Marine banned from daughter’s school over Islam homework

[Brian37]

Op your mind is poisoned by the hatred fed to you by the media and government to distract you from the fact that they are raping you to serve them. Hatred = control.

Sure there are bad things about most religious groups. It's a people thing, and we shouldn't tolerate injustice. Stop your jihad and stop being a pawn.

Your good intent isn't going to help prevent girls like Malala getting shot for wanting an education. Your good intent will not help Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each other. Your good intent will not prevent Isis from murdering Kurdish Christians and other non Muslims.

Once again you confuse human rights with hate of ignorance that leads humans to use bad ideas as weapons to justify atrocities.

No one here is talking about sparking up ovens to stick all Muslims in. But the source of morality is the same be it justified to be compassionate or cruel, the same book is used to do both.

Same with the history of Christianity.

"Not all do that" is a dodge. "The violent ones are not reading the book correctly" is also a dodge, but even worse.

There is no way in reality one can do what the bible says word for word without violence. There is also no way to do what the Koran says word for word without getting violent. Civil liberals and moderates in both religions ignore the fact that the same words exist in both books and is the same source no matter who is using it. Cherry picking and ignoring the nasty stories in both books is how the west became civil.

Glossing over history allows the same bad ideas to fester and repeat. The reason I know what Islam is doing wrong is because I see the same horrors justified in American history, like slavery, sexism, bigotry and homophobia, genocide of Native Americans and lynching of blacks, and even today denial of gays rights. Those horrible ideas come from the same source you use to condemn them. We are not ignoring that, you are.

Liberals are often worse than the fundies because they give them cover. You do not help those oppressed still stuck under religious fascism without sticking a mirror to the ugliness. That ugliness has the same source your good intent does. Face it then you can fix it.

[Jenny A]

Okay, first of all I think the history of and basic tenets of the major religions ought to be taught in schools. It's impossible to make much sense out of either world history or current events without it. Virtually every early empire was a theocracy more or less. The clashes between Peganism, Judiasm, Christianty, and Islam are part and parcel of Western History. Just as understanding western history during the Middle Ages requires some knowledge of Catholicism, the Reformation, and later Catholic reform, the history of the Middle Eastern history requires some knowledge of the Shiites and the Sunnis. And studying India without some knowledge of Hinduism and Islam is silly. And so on and so. World history and religion are inseparable.

Religious beliefs, practices and politics change over time. What 7th Century Muslims did and believed should be compared to what modern Muslims believe and do. Ditto Christians, Jews, etc.

What the the schools should not do is endorse any of those religions or lead worship prayers or services in them.

To the extent the assignment whitewashes the ferocity of the Muslim conquests and the violence in the Koran, I have some sympathy for the outraged father. I'm used to explaining the whitewashing of Christianity at the dinner table after certain school units. Surely he can tell his daughter what he thinks. He could also address those specific objections with the school--perhaps without suggesting just where in the principal's body he'd like to shove the homework assignment.

I have no sympathy with the concept that his daughter should be taught nothing about Islam. And I'd be really surprised to learn that her world history classes don't also cover Christianity and Judaism, especially during the late Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation. It's less likely to, but should cover Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

---

---

Op your mind is poisoned by the hatred fed to you by the media and government to distract you from the fact that they are raping you to serve them. Hatred = control.

---

Sure there are bad things about most religious groups. It's a people thing, and we shouldn't tolerate injustice. Stop your jihad and stop being a pawn.

Your good intent isn't going to help prevent girls like Malala getting shot for wanting an education. Your good intent will not help Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each other. Your good intent will not prevent Isis from murdering Kurdish Christians and other non Muslims.

Once again you confuse human rights with hate of ignorance that leads humans to use bad ideas as weapons to justify atrocities.

---

No one here is talking about sparking up ovens to stick all Muslims in. But the source of morality is the same be it justified to be compassionate or cruel, the same book is used to do both.

Same with the history of Christianity.

"Not all do that" is a dodge. "The violent ones are not reading the book correctly" is also a dodge, but even worse.

There is no way in reality one can do what the bible says word for word without violence. There is also no way to do what the Koran says word for word without getting violent. Civil liberals and moderates in both religions ignore the fact that the same words exist in both books and is the same source no matter who is using it. Cherry picking and ignoring the nasty stories in both books is how the west became civil.

---

Glossing over history allows the same bad ideas to fester and repeat. The reason I know what Islam is doing wrong is because I see the same horrors justified in American history, like slavery, sexism, bigotry and homophobia, genocide of Native Americans and lynching of blacks, and even today denial of gays rights. Those horrible ideas come from the same source you use to condemn them. We are not ignoring that, you are.

Liberals are often worse than the fundies because they give them cover. You do not help those oppressed still stuck under religious fascism without sticking a mirror to the ugliness. That ugliness has the same source your good intent does. Face it then you can fix it.

I agree with this. The history of religion should include what's done in it's name warts, burnings, torture, lynchings, discrimination, conquest, and all.

[Brian37]

Okay, first of all I think the history of and basic tenets of the major religions ought to be taught in schools. It's impossible to make much sense out of either world history or current events without it. Virtually every early empire was a theocracy more or less. The clashes between Peganism, Judiasm, Christianty, and Islam are part and parcel of Western History. Just as understanding western history during the Middle Ages requires some knowledge of Catholicism, the Reformation, and later Catholic reform, the history of the Middle Eastern history requires some knowledge of the Shiites and the Sunnis. And studying India without some knowledge of Hinduism and Islam is silly. And so on and so. World history and religion are inseparable.

Religious beliefs, practices and politics change over time. What 7th Century Muslims did and believed should be compared to what modern Muslims believe and do. Ditto Christians, Jews, etc.

What the the schools should not do is endorse any of those religions or lead worship prayers or services in them.

To the extent the assignment whitewashes the ferocity of the Muslim conquests and the violence in the Koran, I have some sympathy for the outraged father. I'm used to explaining the whitewashing of Christianity at the dinner table after certain school units. Surely he can tell his daughter what he thinks. He could also address those specific objections with the school--perhaps without suggesting just where in the principal's body he'd like to shove the homework assignment.

I have no sympathy with the concept that his daughter should be taught nothing about Islam. And I'd be really surprised to learn that her world history classes don't also cover Christianity and Judaism, especially during the late Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation. It's less likely to, but should cover Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

Nope, won't happen because there will always be others who will scream indoctrination and or want a monopoly to treat schools as their personal billboard while wanting to exclude others.

It would be nice if humans had the maturity to learn all religions to see that they have the same overlap in motifs. The problem with all religions is that they point to their nice stories of compassion and ignore our species reality that we have always been cruel and compassionate.

The only pragmatic study of religion is what historians and anthropologists do. There is a huge difference between a historian and anthropologist and an apologist. Historians and anthropologists report facts and social norms as strictly history. Apologists are salesmen.

Trying to be fair to everyone in public schools is problematic especially when it comes to young kids because parents have different beliefs and don't always see teaching other things as something they want for their kids.

Public schools have to be neutral and stick to being schools, not Mosques or Churches or Synagogues. We can however teach better critical thinking skills at a younger age. And we can promote outside of schools challenges to all absurd claims.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And lastly, why exactly was the father "banned"? How did he "object" to this homework assignment?

As Kevin Wood's daughter recently worked on a homework assignment from her La Plata High School World History class, Wood asked her, "What are your history notes on?" He recalled her answering, "Islam."

"I hesitated, counted, three-two-one, no," he said, objecting to that religion being taught in school.

The La Plata High School World History class is currently studying Middle Eastern empires.

Charles County Public Schools said students learn how different empires throughout history were shaped by the different religions, in addition to geography, politics and culture, among other things.

The Wood family requested that their daughter be excused from the lesson on Islam and be assigned another project. The school did not allow it.

La Plata High School ultimately issued a no-trespassing order on Kevin Wood in the hopes of avoiding a confrontation on school grounds, according to Charles County Schools.

Wood said there was no reason for the order as he made no threats.

"We just want to be involved in our daughter's education," said Melissa Wood. "We as parents should be able to choose what our kids are learning."

Charles County Schools told WUSA9 that the World History class is a required course in the county curriculum.
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/20.../18224863/

Any school that banned me from going onto school grounds would lose my son from their rolls. I wonder if those teachers and administrators are the same ones who blame the lack of parental involvement when discussing declining test scores?

As for the issue of teaching about Islam in a world history class, it should definitely have its place. However, some of the questions on that test (some answered, others left blank) call into question the utility and relevance of what is being taught to world history:

How was Mohammed's life changed (be specific)?
What are the Five Pillars of Islam?
Who were the "rightly guided" caliphs?
How did Muslim conquerors treat those they conquered?

Each of those questions indicates an agenda-driven lesson, to my mind.

And to ask about the "rights" and "responsibilities" that Muslim women have without asking as well about their repression indicates to me that the father is on the right track.

If you're not telling the whole truth, you're not telling the truth.

[Jenny A]

Okay, first of all I think the history of and basic tenets of the major religions ought to be taught in schools. It's impossible to make much sense out of either world history or current events without it. Virtually every early empire was a theocracy more or less. The clashes between Peganism, Judiasm, Christianty, and Islam are part and parcel of Western History. Just as understanding western history during the Middle Ages requires some knowledge of Catholicism, the Reformation, and later Catholic reform, the history of the Middle Eastern history requires some knowledge of the Shiites and the Sunnis. And studying India without some knowledge of Hinduism and Islam is silly. And so on and so. World history and religion are inseparable.

---

Religious beliefs, practices and politics change over time. What 7th Century Muslims did and believed should be compared to what modern Muslims believe and do. Ditto Christians, Jews, etc.

What the the schools should not do is endorse any of those religions or lead worship prayers or services in them.

To the extent the assignment whitewashes the ferocity of the Muslim conquests and the violence in the Koran, I have some sympathy for the outraged father. I'm used to explaining the whitewashing of Christianity at the dinner table after certain school units. Surely he can tell his daughter what he thinks. He could also address those specific objections with the school--perhaps without suggesting just where in the principal's body he'd like to shove the homework assignment.

---

I have no sympathy with the concept that his daughter should be taught nothing about Islam. And I'd be really surprised to learn that her world history classes don't also cover Christianity and Judaism, especially during the late Roman Empire, the Middle Ages, and the Reformation. It's less likely to, but should cover Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

Nope, won't happen because there will always be others who will scream indoctrination and or want a monopoly to treat schools as their personal billboard while wanting to exclude others.

That is a general problem with education altogether. Political agenda will creep in whether it's liberal, conservative, or some brand of religious. But we do manage to teach the political history of the U.S. and the doctrinal differences that sparked the Reformation not to mention the Inquisition (which actually involved rather more Islamic than Jewish victims) and the Spanish conversion of South America by force. We can teach religion as it relates to history.

It would be nice if humans had the maturity to learn all religions to see that they have the same overlap in motifs. The problem with all religions is that they point to their nice stories of compassion and ignore our species reality that we have always been cruel and compassionate.

I agree that that's unlikely. Pointing out those motifs to Christian visitors here has about zero effect.

The only pragmatic study of religion is what historians and anthropologists do. There is a huge difference between a historian and anthropologist and an apologist. Historians and anthropologists report facts and social norms as strictly history. Apologists are salesmen.

Agreed

Trying to be fair to everyone in public schools is problematic especially when it comes to young kids because parents have different beliefs and don't always see teaching other things as something they want for their kids.

That goes on in public schools all the time. We do teach the history of religion now, because it is world history.

Public schools have to be neutral and stick to being schools, not Mosques or Churches or Synagogues. We can however teach better critical thinking skills at a younger age. And we can promote outside of schools challenges to all absurd claims.

Teaching what each of the combatants in a political or military struggle believed is not becoming a mosque or church.

[Minimalist]

The evidence that any 'mohammad' existed at all is at least as problematical as the evidence for any 'jesus.'

Or 'moses.'

Is it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=VdXMK4C...61&f=false

Scroll to pages 2 and 3 for an example of what this text actually looks like, and pay attention to the footnotes. Remember that the letters within brackets are not actually legible but are guesstimates by translators. Those guesstimates can cause a lot of trouble as we have learned with the Tel Dan stele.

Also the word muhammad is taken from the root MHMD ( you have to fill in the vowels). It means 'praiseworthy' or 'honored' in both Syriac and the later Arabic...both of which are derivations of Aramaic. Were that a name it would be evidence of the prescience of his parents since he did not name himself. But were it a title....it can be bestowed by anybody. Hell. "Arthur" became a king by pulling a sword out of a stone according to that myth.

If you don't have time to read the book, here's a fairly detailed review of Spencer's Did Muhammad Exist? Compelling work.

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/23/boo...epage=true

[fr0d0]

The history of religion should include what's done in it's name warts, burnings, torture, lynchings, discrimination, conquest, and all.

I have no problem with that. Trouble is, you'd have to qualify with "humans abusing religion to force their own agenda". "Done in its name" is right.

If it wasn't condoned by the faith, as I know is the case with Christianity, then anything else would be teaching lies.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Teaching what each of the combatants in a political or military struggle believed is not becoming a mosque or church.

While I agree that this is useful and often important, I also think that some of the questions on that test go beyond utility to history.

[Jenny A]

Teaching what each of the combatants in a political or military struggle believed is not becoming a mosque or church.

While I agree that this is useful and often important, I also think that some of the questions on that test go beyond utility to history.

It would be useful to see the chapter the questions were asking about. And yes it's arguable that the unit covers more than necessary. Certainly, the young woman's preliminary answers suggest it has a certain liberal bias.

---

The history of religion should include what's done in it's name warts, burnings, torture, lynchings, discrimination, conquest, and all.

I have no problem with that. Trouble is, you'd have to qualify with "humans abusing religion to force their own agenda". "Done in its name" is right.

If it wasn't condoned by the faith, as I know is the case with Christianity, then anything else would be teaching lies.

All that can really be covered as history, is what people said about their religion, what they claimed to believe and what they actually did. Whether they followed the true path is beyond comparative religion or history. It's theology.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While I agree that this is useful and often important, I also think that some of the questions on that test go beyond utility to history.

It would be useful to see the chapter the questions were asking about. And yes it's arguable that the unit covers more than necessary. Certainly, the young woman's preliminary answers suggest it has a certain liberal bias.

I'd say it has a pro-Islamic bias, from what we can see here.