Religious school assignment - your thoughts?

[Dr. Chuckles]

Please then provide us with several examples of public school, 8th grade, world history curriculum that validates your statement.

didn't we go through this yesterday?

 

[Fiddytree]

You are wrong, Fiddy.

Oh good lord. I'm not discussing this with you any longer. First you became convinced that we had to stick with the 8th grade for an arbitrary reason, when alternative curriculums from different courses were brought up you dismissed them out of hand because it wasn't the 8th grade (absolute idiocy by the way) or it wasnt world history-even though they involved religious figures from other faiths. Then you're convinced that the activity isn't normal, when it is extraordinarily common. Now you don't even know what the heck the 19th century did for the historical discipline in approach and went on some wild tangent on me not owning up to the notion that Moses was a mythological figure (when I never even entered that debate to begin with).

 

[spanky]

What you are ignoring is that there is little proof that Moses even existed. I can accept Moses in the context of a particular religion's belief. Beyond the religion, and in the greater historical context of world history Moses is insignificant. What does the 19th Century German approach to historical discipline have to do with the mythology of Moses being taught as history in 8th grade public school world history?

Moses isn't even a name. In Egyptian Moses, which is a Hebrew derivation of the word "Meses" means "son". An example would be Rameses, or Ra-Meses which means "Son of Ra".

Moses wasn't a person, he was an idea.

 

[sangha]

Please then provide us with several examples of public school, 8th grade, world history curriculum that validates your statement.

ISTR Fiddy posting a link to an 8th grade curriculum that did validate his claim

 

[Risky Thicket]

Since when did I get into the argument about Moses' true identity and his powers or lack of powers? It's certainly not in that statement is it?

The German approach in the 19th century was to have a ceremony to the sources, and proof positive of historical reality. If the sources did not validate the identity of Moses in existence, the historian under that school o thought would add qualifications in whatever assertions he or she made-or at least that is the goal (historians aren't perfect).

Thank you, Fiddy. If that is in fact the way the lesson was taught in Aunt Spiker's son's class or if that was the lesson in Aunt Spiker's son's 8th grade history class, I'd have no problem with it, though it might prove to be a bit stilted for 12 year olds. Nonetheless, if that is the way it was taught or if that was in and of itself the lesson. I would personally have no problem with it. I am, however, most doubtful.

 

[Risky Thicket]

ISTR Fiddy posting a link to an 8th grade curriculum that did validate his claim

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did not see it, but I will look for it. My apologies in advance to Fiddy.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Oh good lord. I'm not discussing this with you any longer. First you became convinced that we had to stick with the 8th grade for an arbitrary reason, when alternative curriculums from different courses were brought up you dismissed them out of hand because it wasn't the 8th grade (absolute idiocy by the way) or it wasnt world history-even though they involved religious figures from other faiths. Then you're convinced that the activity isn't normal, when it is extraordinarily common. Now you don't even know what the heck the 19th century did for the historical discipline in approach and went on some wild tangent on me not owning up to the notion that Moses was a mythological figure (when I never even entered that debate to begin with).

First, you need to calm the **** down.

As you jumped in in the middle of the thread and began posting out of context, it might yet be to your benefit to read the OP, read the thread and attempt to catch up. Most everyone here has been discussing 8th grade world history in public school. You haven't. I can't go back and read you into this thread. You'll have to do that for yourself.

 

[Fiddytree]

ISTR Fiddy posting a link to an 8th grade curriculum that did validate his claim

I'm only armed with a cell phone. I don't have access to specific layouts of Course A, nor would most districts necessarily throw hat up there for all to see. What we have ready access to is social studies standards, which are scaled k-12, some grouped by a cluster of years, others specific grades. Districts and states differ on what subjects they cover when. What we also have are textbooks schools assign, at the very least many of which will discuss, even briefly, important figures in a given religion. If it was American history, you should see even casual references to Native American religion, but not specifically an origin story. American religious schools of thought would likely have a brief summation of folks like Jonathan Edwards who impacted a general religious movement. Discussion of Moses would likely not be in there as Moses chronologically, did not "live" from 1610-2000s. As such, most religions find themselves covered in world history course textbooks.

 

[Risky Thicket]

didn't we go through this yesterday?

Yeah, I'm thinking we did.

 

[Fiddytree]

Woodbridge middle school, Virginia.

There's one example. Not all districts put their reviews quizzes and such on the website. They even have 8th grade works history, where a the least the student are quizzed and tested on who Moses, Muhammad and other gods in other religions were .

 

[spanky]

Spiker, can you throw us a life ring and provide a little more detail?

 

[Gina]

Well - it's most certainly not in the curriculum of our school district for said class at said grade.

Point still stands.

Spiker, can you throw us a life ring and provide a little more detail?

Please, if you wouldn't mind AS.

 

[presluc]

I'd imagine I'd receive complaints no matter what I would do. That's the nature of the beast. Some folks complain about the lack of religion, others complain about which religion is being discussed, others further still complain about any religion being discussed.

Well first of all let me state I am a firm supporter of the separation of church and state.

That being said there is one question that has not been ask about this thread.

Can we has a people study all of world history without bringing up religion somewhere?

This is not the recuitment of more christian believers but to understand history whether you think it is true or false.

For someone to say no place in world history that any country is affected pro or con by religion is false.eace

 

[Gina]

Well first of all let me state I am a firm supporter of the separation of church and state.

That being said there is one question that has not been ask about this thread.

Can we has a people study all of world history without bringing up religion somewhere?

This is not the recuitment of more christian believers but to understand history whether you think it is true or false.

For someone to say no place in world history that any country is affected pro or con by religion is false.eace

No, we cannot leave out religion in discussing history as it was and still is, a great motivator of historical events. That is why it should be included (it's a short discussion of the Crusades if you cannot bring up religion) just not in terms of religious instruction, but rather the influence of certain religious beliefs causing historical players to do X.

 

[presluc]

No, we cannot leave out religion in discussing history as it was and still is, a great motivator of historical events. That is why it should be included (it's a short discussion of the Crusades if you cannot bring up religion) just not in terms of religious instruction, but rather the influence of certain religious beliefs causing historical players to do X.

Are you saying that we can not leave out religion in discussing history, but we can't go into detail of the religion being discussed?

If this is true how do we know it's a religion?eace

 

[Gina]

Are you saying that we can not leave out religion in discussing history, but we can't go into detail of the religion being discussed?

If this is true how do we know it's a religion?eace

There is a way to discuss beliefs without instructing in those beliefs. That is what I meant.

 

[Muddy Creek]

So - my 12 year old just complete an essay (or - a series of short-essays) that he had to do based on a movie they watched in world history on Moses (public school district - he's in the 8th grade) . . . as they watched a movie about Moses they were to write down numerous 'key points' from the biblical story of Moses and then select several to write into a paragraph or so and turn it in for a grade.

How would you handle this, what would you think?

Report them to the ACLU, the school administration and demand the teacher be fired.

 

[spanky]

Until we get more info From Spiker I don't know how we can go on with the discussion.

 

[Fiddytree]

Until we get more info From Spiker I don't know how we can go on with the discussion.

Seeing as how the original question was how would we approach it, Aunt's own district and specific situation are only one possible focus. This means your own area, your own reaction, is the purpose.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Seeing as how the original question was how would we approach it, Aunt's own district and specific situation are only one possible focus. This means your own area, your own reaction, is the purpose.

Not to mention, the original opposition seemed to be such material would never be appropriate. This seemed to be regardless of context and content.

 

[Cephus]

a religious historian (someone specifically writing a history from the perspective of a religious doctrine) is different than a historian who is religious. Your original postand the one above makes it seem you are talking about the later

Certainly there are those two categories, there are also historians who happen to be religious, but are unable to separate the two and everything they do in their professional capacity is colored by their religious beliefs. These people, especially the extremists, do tend to end up in your first category, mostly because no one else will hire them, but there are many whose biases are clear, but not extreme.

 

[spanky]

Seeing as how the original question was how would we approach it, Aunt's own district and specific situation are only one possible focus. This means your own area, your own reaction, is the purpose.

Since Aunt's own district and specific situation were the salient parts of the OP I don't know how we can avoid it.

 

[spanky]

Certainly there are those two categories, there are also historians who happen to be religious, but are unable to separate the two and everything they do in their professional capacity is colored by their religious beliefs. These people, especially the extremists, do tend to end up in your first category, mostly because no one else will hire them, but there are many whose biases are clear, but not extreme.

All biases are extreme.

 

[presluc]

There is a way to discuss beliefs without instructing in those beliefs. That is what I meant.

No teacher in their right mind would instruct religious beliefs on any student.

They can't even give instructions in Intelligent Design .
However, I always thought that discussing Religious beliefs and instructing religious
beliefs to be different.

Example many Americans know about the virgins expected when you die, but few follow such ideas, many know about the Salem Witch trials, or Voo Doo many are discussed I can't think of one instructed, unless you want to get into Organized Religion but that is not World History.eace

 

[Cephus]

All biases are extreme.

I don't think so. Everyone has biases, most of us manage to get through life without those biases affecting us to any great degree. If the religious can do so and not allow their biases to get in the way of their work, fine with me.