Hey, there! Log in / Register
Jesus: Some Revere parents outraged kids being taught world has more than one religion
By adamg on Wed, 10/22/2014 - 11:17am
Especially, you know, that one.
Ed. note: A couple years ago, the kidlet's World History class covered Islam (also Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity). Those outraged Revere parents, or at least the one quoted by WHDH, can take solace in knowing she did not start wearing a niqab or quoting the Koran at inopportune times.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
*clutches pearls*
This has been all over a friends wall..
Gosh for bid we teach kids about real world history, not just Christian World History.
Why I find this amusing
1. It was a part of our curriculum in high school - world history and European and US History
2. One of my classmates had a father who was president of a very conservative Bible college
3. That father used his contacts to help the teacher arrange non-required visits to several different houses of worship, including Vedanta (Hindu), a synagogue, a mosque, an LDS meeting room (temples are for the faithful only), etc.
Not only are the schools secular, and world religions part of world geography and world history, there is nothing anti-Christian about learning that many religions exist, where they came from, and where they predominate!
I agree
My HS was the same too.. in very rural New Hampshire. But we learned because we had a teacher who was extremely liberal and wanted to round out people's education. Never a peep from the PTA about it either (the curriculum). This was also the same school that allowed biology class to sit thru a three day presentation from the state medical examiner (which was gorier than most movies today)
But since Islam has 'such a bad name' now, people are all up in arms about it. Sorry, I don't see Islam as a bad religion, I have a few Islamic friends and it's not what people think it is (because of 'terrorism'). You'd be surprised how peaceful it is, it's an interesting religion to say the least. But any nut job in any religion can make it terrorizing (and that goes for Christianity also)
I am curious
Did the course also allow for the possibility that there is no God of any type?
Roll eyes
Why yes, they spent an entire class discussing the lack of belief. They discussed the core belief of the lack of belief, the practices by the adherents, history, and other such things.
I think you missed the point of the class. They were looking to expand the minds of the kids by exposing them to different religions, not convincing them to adhere to any of them.
That's good to know
I don't know why you're rolling your eyes, though. You didn't mention anything about agnosticism or atheism in your comment, nor did SwirlyGrrl. It was her I was being curious towards, anyway.
Still the same
Don't get me wrong, a quick "some people don't believe in religion" comment would have worked to somehow balance things, but that would be a quick aside.
To discuss a religion, any religion, involves discussion of a core set of beliefs, a value system, a history, and a means of expression. To discuss nonreligion, none of that is necessary by the very nature of not believing in religion.
Quick edit- and, since Buddhism does not have the same view of "god" that the monotheistic religions do, sure they would be covered.
Now you're being dismissive
You're implying that being a non-God-believer has no history, does not involve values, and has no means of expression. None of which is true.
Was there discussion of persecution and repression of the various religions? Was there a discussion of persecution and repression of atheism?
How does one codify non-religion?
By the very nature, it becomes a religion, and thereby cancels itself.
This is not to diminish a lack of belief, but the nature of "lacking" means there is nothing.
I would imagine any history course worth its salt would note the Crusades, the religious wars in Europe around the rise of Protestantism, anti-Semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, prosecution of religious under communism, and compulsory religion in colonial America, amongst other things. But all of that is history, not religion. Telling students that Muslims believe this, Christians believe that, Jews believe such-and-such, Buddhists believe so-and-so, and so on, it different from saying that nonbelievers believe something, since the nature of standing at odds with religions makes figuring out the something, other than the nonbelief, not easy to pin down.
Nonsense
This is the usual "if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in anything" argument that's always trotted out to dismiss atheism. There is not "nothing" in the beliefs of atheists. Not believing in the tenets of religion does not constitute a religion. Atheists have beliefs, and ethical codes, and concepts of good and bad. Those things are not owned by religion, and having them does not make one religious. By the same token, being religious does not instill one with those qualities.
It is not necessary to apply a religious framework to atheism to allow it to have validity.
Question of religion, not belief
Were atheism, agnosticism, or deism (a concept you have ignored) a developed and codified belief system, then, sure, it would have a more than passing place in a discussion of religion, but say someone is at the jumping off point of "I do not believe in God", where does the discussion go from there? How does one express their lack of belief in God, other than annoying people who do? If someone were to note that the development of the scientific method or the theory of evolution negates the possibility of God's existence, then you have a science class. Agnosticism can exist within or outside of any religion, so they would adhere to what Catholics, Shiites, Mormons, or whomever do or would just shrug and say "eh." Deism, again, would be overarching: God exists, but man's attempt to grasp God has failed, thus making the relationship personal and outside of the realm of religion.
Defend atheism all you want. It's still not a religion. My personal beliefs aside, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it's not a religion.
Oh, for christ's sake
That's what I've been trying to tell you. You don't seem to have any way of conceiving of belief systems that don't revolve around a belief in God.
How does one express their belief in God, other than annoying people who don't? Never mind, I know the answer to that one. How could I not? One insists that all manner of public and private events feature thanks and homage to one's mythical being of choice. Then one forces everybody to subsidize all manner of mythical-being worship by granting organized religion tax-exempt status, and holidays dedicated to the most popular religions, and on and on. Oh, and bar atheists from high office. Don't like that one? Name one atheist member of Congress, or federal judge, or college president.
You're confused
Admittedly, you were talking about Swirly's example, but your question was whether the course discussed those who are non believers. Also admittedly, I thought you were just referencing classes lie the one in Revere in general.
So, if you are agreeing that devoting a section of a class (or unit) on religions to those who are not religious is somehow off, we have been arguing for no reason. However, if you are insisting that a movement against religions should be discussed in a class on religions just because, I would offer that you have issues. Going by that theory, every science class on evolution or world geography should note every way people think the world was created, right? Every point in history should be discussed in multiple ways?
Again, the course was on religions. Show me an atheist meeting house, tell me the ways someone officially becomes an atheist. At least give me the codified set of beliefs.
That people have issues with atheists means nothing. I saw a thing a few years ago about atheist Anglican priests. Their religion is Anglicanism. That they don't believe in God is immaterial. We are talking about a class on religions, not belief systems.
What part of teaching people about religions don't you get.
Show me an atheist meeting
reddit.com
Be sure to wear your not sunday best of fedora, jorts and my little pony tshirt
Atheist meeting houses
Humanism Community, Ethical Society, Sunday Assembly, to name a few.
Atheists have beliefs, and
Are you saying these things are shared among all atheists, in such a way that can be taught in a set amount of time in a classroom? That's the point you seem to be missing.
B-I-N-G-O
B-I-N-G-O
Exactly what I was thinking.
Quick edit- and, since
"Covered" meaning what? No sense teaching about it?
I'm not sure you're making the correct distinction between Buddhism and other things commonly labeled "religion", which is what you seem to be trying to do here. The Buddhist teachings do not address themselves to the nature or existence of a god or gods; Buddhism is therefore quite different from any theistic religion, not just the monotheistic varieties. Nevertheless, many self-identified Buddhists do put a theistic spin on things in various ways. Nothing's pure where humans are involved, so why draw lines based on abstractions? Likewise, if you're not teaching religion per se, should an educational exploration of religion not restrict itself merely to the different languages, scriptures, hats and music and other trappings of theistic "religions", but should deal with the larger question of how people around the world think about religion? It IS not just what they believe, or even what god they believe in -- it's also whether they believe.
This is kind of my point
Yes, talk of religion tends to center on the monotheistic big 3, but there is more out there. Buddhism has set beliefs, albeit more fluid. Religion 101 in college discussed Norse beliefs. And what about Wiccan religion? My point is that these are religions. A religion of nonbelief, well, I went over that already.
I used to give an acquaintance grief about being Unitarian, since they seemed to me to be "anything goes". However, she schooled me, so I respect them as a religion ( though like almost all religions, not my cup of tea.)
"talk of religion tends to center on the monotheistic big 3"
Only where that is the dominant culture.
You're really stuck on this "religion of nonbelief" thing, aren't you? And that anecdote about your rudeness to your Unitarian "friend"? Maybe you would do better to just stop 'splaining to other people about their beliefs (or thoughts/opinions that you are not willing to call "beliefs", since you seem to want to appropriate the b-word and redefine it to only refer to the g-word). Just accept that they probably have a better take on what's in their own heads than you do, and move on.
You're really missing the point
Which is that there is a difference between a religion and a belief system. I've gone on too much about that, so I'll leave it at that.
Yes, I was wrong about Unitarianism. I said that. My rude point back in the day was that Unitarianism, in being accepting of all sorts of different ideas, seemed to be lacking a core set of beliefs. Believe or don't, essentially. Then it was explained to me that there still is a codified creed that unifies the Unitarians (pardon the pun.) If you don't adhere to it, you are not a Unitarian. Well, you could still be a Unitarian, but by the same logic one can be a Catholic, Mennonite, or Shiite while not in fact believing what you say you believe, but if you were being truthful, you would no longer be one of the above.
Believe or don't believe, what do I care (aside from being part of a religion that thinks that believing in certain things is the way, but I do live in a pluralistic society and overall we have free will.) The next time you visit the place you visit to ponder your belief system and make a proclamation that you believe what you do, you can think about what a religion is and how it is in fact distinct from a belief system. Everyone has beliefs, but not everyone has religion.
Please tell us
What do you think of Universalists?
Universalists
Are there any that didn't merge with the Unitarians?
Unitarian Universalists
They aren't all Unitarians.
We've heard his take on Unitarians ... so ...
You're giving me a headache
I have enough of a problem working out what various Vatican documents mean, I can't even start on the whole U vs U thing.
I'm already looking bad on this, so let's just say that at the same time I had the same epiphany about Universalists that I had about Unitarians.
Anyway, my opinion on Unitarians, Universalists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Copts, Maronites, Alawites, Reform Judaism, or whatever isn't important, along with my ideas on whether or not people should believe in a higher power. My issue in this, as I keep on noting, is the difference between a religion and a belief.
Die Heretic!
Actually, Yes
Atheism and Agnosticism were covered in context of societal changes AND also with regard to Marxism.
Marxism was kind of a big thing in the early 80s.
"Marxism was kind of a big
"Marxism was kind of a big thing in the early 80s."
On what planet? Are you aware of when Ronald "Cold Warrior" Reagan was elected President?
On planet earth, I assume
Yes, Reagan won the 1980 election, but the Red Menace still controlled Eurasia from Germany to the Korean DMZ - nobody knew the Soviet bloc would collapse in less than a decade. Marxism-Leninism was still very much a thing.
One of the first ongoing controversies I covered as a cub reporter in '81 or '82 was a Regan-administration plan to use Medfield State Hospital as a refugee camp for Boston in case the Commies seemed to be about to launch their missiles. The good burghers of Medfield were not amused.
Planet Earth
I don't know what planet you were on - probably planet egg and yet to be sperm from the sound of it.
Communism required atheism. In 1982, Communist countries included the entire Soviet Bloc, China, Mongolia, North Korea, and much of Southeast Asia.
That is a LOT of people under mandatory atheism. Reagan being president at the time had shit all to do with whether people in those countries could go to church.
Being that it was a world history and literature course (equivalent in some ways to what is now AP English and AP History courses), the point was to understand different spiritual and belief systems in the context of the cultures. Considering the substantial number of people at that time who were living under a political theory and system that enforced atheism, it was important to think about what the ramifications of this were.
Don't go there, old-timer
"I don't know what planet you were on - probably planet egg and yet to be sperm from the sound of it."
Oh my, that's about the weakest ad hominem I've seen all week, and that's saying something. While you were working on getting a date for the high school prom, I was voting against Reagan.
People who are confident in
People who are confident in their own faith, or lack of faith, are welcoming of all religions and don't feel threatened.
My "kidlet" went Catholic school k-12. They had classes soley based upon other religions starting at an early age.
When she was very young, around 6, I made the mistake of finding and removing her shoes by the front door every night. I didn't realize it was a Jewish custom that she had learned. I asked a co worker the meaning and if I remember correctly, she was hoping for gold coins. She did end up getting the gold coins, the chocolate ones, not the real ones.
In her later years in HS, she had classmates of all faiths, Muslim, Jewish and non practicing as well. Respect of eachother was expected and nothing less would do and there was never - ever any issues with students or parents.
I wonder if it's more of an issue with public school parents.
Public school parents?
C'mon. Needless. Just because your experience as a private school parent was one way doesn't mean that everyone's was, or that somehow private school parents/kids are more welcoming than public school ones.
I had mostly K-16 of Catholic
I had mostly K-16 of Catholic education (go Eagles) and our world religion courses were badass. Even stuff about the Balai (sp) faith which was up and coming in Boston at the time.
Do you mean Bahai?
Do you mean Bahai?
Yep, my phone dictionary
Yep, my phone dictionary doesn't have it
Catholic School
I went to Catholic school as well. 1 year of our theology course was world religion, very informative. Our senior year was all about social justice, thankful for the experience.
Catholic school too
We had World Religions course. It was considered a good thing to acquire more knowledge about the world. Oddly enough for Catholic high school, my junior year high school religion course was more of a philosphy course centered around validating your opinions and beliefs, and played a big role in confirming my stance as an athiest. "Your opinion is only as good as the evidence that backs it up."
In my high school theology classes...
(in Oklahoma) we covered other religions (worl and US). Also, virtually all the people who were most conversant with the Bible (Old and New Testament) were skeptics or non-believers.
So true
I'm going to just assume both you and lmo are Jesuit educated, as my athiest friends from high school chalk up their belief to what they learned in religion class. Thankfully, the teachers are happy they lapped up Social Justice class.
Educated by the Sisters of St
Educated by the Sisters of St. Joesph.
Slamming public school
Slamming public school parents for this one... wow, talk about entitled ignorance!
A less maladroit and more
A less maladroit and more nuanced take on it would probably go something like this: public school parents have more leverage to get cranky over curriculum, as public schools must serve the public. Private schools don't have to serve anybody and are free to dish up as much crazy crap as they want. You don't like it, take a hike.
Separation of church and
Separation of church and state. I consider myself extremely fortunate that I was taught in the public school system. More tolerance and less bigotry. Furthermore, there was absolutely NO suppression of science in favor of theology. I had a far superior education despite the fact that our school wasn't as fancy and the families had far less money than the catholic school kids' parents.
Lovely theory. Absent in
Lovely theory. Absent in practice.
I had no "suppression of
I had no "suppression of science in favour of theology" in Catholic school too, but dont let that stop you from posting wildly ignorant broad statements.
That's great that that was
That's great that that was YOUR personal experience. But that has not been the experience of some of my peers and some of my younger relatives. I believe bigotry and telling falsehoods about evolution has no place in education. Sorry!
that was my experience as
That was my experience as well. We were taught no falsehoods about evolution. We were taught the bible is not a history book. My high school was tolerant and quite diverse.
I'm sorry about the experience your peers and younger relatives had in school. Every school is different, glad I attended one of the good ones.
Now you've got 3 examples
The irony is, without the controversy that has dogged the public school system (see Tennessee and various conservative areas) the Catholic schools are free to discuss evolution (I remember something about moths in England during the Industrial Revolution, along with a critique of social Darwinism in history class), reproduction (I remember being told of all the types of birth control and that the only sure fire way to be safe was to say no, and that was in religion class), world religions (yes, there was a religion teacher who got into trouble for dissing the U-Us, and no, I didn't have him), and other such topics that theoretically religious schools shy away from.
gold coins
Wow. I'm Jewish and I've never heard of this custom of removing your shoes to get coins. Is that some old wives from the old country kind of thing, or an actual Jewish custom?
I don't think so
I thought it might have been Norse at first, 1st Google hit suggested Holland.
This link hours to Orthodox Mom blog describing it in her house.
http://www.orthodoxmom.com/2012/11/30/st-nicholas-day-traditions-2/
Crap. My link doesnt seem to be working from my phone. I'll try to fix it at work.
Here's a link to the 'St. Nicholas Center'. Check the 2nd item down: http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/worship/
So ... yeah. Christians loving gold.
Orthodox
It isn't just for Judaism.
Orthodox Christianity exists in Eastern Europe and the Near East, having held onto older traditions when the Roman Catholic faith split off.
We had "Old Believers" in our area when I was growing up - Ultraorthadox Christians from Russia who never accepted the reforms of Patriarch Nikon in 1666.
Maybe it's more of an issue
Maybe it's more of an issue with a few parents in that town. Catholics love generalizing, don't they?
I agree.
I attended Catholic School from 1-12 and the one thing that I was actually upset about, especially in High School, was that they didn't give us a course on other religions. So, when I attended weddings, or funerals or bar/bat mitsvahs I had no clue what was going on. Granted the education came over time but I always thought that if you are going to tell us that our religion is supposedly the one, we should at least have a reasoning why.
I believe in order to understand the religion you grew up with, you should understand other religions.
Reminds me of that joke
(Im paraphrazing)
About Mary telling Joseph about her virgin birth.
Mary: Joseph, you know how we haven't had sex?
Joseph: Yes
Mary: Well, an angel came to visit me last night and now I am pregnant.
Joseph: Jesus Christ.
Mary: Oh, so you know about it already?
Comical-ments
Do check the viewer comments...an unbelievable set of bigoted and paranoid rants. Is that typical of WHDH watchers?
Moron
Jesus believed in teaching people new things to make them more open to the humanity around them. Also, "Jesus only" suggests you don't believe in God...unless you get into the whole weird "Jesus is God" circle logic, at which point Allah is God too, so Allah is Jesus and the whole premise of it being insulting that Allah is the only God because Jesus is there too becomes a clusterfuck.
So, let's stick to Jesus and God are considered holy beings in Christianity. Therefore, the guy isn't even stating his own religious beliefs correctly! Then, like most good Christians he has no clue that Jesus was also in the Koran and is a prominent prophet in Islam. He's not God, but he's vastly different than all of the other prophets and was born of immaculate conception (just like Christianity) and has special healing powers (bestowed from Allah, instead of because he's Allah on Earth). But the point is, that he's a big deal in Islam and there were none other like him and he's still slated to fight the anti-Christ some day and a bunch of other overlapping nonsense. So, teaching your kid about Islam isn't even straying that far away from their Christian upbringing, it's more like a different interpretation on the history of it all. Not like Christianity has any of that going on in its own ranks at all (why did the Pilgrims come here again?).
Finally, if you want to expose something as being a bunch of bullshit, you don't ignore it or tell your kid they should never learn anything about it. You expose it to sunlight. You parse it apart. You get intellectual on it. I know. It's Revere. But I have faith.
Furthermore, "Allah" isn't
Furthermore, "Allah" isn't the "name" of God in Islam. It is literally just the Arabic word for "the god"
"Al" means "the" and "lah" is Arabic for "a god"
The whole idea that Muslims have a different God from Christians is ridiculous. That frenquently quoted line that "there is no God but Allah" really just means "there is no God but THE God"--it was a statement that Islam is a monotheistic faith believing in one God--just like Christians and just like Jews. He doesn't have a different name he is just God.
Sad
Just sad.
And the comments on the article are pitiful too.
*never* read the comments.
*never* read the comments.
Sometimes...
... one sees a few by accident, however. ;-}
Thus you must pluck out your eye
Sharia law or somesuch. Or was that old Testament? Or maybe the Tea Party?
Pulse of Nation
Between comments under articles and Facebook posts under articles.. I call this the "Pulse of the Nation" because it really is very telling how people think. Of course the herald comments are the same 10 people with 2349280394 accounts posting the same garbage. But Facebook-linked comments are just very telling (because you can't hide)
Its scary.. like ebola. Not scared about Ebola, scared at the people who are afraid of Ebola.
Maybe they
Can talk about Ottawa in class today!
From that dudes comments,
he should be taking the class with his son. He might learn a thing or two about religion.
It's not like it's a secret
Back when I was a sprout, one entire year of the Sunday School curriculum was "The church across the street" where 6th graders (IIRC) spent the year going to other religious services.
If you've got the best religion, why would you be frightened of your children learning about the other ones?
This is why it is important to vote in small elections
These challenges do not happen out of the blue, but result from national efforts to undermine rational curriculum in the name of God, Mother, and Country.
Then there are the Anti-Agenda 21 Freakout Extremists who believe the UN is trying to take over the world through mind control!!!! I wonder if they are at work here, too, as this is "ZOMG internationalism!". They are pushing candidates for local offices as well.
Making sure that school boards don't end up with knuckledragging fools who, for example, think the AP History curriculum is "anti-American" for including things that really happened that aren't pretty; and removing anybody foolish enough to buy into such stupidity as this and censor valid curriculum is an important function of the ballot box in local communities.
This challenge was from one
This challenge was from one guy and his family that don't understand what teaching about world religion is, who decided to make a mess of it in the news for attention, which the news published as clickbait. This isn't an organized attempt or even the beginning of one. It also doesn't say anything about the guy's believe in mind control, he's the equivalent of a street ranter. Don't overplay this.
outliers
This is why I don't watch the news anymore. This guy is entertainment, not news. Because what he has to say is shocking, it gets attention and that translates into advertising sales for TV news and clickthroughs for web content.
Be that as it may ...
It is still important to hold any and all city councilors, aldermen, school committee members, etc. responsible if they at all buy into this crap or try to humor these fools - be they acting alone or as part of a larger group.
Don Henley had it right all along
[the msm] loves Dirty Laundry.
Oh, ok...
better that their kids remain ignorant (as the parents).
Cripes.
Credo in unum Deum,
Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem,
factorem caeli et terrae,
visibilium omnium et invisibilium,
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei unigenitum,
et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula,
Deum de Deo, lumen de Lumine,
Deum verum de Deo vero,
genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri:
per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.
Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto
ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato;
passus et sepultus est,
et resurrexit tertia die, secundem Scripturas,
et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria,
iudicare vivos et mortuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:
qui locutus est per prophetas.
Et nuam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.
Oh, cool
Anybody in the mood for a good brucha? I'm partial to the one for wine, myself
brucha!
Go right ahead! It's the best one.
You would, wouldn't you?
"Boreh pri ha-Gaffin"?
You betcha!
The brucha for bread just doesn't cut it when you have a name like mine.
Latin
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Amen.
Bah!
Every time I try to quote that at the former Latin student (she's still at the school, just done with the Latin requirements), she just goes "Don't."
She could still take...
... Latin Poetry (and other such things).
Assure her
3 years of Latin in high school.
I remember that and "nomen mihi est Kaz".
That's it. Yay?
Ha! I know a Latin alum who
Ha! I know a Latin alum who says that ;-)
Good lesson for the kid
It's time for him to start thinking for himself. If he is going to let his father's willful ignorance influence his education, he is going to fail this class in particular, and probably life in general.
I'd be fine with that, but for the fact that....
I know who pays for such failures.
Thanks to Ant-nee
Bill O just got a woody. Week of Fox programming right there.
Fabric Wars
Worshipping fabrics?!? Why I oughta! *shakes fist*
Me, I'm partial to Silk. That there is a way better fabric. And strong, to boot.
Silk? Wait, those are the
Silk? Wait, those are the ones with the turbans, right? Aren't they secretly Muslins?
There goes the neighborhood
If we start giving credence to Muslins and Silks, you know what we're going to have to deal with next?
That's right. Satinists.
It's a Swift Silk Road down..
It's a Swift Silk Road down...
YEAH it is
Do you know what happens when you cross Silks with Satins?
SHEETS, people! Sheets! Wake up!!!!!11!!
That's right.
And the Church Lady will be leading our charge!
When Jesus wrote the Constitution
In English, just like the bible, you better believe that the third amendment (or something, maybe second) has a clause about "Congress shall make no law allowing the teaching of any religion but Christianity."
Come on, people. Don't any of you fake Americans read the Constitution?
Amen!
Amen!