Page 4 of 4
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:13 pm
by Tunnelcat
Along the lines of this thread. What should we be teaching about religions other than Christianity in public schools? Nothing about Islam in Texas schools it seems.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100924/ap_ ... tion_islam
I guess if children don't learn about that nasty Islam, then they'll turn into nice little loving Christians. Out of sight, out of mind and ignorant because they learned nothing.
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:33 pm
by CUDA
so your saying you want to teach about Islam in public schools???
I guess if children don't learn about that nasty Islam, then they'll turn into nice little loving Christians.
well you didn't learn about Islam in school and your not a \"Nice little loving Christian\" so I guess that shoots that argument in the foot doesn't it?
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:17 pm
by Heretic
I thought she was against religion in schools?
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:47 pm
by AlphaDoG
Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
Re:
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:59 pm
by CUDA
AlphaDoG wrote:Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
NO praying to Christ is OK but not if your a Politician
Re:
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:40 am
by Top Gun
AlphaDoG wrote:Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
Who was talking about praying? If a history class ignores a major religion practiced by a billion people today that's had a massive influence on world events, there's sort of a problem with said class. It'd be the same if the curriculum downplayed Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
Re:
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:59 pm
by Will Robinson
Top Gun wrote:AlphaDoG wrote:Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
Who was talking about praying? If a history class ignores a major religion practiced by a billion people today that's had a massive influence on world events, there's sort of a problem with said class. It'd be the same if the curriculum downplayed Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
you are correct. How do you feel about removing the mention from the history books that the terrorists that attacked America were radical Islamists?
Re:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 6:26 am
by null0010
Will Robinson wrote:Top Gun wrote:AlphaDoG wrote:Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
Who was talking about praying? If a history class ignores a major religion practiced by a billion people today that's had a massive influence on world events, there's sort of a problem with said class. It'd be the same if the curriculum downplayed Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
you are correct. How do you feel about removing the mention from the history books that the terrorists that attacked America were radical Islamists?
I think it's more important to mention that they were Saudi nationals, to be honest.
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:32 am
by Heretic
Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta Was Egyptian, Ziad Jarrah was Lebanese. Marwan al-Shehhi and Fayez Banihammad were from the United Arab Emirates.
Re:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:47 am
by null0010
Heretic wrote:Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta Was Egyptian, Ziad Jarrah was Lebanese. Marwan al-Shehhi and Fayez Banihammad were from the United Arab Emirates.
Okay, and everyone else was Saudi.
But actually, I think it would be better to paint these guys as radicals, extremists, or just plain crazy people.
Re:
Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:53 am
by Will Robinson
null0010 wrote:Will Robinson wrote:Top Gun wrote:AlphaDoG wrote:Ok so it's ok to teach Islam. Hold on my head is spinning, but yet, praying to Christ, is not ok?
Holy Smokes.
Who was talking about praying? If a history class ignores a major religion practiced by a billion people today that's had a massive influence on world events, there's sort of a problem with said class. It'd be the same if the curriculum downplayed Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism.
you are correct. How do you feel about removing the mention from the history books that the terrorists that attacked America were radical Islamists?
I think it's more important to mention that they were Saudi nationals, to be honest.
That is such a stupid line of pure rhetoric. As was pointed out they were not all Saudi's. The democrats liked that fabricated talking point when Bush was in because he had extended his hand to the Saudi's so it made stupid or ignorant voters think the administration was chasing the wrong snake down the wrong hole.
We don't have to follow the party line talking points do we?
As an example, Muhammed Atta was Egyptian and he was no radical until he attended the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg Germany where he was radicalized from a scared little engineering student into a pilot and leader of the 9/11 attack. Saudi Arabia had no impact on his choices, same with the home country of many of the others. Radical Islam had EVERYTHING to do with it in EVERY one of the choices made by EVERY member of the attack. But they don't even want that important part mentioned in the history books and I don't see anyone raising outrage over the publishers having Muslims cause that ommision from the school books.