revised/changed

Certain events are plucked out of world history as a basis of good values, or perhaps a "lest we forget" (such as Australian history).

How on earth could you cover world history in a high school class-room over a few years? Impossible! There is so much to it!! Would you rather they taught about how the Chinese had irrigation and written language while just a short distance away, in our favorite fairy tale land, they were claiming that the entire world was swept away? Probably because they don't want to offend sensitive little christian kids, or provoke them into saying anything biblical such as "But the Chinese were all killed off in the global flood, as they aren't part of the chosen race." While the chinese kid next to them is like "dude, I'm right here, and in biology we learned that 6000 years isn't enough time to create the biodiversity necessary".... or something like that.

Anyway, that's why.

[Sternwallow]

Why do you suppose it is illegal to teach important things about world history such as a man rising from the dead or how the universe came into existence? Those - if true - seem to be fairly important events in world history. Yet we're taught about Krakatoa, polar exploration, the Revolutionary War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
For one thing, the resurrection is no more a fact than the exploits of Quetzlcoatl, so it should not be taught as fact anywhere.

The creation tale in which the Sun and Moon were created before the stars or that humans were created before the animals, are simply wrong and known falsity has no place in any curriculum.

Such things should not be taught in church either now that they are known to be false. The exodus, for instance, was not a metaphor and it did not happen, so it should not be taught or used as fact in school or in church.

It is entirely valid, in a comparative religion course or the religious influence section of a history course to teach that some people have believed in the resurrection and have behaved very badly based on that belief.

[Porcupine]

They don't, or can't, do this because their source book, usually the King James version, is full of contradictions, absurdities and atrocities. With the internet these are easy to expose. What the christians want is to deliver selected passages, heavily interpreted, and no questioning. The other problem they have are the atheist best sellers regularly hitting the best seller lists.
Why don't Christians recognize and acknowledge the contradictions, absurdities and atrocities which you and I are both well aware of?

Do they know about them, but choose to ignore - perhaps out of fear that they'll be ostracized by their community?

[psychodiva]

jesus fucked!- do you ever have an answer instead of a question?

[Smellyoldgit]

Do you remember that tedious fuckwit we had here some years ago - "JackFlash"? Got everybody to do his homework?
I reckon this Porcupine prick is related.
If he starts any more threads, he'll be taking a temporary short respite.

[Sol]

What in sweetmeats is going on ?

I pop back in here for a quiet sit down and a cuppa, perhaps a giggle or two. Only to find some young whelp has been shitting and pissing all over the hallways and in the kitchen.

It's gonna take ages to hose this lot down......I mean, srsly. :eh:

[Kinich Ahau]

Yeah, porcupines don't make good pets.

[Sol]

I know, its shat in the bathroom and left the seat up...dirty bastard.

(They are good as ringers in a pub darts team though)

[Porcupine]

For one thing, the resurrection is no more a fact than the exploits of Quetzlcoatl, so it should not be taught as fact anywhere.

The creation tale in which the Sun and Moon were created before the stars or that humans were created before the animals, are simply wrong and known falsity has no place in any curriculum.

Such things should not be taught in church either now that they are known to be false. The exodus, for instance, was not a metaphor and it did not happen, so it should not be taught or used as fact in school or in church.

It is entirely valid, in a comparative religion course or the religious influence section of a history course to teach that some people have believed in the resurrection and have behaved very badly based on that belief.
I know about separation of church and state. But if Christians believe that the resurrection is fact, then why don't they make more than feeble attempts to get it taught in public schools?

[Eternal]

I know about separation of church and state. But if Christians believe that the resurrection is fact, then why don't they make more than feeble attempts to get it taught in public schools?

I suspect deep down even they know it is bollocks.

[West491]

But if Christians believe that the resurrection is fact, then why don't they make more than feeble attempts to get it taught in public schools?

Because public education doesn't cater to clubhouse dogma.

[Kinich Ahau]

Please correct me if I'm in error. The early public school system in the States was actually started by Quakers. When the amendment of separation between state and religion and freedom of religion was made religion was mostly removed from the public sector. So as you can see the argument have been going on from the beginning.

[triumph675]

I know about separation of church and state. But if Christians believe that the resurrection is fact, then why don't they make more than feeble attempts to get it taught in public schools?
Because they're too busy pressuring school boards to teach their "intelligent design" bullshit as legitimate science. You can be sure if they get their foot in the door with that bunk, proposals to teach about Jesus H. Fucking Christ as a historical figure won't be far behind.

[Eternal]

Because they're too busy pressuring school boards to teach their "intelligent design" bullshit as legitimate science. You can be sure if they get their foot in the door with that bunk, proposals to teach about Jesus H. Fucking Christ as a historical figure won't be far behind.

I so hope ID doesn't get a hold, it is an evolution of their stupid. Even the most ardent christard feels fucking silly stating some of what they are supposed to believe as fact, it gives them what they see as a legitimate platform. ID needs to keep being ridiculed by established scientists until it's credibility amongst the masses is completely gone.

Just out of interest, which triumph. Street Triple or Daytona?

[triumph675]

I so hope ID doesn't get a hold, it is an evolution of their stupid. Even the most ardent christard feels fucking silly stating some of what they are supposed to believe as fact, it gives them what they see as a legitimate platform. ID needs to keep being ridiculed by established scientists until it's credibility amongst the masses is completely gone.

Just out of interest, which triumph. Street Triple or Daytona?
A 'ticket-me-red' Daytona. I may be an old fart, but I'm not giving up riding sportbikes until arthritis (or traffic court) says I can't anymore.

I don't think legitimate scientists will ever give up the fight against the scourge of ID. But what I don't get is why christians need ID at all? If they assert that the bible (including Genesis) is the 100% infallible "word of god," it's intellectually dishonest to selectively buy into some of the bullshit while rejecting the parts about Earth being conjured up in six days just 6000 years ago.

[Eternal]

Most things about religion are intellectually dishonest, that won't stop them. They are losing so much ground to science that I think they see it as attacking science on its own doorstep. They are far too ignorant to realise the many holes and lack of science in the argument, they just see the big words and buy into the bullshit.

Daytona sounds nice. I have had sports bikes since I passed my test. My current bike (street triple r with a few mods) is the first bike I have owned that isn't an out and out sports bike.