Changing History Education so as not to offend religious groups

Posted by: DAVOhorn on 04 April 2007

dear all,
on the radio here the other night they discussed a recent article in a news paper in the UK regarding the teaching of History in UK schools so that religious groups are not offended by the truth.

Notably the non teaching of the Holocoust and the crusades as this offend Muslims to such an extent that they have resorted to threats of violence to the teachers and the schools. Also there have been incidents between pupils of differeing religions over what is the truth. It seems that the Imams in the mosques are not teaching the truth with regard to History and have put a religious slant to or omit to teach and stating that events DID NOT OCCUR.

A respondent on the radio program was a History teacher here in Sydney and he affirmed that this takes place here in schools. If HISTORY WAS TAUGHT HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY then all hell would break loose amongst the Muslim students their families and the local Mosque. He stated that threats had been made that the school was not to CONTRADICT THE TEACHINGS OF THE IMAMS IN THE MOSQUES.

WHAT THE **** IS GOING ON . ARE WE REALLY GOING TO ALLOW RELIGIOUS BIGOTS TO CHANGE THE HISTORY OF EUROPE PURELY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE THE TRUTH.

Certainly i have known victims of the Holocaust and they have told me their stories. I had a good education which taught about the 2nd world war and its horrors. My father fought in the 2nd world war. i have read books seen documentaries etc regarding the holocaust. I know friends who have been to the Concentration camps as they had family memebers who had died in the camps.

So what are we to do.

Deal with these Grossly Prejudiced Religious Bigots and protect society from this abhorrent bogotry.?

Or not offend the sensibilities of these bigots as they rewrite history and impose their prejudice on the rest of us.

This religious prejudice and bigotry i find very scary and indeed frightening as the lengths these people will go to to impose their WILL and version of history on us is also frightening.

Regards david
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by acad tsunami
Don,

I completely agree. The common ancestry I was referring to however, is a little less ancient than the common ancestry by which we are (probably)all related. People are not any different and there really are no grounds for any discrimination ever. In the long run our only real enemies are our own fears, selfishness and greed maybe.

Cheers
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:

People are not any different and there really are no grounds for any discrimination ever. In the long run our only real enemies are our own fears, selfishness and greed maybe.

Cheers


Absolutely right IMO and the very reason that rogue Imams should be outed and villified if they preach against the teaching of the holocaust or deny it as Davo suggests above.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Rube
I think i agree with Frederick and Acad regarding terminology maybe its just the way i was taught to go to the root meaning of a word .
Some jews are semitic and other jews aren,t judaism is a religion askenazis european jews may be descended from a non semitic group called the khazars who converted to judaism in the sixth century ,sephardic jews are the semitic ones , if someon was anti catholic you wouldn,t call them anti italian {well you could if you really wanted to but it might be confusing }i had a polynesian jewish friend he wasn,t semitic but i had a french jewish friend who was semitic . also theres jews who aren,t zionists but thats another story . ive read bits of the talmud bits of the koran and the bible .
in spain at one time jews christians and moslems lived side by side and didn,t kill each other which i think is nice .
i,m non religious but i think its good to know a bit about different religions maybe daoism might be interesting .i think science and faith could come together at least that quantam physics stuff is going in interesting directions .
i think school should actually get people to think for themselves and question things maybe giving both sides or more of a particular topic would get people to apreciate that there is different ways of looking at things and create a more tolerant society .
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
I give up.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
Well, I had a lovely sleep. Three more pages on this thread.

JamieWednesday has given up on it - several times.

The topic starter has not bothered to enter his own rather intemperate little thread that reeks of Muslim-hating and posting while drunk.

A couple of people have attempted to construct one-dimensional arguments using other peoples' responses to rhetorical questions; failed; and got a little worked up about it.

Two members have insisted that we ought to be able to draw fine distinctions with regard to diction. A few other members have continued to insist that their sources of authority are better - but failed to consider that their dictionaries are really only opinion presented as fact - in alphabetical order...
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by bornwina:

Absolutely right IMO and the very reason that rogue Imams should be outed and villified if they preach against the teaching of the holocaust or deny it as Davo suggests above.


Please fill us in about how you'd like to see these "rogue" Imans villified, bornwina.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Do you feel that they should *not* be vilified for teaching against the Holocaust?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:

Do you feel that they should *not* be vilified for teaching against the Holocaust?


"They"...?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Those "rogue" Imams you mention in your post.

Sorry for not making this clear.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by bornwina:

Absolutely right IMO and the very reason that rogue Imams should be outed and villified if they preach against the teaching of the holocaust or deny it as Davo suggests above.


Please fill us in about how you'd like to see these "rogue" Imans villified, bornwina.


By all means - if I was a member of a Mosque where such preachings took place I would shout down any speeker who denied or preached against the teaching of the holocaust. I would publicly rubbish their opinion and would distribute material to others to enable them to draw contrary conclusions to that which was being preached.

I would petition to have that person removed from office.

If I were a member of a community, and for example my children were denied having an appropriate education because of pressure from the local Mosque, then I would write to my MP, write to the perpetrator and generally use any opportunity to stem such poisonous preaching. I would possibly demonstrate against it locally.

Now Deane, I enquired above whether you agreed such views should not be tolerated or appeased. Do you have an answer to this? Perhaps you could advise what actions you would take in support of your answer?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Anyone who denies that History - and the consequent debate, as above, which is splendid in its way - has something to teach is to be condemned at least as being illiberal. To confront uncomfortable aspects of the past is not just comendable, but essential. Otherwise the evils recounted in History can easily be repeated - in the sense that something that should have been learned from the past has not been, and something horribly parallel occurs again.

This is a Universal lesson, and Churchill's view of History is vital and Henry Ford's ["History is bunk"] is criminally naive.

Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Those "rogue" Imams you mention in your post.

Sorry for not making this clear.


So, you didn't pick up that I enclosed the word "rogue" in quotation marks? I meant to imply that I found the notion of a "rogue" Iman to be questionable.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by JamieWednesday
quote:
Well, I had a lovely sleep. Three more pages on this thread.

JamieWednesday has given up on it - several times.

The topic starter has not bothered to enter his own rather intemperate little thread that reeks of Muslim-hating and posting while drunk.

A couple of people have attempted to construct one-dimensional arguments using other peoples' responses to rhetorical questions; failed; and got a little worked up about it.

Two members have insisted that we ought to be able to draw fine distinctions with regard to diction. A few other members have continued to insist that their sources of authority are better - but failed to consider that their dictionaries are really only opinion presented as fact - in alphabetical order...


He's not The Messiah...
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Depends how "rogue" is defined. Ooops. I should not be going into definitions on this thread!

Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Depends how "rogue" is defined. Ooops. I should not be going into definitions on this thread!

Fredrik


I rather like 'a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel' - about sums it up IMO
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Those "rogue" Imams you mention in your post.

Sorry for not making this clear.


So, you didn't pick up that I enclosed the word "rogue" in quotation marks? I meant to imply that I found the notion of a "rogue" Iman to be questionable.


Deane

As you will see, I included the quotation marks.

Any chance of a straight answer, or will you continue to evade: the full quote is "rogue Imams should be outed and villified if they preach against the teaching of the holocaust or deny it as Davo suggests above. "

Do you feel these Imams should be outed and vilified if they preach against the teaching of the holocaust or deny it?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by bornwina:

Now Deane, I enquired above whether you agreed such views should not be tolerated or appeased. Do you have an answer to this?


Yes, I have answer to this. But I am worried that if you don't like my answer that you will not tolerate me and I might get villified.

quote:
Perhaps you could advise what actions you would take in support of your answer?


I agree. Perhaps I could.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:

[...].

... A few other members have continued to insist that their sources of authority are better - but failed to consider that their dictionaries are really only opinion presented as fact - in alphabetical order...


Dear Deane,

I absolutely considered that no printed text is entirely reliable.

For "Semite" I produced what ought to be a satisfactory definition of as follows:

"Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske earlier in the Thread:
"Semite: noun and adjective. Member of any of the races supposed to be descended from Shem [Genisis x.20 and following] including especially the Hebrews, Arameans, Phoenicians, Arabs, and Assyrians... Extract from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

"Anti-" in the same volume is define firstly as "opposite," and "against"...

As is, "Anti-semite," which is defined as "hostile to Jews."

Clearly the Oxford Dictionary writers have opinions and express them, but as in other things there is no position of absolute objective truth! The words of the Oxford Dictionary authors undermine their very own credibility as describing objective truth.

Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Evasions, Deane, once again.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
Mike

If you feel so confident about your opinions, why do you keep needing me to agree with you?

Deane
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:
Originally posted by bornwina:
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Depends how "rogue" is defined. Ooops. I should not be going into definitions on this thread!

Fredrik


I rather like 'a deceitful and unreliable scoundrel' - about sums it up IMO


Robin Hood, depending on your standpoint!

Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike

If you feel so confident about your opinions, why do you keep needing me to agree with you?

Deane


I'm asking *your* opinion, and it really would be nice to get a straight answer so that the Rude Boys dont think you are trolling.
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
Rude boys? Who are they? Fredrik
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by bornwina
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by bornwina:

Now Deane, I enquired above whether you agreed such views should not be tolerated or appeased. Do you have an answer to this?


Yes, I have answer to this. But I am worried that if you don't like my answer that you will not tolerate me and I might get villified.

quote:
Perhaps you could advise what actions you would take in support of your answer?


I agree. Perhaps I could.


No Deane, I save villification and intolerance for people who deny the holocaust which you have already said you are not. Feel free to add robustly to the debate and have no worry of my reaction - its not as if I'll be outside your gate with a placard is it?
Posted on: 05 April 2007 by Deane F
But Mike, the only straight answer to a crooked question is no answer at all.