You can't make this stuff up.

[evil_gop_liars]

Texas State Board of Education is taking up another explosive curriculum question: Are Texan youth being fed a sugar-coated version of Islam while Christianity is unfairly taken to task

[driveby]

These people are just begging for a fatwa from the religion of peace and love.

[Deathpig]

I don't think history textbooks do a very good job on any of those subjects. When I was in school, the books didn't really cover Islamic nations in detail at all (positive or negative-- so in this case, both sides in the article correlate my experience) through history.

 

Similarly, Christianity seems to get more focus for things like the Crusades, the Great Schism, various papal interference with governments (divine right, Henry VIII, etc.) with very little attention to the role of Christianity in preserving and growing arts and sciences in the Dark Ages or the effects of Judeo-Christian principles on Western government/law (for example, the difference in how law breakers are handled between Western and Middle Eastern countries).

 

To say that 'textbooks whitewash Jihads' isn't really true, to imply that a conspiracy is somehow involved is even further from the truth, and to not recognize the positives that Islam/Islamic nations contributed to society to balance the story you want to tell about jihad/conflict is downright stupid.

[Ursa Majoris]

To say that 'textbooks whitewash Jihads' isn't really true, to imply that a conspiracy is somehow involved is even further from the truth, and to not recognize the positives that Islam/Islamic nations contributed to society to balance the story you want to tell about jihad/conflict is downright stupid.

Well, I agree it's stupid. However, what no text book so far as I know has really gone into is the disastrous millennium Islam is still going through. 1,000 years ago, Islamic nations were light years ahead of their Christian counterparts. Now they are to a greater or lesser degree a backward mish-mash of cave dwelling maniacs, massive levels of poverty and barbarism. If a text book is going to discuss Islam, it should also discuss why the adherent nations have gone so far backwards. So far as I am aware, there have been virtually no meaningful contributions to the advancement of civilization from Islam for ten centuries.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't think history textbooks do a very good job on any of those subjects. When I was in school, the books didn't really cover Islamic nations in detail at all (positive or negative-- so in this case, both sides in the article correlate my experience) through history.

 

Similarly, Christianity seems to get more focus for things like the Crusades, the Great Schism, various papal interference with governments (divine right, Henry VIII, etc.) with very little attention to the role of Christianity in preserving and growing arts and sciences in the Dark Ages or the effects of Judeo-Christian principles on Western government/law (for example, the difference in how law breakers are handled between Western and Middle Eastern countries).

 

To say that 'textbooks whitewash Jihads' isn't really true, to imply that a conspiracy is somehow involved is even further from the truth, and to not recognize the positives that Islam/Islamic nations contributed to society to balance the story you want to tell about jihad/conflict is downright stupid.

 

+1

[bpwallace49]

Similarly, Christianity seems to get more focus for things like the Crusades, the Great Schism, various papal interference with governments (divine right, Henry VIII, etc.) with very little attention to the role of Christianity in preserving and growing arts and sciences in the Dark Ages or the effects of Judeo-Christian principles on Western government/law (for example, the difference in how law breakers are handled between Western and Middle Eastern countries).

 

To say that 'textbooks whitewash Jihads' isn't really true, to imply that a conspiracy is somehow involved is even further from the truth, and to not recognize the positives that Islam/Islamic nations contributed to society to balance the story you want to tell about jihad/conflict is downright stupid.

 

As a counter to the dark Ages and Christianity, there really isnt much about the positives of Islam during that period either. Or contributions of mathematics, science and medicine during that time. In general most textbooks ALL focus on the bad and overlook the good during that time period.

 

the jihad thing is akin to saying that extremists that kill over any religion "dont get enough press". I think most scholastic publications (at least on the kiddie/high school level) stick to the broad generalities with regard to religion. The broad strokes usually are indicative of the 90% of all religions that are not baddiaper dirt crazy extremists. . .

[Azazello1313]

Texas State Board of Education is taking up another explosive curriculum question: Are Texan youth being fed a sugar-coated version of Islam while Christianity is unfairly taken to task

 

well, education DOES do that. part of it is the multicultural ethos, part of it is the simple fact that when you're teaching about something that's part of the dominant culture, if you're not fairly critical you sound like a shallow cheerleader; and if you're teaching about something that's NOT part of the dominant culture, if you're too critical it sounds like you're picking on "them" and being closed-minded. to an extent, this bias is natural and appropriate, IMO, for cultivating open, thoughtful minds -- but the denizens of multiculturalism often take it WAY too far.

[Azazello1313]

1,000 years ago, Islamic nations were light years ahead of their Christian counterparts. Now they are to a greater or lesser degree a backward mish-mash of cave dwelling maniacs, massive levels of poverty and barbarism.

 

"light years ahead", I think, WAY overstates the case. but it's not a stretch to say they were pretty much even, during the dark ages. but then the christian west had a renaissance, an enlightenment, an industrial revolution....and the islamic world just had more dark ages. you're right that this is all very relevant historical fact.

[Ursa Majoris]

"light years ahead", I think, WAY overstates the case. but it's not a stretch to say they were pretty much even, during the dark ages. but then the christian west had a renaissance, an enlightenment, an industrial revolution....and the islamic world just had more dark ages. you're right that this is all very relevant historical fact.

I would say that the Islamic world in general was definitely ahead of the western world in math, architecture, science, agriculture and several other measures prior to 1000 AD. Regardless, the question that is so politically incorrect that it never gets asked is "Why did the two civilizations go in such divergent directions after that? Why did the West advance ever faster while Islam stagnated?" In other words, why has Islam fostered such backward primitive cultures (if it has)?

 

I suspect the answer lies not only in religion (Christianity can hardly claim enlightened leadership throughout as it needed to be dragged kicking and screaming past various pogroms and persecutions, Galileo, the Inquisition et al) but in agriculture and land fertility, the death of the golden crescent and such.

 

Interesting subject to muse on.

[detlef]

Could the fact that the west left the Islamic world in the dust over time actually have more to do with the fact that church played a lesser and lesser role in society at large in the west while Islam kept it's foot on the throat of everyone who lived in countries where it is the dominant religion? I mean, to this day, Muslim clerics basically run those countries. The pope has got pull, but not like that.

 

I mean, as much as I do complain about the overbearing nature of Christianity in our culture, it is certainly nothing like Islam seems to be elsewhere.

 

So, perhaps much of this progress happened in spite of the church, not because of it and, in the west, that was actually a possibility due to a society that was allowed to reject it or, at very least, live outside of it.

[Deathpig]

I would say that the Islamic world in general was definitely ahead of the western world in math, architecture, science, agriculture and several other measures prior to 1000 AD. Regardless, the question that is so politically incorrect that it never gets asked is "Why did the two civilizations go in such divergent directions after that? Why did the West advance ever faster while Islam stagnated?" In other words, why has Islam fostered such backward primitive cultures (if it has)?

 

I suspect the answer lies not only in religion (Christianity can hardly claim enlightened leadership throughout as it needed to be dragged kicking and screaming past various pogroms and persecutions, Galileo, the Inquisition et al) but in agriculture and land fertility, the death of the golden crescent and such.

 

Interesting subject to muse on.

 

The big difference between Christian and Islamic nations was that Islam didn't really have a Dark Age (they jumped ahead here) but never really had a Renaissance period or Age of Enlightenment (fell way behind here).

 

This is, in no way, my expertise but I figure all of the following apply:

 

* Generally harsh terrain that led to far more migratory population and caste/filial structures (hurting civilization-wide education/enlightenment) and giving incredible power to the people that controlled the more rarely found fertile land.

* Rigid religious authority that stifled independent thought and humanist philisophical development (great for preventing crime, not so great for creativity or individual rights). Just imagine if the Church had been able to stifle Galileo/Copernicus/etc.

* Relative isolation. I don't recall a strong sense, historically, of the West really interacting consistently with most of the Islamic countries after the Crusades and prior to the modern age (again, this could be from the negligent texts I had to study with!).

 

And yes, and interesting subject to muse on.

[detlef]

As for the initial argument, should it be the school's job to parrot the sentiments of what kids are hearing at home and in media. I mean, certainly Islam is not getting sugar coated by the American culture at large. I realize that it could be frustrating for a household who hammers on "dirty warmongering Muslims" all day long to have their kid come home from school and learn that, perish the thought, that culture has produced things other than suicide bombers.

 

People worry about schools brain washing kids with liberal ideology. It would seem more like brain washing if the schools were forced to walk in step with everything kids are being taught at home as well. This sameness of message seems more like brain washing to me. If the parents are worth a damned and/or are decent role models, they should have no problem instilling their values in the face of the kids seeing another view point in school.

 

Hell, whenever I mention that McDonalds are a bunch of a-holes for making it harder for parents to teach their kids not to eat crap, many of the same types who seem to hate on schools for teaching things inconsistent with their beliefs remind me it's the parents job to tell kids that Big Macs aren't healthy.

 

But, in the case of McDonalds, it is a quantifiable fact that their food is crap. The more you eat that, the less healthy you are. Of this, there is no doubt. While this doesn't mean you can't dabble, it is undoubtedly a step in the wrong direction every time because it is loaded with things proven to be bad for you and essentially lacking in things that you need.

 

In the case of not promoting a pro-Christian slant in school, the same can't be said. Each side can only rely on theory. Christians think that things would be better if people behaved in a manner consistent with the bible. Non-Christians think they need to back off. And neither side can point to any fact that proves their point.

[Perchoutofwater]

As for the initial argument, should it be the school's job to parrot the sentiments of what kids are hearing at home and in media. I mean, certainly Islam is not getting sugar coated by the American culture at large. I realize that it could be frustrating for a household who hammers on "dirty warmongering Muslims" all day long to have their kid come home from school and learn that, perish the thought, that culture has produced things other than suicide bombers.

 

People worry about schools brain washing kids with liberal ideology. It would seem more like brain washing if the schools were forced to walk in step with everything kids are being taught at home as well. This sameness of message seems more like brain washing to me. If the parents are worth a damned and/or are decent role models, they should have no problem instilling their values in the face of the kids seeing another view point in school.

 

Hell, whenever I mention that McDonalds are a bunch of a-holes for making it harder for parents to teach their kids not to eat crap, many of the same types who seem to hate on schools for teaching things inconsistent with their beliefs remind me it's the parents job to tell kids that Big Macs aren't healthy.

 

But, in the case of McDonalds, it is a quantifiable fact that their food is crap. The more you eat that, the less healthy you are. Of this, there is no doubt. While this doesn't mean you can't dabble, it is undoubtedly a step in the wrong direction every time because it is loaded with things proven to be bad for you and essentially lacking in things that you need.

 

In the case of not promoting a pro-Christian slant in school, the same can't be said. Each side can only rely on theory. Christians think that things would be better if people behaved in a manner consistent with the bible. Non-Christians think they need to back off. And neither side can point to any fact that proves their point.

 

Your McDonalds / School analogy fails to realize one thing. I don't have to take my kids to McDonalds, I have to take my kids to school.

[bpwallace49]

Your McDonalds / School analogy fails to realize one thing. I don't have to take my kids to McDonalds, I have to take my kids to school.

 

No you dont. You can home school, send them to a private religious school, etc.

 

You have to school them, but the MANNER in how they are taught is where you have a choice.

[Perchoutofwater]

No you dont. You can home school, send them to a private religious school, etc.

 

You have to school them, but the MANNER in how they are taught is where you have a choice.

 

I'm forced to pay school taxes, so why would I want to pay for my children's education twice, particularly when I'm already paying more than most for that education in public school? Yes because of my financial situation I could send my kids to private school if I wanted them cloistered, or have my wife quit working and home school the kids. While those are both options that I have regarding my kids the majority of Americans do not have those options due to financial constraints.

[bpwallace49]

I'm forced to pay school taxes, so why would I want to pay for my children's education twice, particularly when I'm already paying more than most for that education in public school? Yes because of my financial situation I could send my kids to private school if I wanted them cloistered, or have my wife quit working and home school the kids. While those are both options that I have regarding my kids the majority of Americans do not have those options due to financial constraints.

 

I agree perch . . just pointing out that you are not forced to use public school by any means . . . other options are available . . just like other options for food are available instead of McDonalds.

 

Perch . . how are you "paying more than most" for public schools?

[detlef]

Your McDonalds / School analogy fails to realize one thing. I don't have to take my kids to McDonalds, I have to take my kids to school.

Your summary of the analogy is wrong. While you have the choice as to whether or not you take your kids to McDonalds, you don't really have the choice as to whether or not they're exposed to the ads. And that is the point. So, in that respect, it is very much the same thing. Both schools and McDonalds will have an influence on your children regardless of what you do. Assuming we rule out anything unreasonable.