|
Author
|
Topic: Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
Message 1 of 194 (281542)
01-25-2006 3:11 PM
|
|
|
Science books aren't the only ones fundamentalists want to rewrite. This is from today's WSJ:
Defending the Faith
New Battleground
In Textbook Wars:
Religion in History Hindu, Islamic, Jewish Groups
Fault Portrayals of Events
And Often Win Changes The Untouchables Weigh In By DANIEL GOLDEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 25, 2006; Page A1 The victors write the history books, the saying goes. But increasingly, religious advocates try to edit them. Religious pressure on textbooks is growing well beyond Christian fundamentalists' attack on evolution. History books are the biggest battleground, as groups vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools that cast their faiths in a better light. Two Hindu groups and a Jewish group have been set up in the past three years as textbook watchdogs, adding to Islamic advocates who have monitored history textbooks since 1990. In addition, some Sikhs have started to complain about being short-changed in history textbooks. All are seeking to extract concessions as California holds its periodic approval process for history textbooks. The process drives school-district purchases in the most populous state, and books adopted for California typically are the ones that schools in the rest of the country end up using for several years. Hindu groups, in particular, have swamped California authorities with proposed revisions, which would delete or soften references to polytheism, the caste system and the inferior status of women in ancient India. For example, the Hindu Education Foundation, a group linked to a Hindu nationalist organization in India, proposed replacing a textbook's statement that "men had many more rights than women" in ancient India with: "Men had different duties ... as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas [sacred texts] were revealed." California's Curriculum Commission endorsed this and most other changes pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of education, which usually follows its advice. But then a strong objection to such changes arrived from a group of U.S. scholars, led by a Harvard professor, Michael Witzel. The scholars' protest, in turn, led to a lawsuit threat, a call for Harvard to disband the professor's department, and finally an unusual state-sponsored head-to-head debate between two scholars of ancient India. Underlying such free-for-alls is the question of whether lobbying by religious groups yields a more sensitive and accurate version of history or a sugar-coated one -- and also whether students are served better or less well. "It tends to be scholar pitted against believer," says Kenneth Noonan, a member of the state education board. For textbook publishers, meanwhile, to ignore religious groups is to risk exclusion from markets. One of the nation's largest school districts, Fairfax County, Va., dropped a McGraw-Hill Cos. 10th-grade text from its recommended list last year after complaints from Hindu parents, keeping it out of classrooms there. Religious protests nearly crippled Oxford University Press's effort to enter the U.S. world-history textbook market. The prestigious university press sought to impress California authorities with cutting-edge scholarship and narrative verve, but the Curriculum Commission initially recommended against adopting Oxford's sixth-grade book last fall after Jewish and Hindu groups objected to it. The Institute for Curriculum Services, a Jewish group set up in 2004 to scrutinize textbooks, was upset by the book's statement that archaeology and ancient Egyptian records don't support the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. While conceding this was true, the group said the book didn't apply the same skepticism to Islamic or Christian events, such as when it said that "ancient writings" and the Gospel according to Matthew relate that "wise men (probably philosophers or astrologers) followed a brightly shining star" when Jesus was born. Similarly, the book said that "according to Muslim tradition," the prophet Muhammad flew into heaven from the site of the Dome of the Rock mosque. The Hindu groups, meanwhile, called the book's tone insensitive, such as its heading over a column about vegetarianism in India: "Where's the Beef?" The state board finally put the book on its approved list after Oxford cut the passages found objectionable and added a paragraph saying that for Jews, the Exodus is a "central event in their history" and "powerful symbol of the importance of freedom." Casper Grathwohl, an official of Oxford University Press, says it preserved its integrity, and the give-and-take improved the text. But he complains that "the process is skewed toward giving the loudest voices what they want." Every six years, California adopts a list of history books for kindergarten through eighth grade, and districts can spend designated state money only for books on this list. Publishers typically roll out new textbooks for the state, whose districts are expected to buy nearly $200 million of history books over the next two years. California alone represents 10% to 12% of the national textbook market. In the 1970s and 1980s, history texts shied away from religion. "They didn't use the 'capital G' word," says Roger Rogalin, a publishing consultant. "They said the pilgrims gave thanks on Thanksgiving, but they didn't say to whom." Difficult Goals Prodded by religious groups, states began requiring more coverage of the topic. But they imposed goals that can be hard to reconcile: both maintaining historical accuracy and enhancing the pride and self-esteem of believers. California's guidelines, for instance, say students "should understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism and war." But also, texts should avoid "reflecting adversely" on anyone's creed or instilling "prejudice against...those who believe in other religions." Such cautions provide an opportunity for religious activists such as the Council on Islamic Education in Fountain Valley, Calif. In California's most recent review, the council called for extensive changes, most of which the state appears likely to accept. One target: A Prentice Hall text said the medieval spread of Islam was partly due to military conquest. "Actual conversion to Islam did NOT occur...at the point of a sword," the council told the state. A specialist appointed by the state board to review Islamic coverage recommended dropping the reference, and Prentice Hall says it will do so. Publishers often hire the Council on Islamic Education to prescreen manuscripts. In California, the council is a "content consultant" for Houghton Mifflin Co. and Ballard & Tighe Co., an educational publisher in Brea, Calif. The council has sometimes advised Prentice Hall and other publishers as well. Publishers have allowed the Islamic group to "dictate" content, charges Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, a New York nonprofit group that reviews history texts and has said they often lack depth and factual fidelity. "Islamic pressure groups have been working energetically for 15 years to scrub the past in instructional materials," he wrote to California officials. He added that "textbooks submitted either gloss over jihad, sharia [Islamic law], Muslim slavery, the status of women and Islamic terrorism -- or omit the subject altogether." Houghton Mifflin says it hasn't ceded any control to the Council on Islamic Education, and seeks Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and Buddhist perspectives too. "We listen to their input and weigh it against what our scholarly authors believe is true," a spokesman says. Ballard & Tighe says its text was examined by Jewish and Hindu experts as well as the Islamic council. "We're mostly looking not to insult people," says an executive of the publisher. A spokeswoman for Prentice Hall says it has found the Council on Islamic Education to be a "solid resource for reviewing content." The council's founder, Shabbir Mansuri, says that texts are treating Islam better not because of his efforts but because of state guidelines that stress sensitivity toward religious beliefs. Disputes over textbook portrayal of Hinduism are a staple of politics in India, and the concerns have arrived in America along with many Indian immigrants. The conventional view of ancient India in U.S. history texts is that men enjoyed more rights than women and that, then as now, Hindus worshipped many gods and were divided into castes. But the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, the educational arm of a Hindu temple in Austin, Texas, say Hinduism is monotheistic because all of its deities are aspects of one god, Brahman. So when one textbook referred to Hindus visiting temples to "express their love of the gods," this should be changed to "express their love for God," said the Vedic group. The groups repeatedly proposed deleting references to the caste system and making other changes that burnished the image of Indian history and culture. For instance, McGraw-Hill's book said of an early monarch called Asoka that his "tolerance was unusual for the time." The Hindu Education Foundation suggested changing "unusual" to "usual." 'Source of Misunderstanding' At the Vedic Foundation, "Our motto is to re-establish the greatness of Hinduism, and part of that is to correct the textbooks," says Janeshwari Devi, director of programs. "Those are a source of misunderstanding, prejudice and derogatory information." Some Hindu students say they're humiliated in school because texts dwell on customs such as ostracism of untouchables and an old tradition, rarely observed today, of "sati" -- widows immolating themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and teachers. "The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride burning, and act like they happen every day," she says. "The biggest mistake is that Hinduism is portrayed as polytheistic. And the caste system has nothing to do with Hinduism. But no one believes you, because it's in the textbook." But some prominent scholars, both non-Hindu and Hindu, say the books were right. According to Madhav Deshpande, a Sanskrit professor at the University of Michigan who is Hindu, Hinduism is polytheistic and linked to the caste system, and women did have inferior status in ancient India. He says the Hindu groups hold a mistaken position that dates to when India was ruled by Britain in the 19th century and under pressure from Christian missionaries. The missionaries told prospective converts Christianity was superior because it had one god, treated women fairly, and didn't have castes, Mr. Deshpande says, adding that to counter, Hindu intellectuals made up an argument that their religion had once been the same way. The foundations' contention that the caste system developed separately from Hinduism is incorrect, he maintains, because "in ancient texts, there is no distinction between the religious and nonreligious domains of life." Jackson Spielvogel, a retired Penn State professor and author of McGraw-Hill's "Ancient Civilizations" textbook, says, "You can't allow Hindu nationalists to rewrite the history of India.... It becomes an issue of censorship." To review changes proposed by the Hindu groups, California hired an expert recommended by one of the groups: Shiva Bajpai, a retired California State University history professor. He endorsed most of their changes. "I want to recognize the negatives but project the positives," says Mr. Bajpai, who is Hindu. With his blessing, the changes were rolling toward ratification by the state board when Harvard's Prof. Witzel unexpectedly intervened. Alerted by an Indian-American graduate student whom the Vedic Foundation had approached to support its changes, Mr. Witzel wrote to the board the day before a Nov. 9 meeting at which approval of the Hindu-backed changes was expected. "They are unscholarly [and] politically and religiously motivated," wrote Mr. Witzel, a Sanskrit professor. His letter was co-signed by nearly 50 scholars, including Mr. Deshpande of Michigan. Mr. Witzel calls the Hindu Education Foundation a front for a prominent nationalist group in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose leader caused a stir in November by urging Hindu women to have more children to keep up with the Muslim growth rate. A spokesman for the Hindu Education Foundation acknowledges a connection -- it was established by the U.S. counterpart of the Indian group -- but says it acts independently. State officials did an about-face after they got Mr. Witzel's letter, inviting him and two like-minded scholars to scrutinize Mr. Bajpai's recommendations. When the three advised restoring much of the textbooks' original wording, angry letters began pouring in from Hindu groups. One, the Hindu American Foundation, threatened to sue the state. A petition from Hindu advocates called on Harvard to end its association with "Aryan Supremacist Creationist hate mongering." Harvard responded by defending Mr. Witzel's academic freedom. The groups persuaded two members of California's congressional delegation to weigh in. Rep. Pete Stark, a Unitarian, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a Catholic, asked the state superintendent of public instruction to investigate Mr. Witzel. The superintendent replied that the state had already held three public hearings on the history texts, received more than 1,000 pages of testimony, and considered more than 800 textual changes. The pendulum swung back on Dec. 2, when the Curriculum Commission voted to support most of the changes sought by the Hindu foundations. "We have to err on the side of sensitivity toward religion," a commission member, Stan Metzenberg, said at the time. The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups -- including members of the "untouchables" caste -- entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflect "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history." Caught in the cross-fire, the board of education summoned Mr. Witzel and Mr. Bajpai to an unusual private session Jan. 6. Before board and commission members, staffers and the board's lawyer, the scholars debated each edit. "It was a gladiator combat," Mr. Bajpai recalls, "the most acrimonious thing I have ever done in my entire life. It deteriorated into me telling him he didn't understand anything." Mr. Witzel says Mr. Bajpai "mixed his religion with scholarship." The duo did reach consensus on some changes. They agreed to narrow the McGraw-Hill text's statement that men in ancient India had "more rights" than women to "more property rights" -- but not to the Hindu groups' preferred wording of "different" rights. Still, it isn't certain the compromises reached by the two scholars will stand. At a meeting Jan. 12, the state board of education created a subcommittee to reconsider the matter -- and to prepare for still more religious pressure when books are expected to be added to the list in two years. Write to Daniel Golden at dan.golden@wsj.com {Added the "(Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)" part to the topic title on 1/26/06. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-26-2006 01:48 PM
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 2 of 194 (281556)
01-25-2006 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-25-2006 3:11 PM
|
|
multi-culturalism
Sounds like the liberal trumpeting of multi-culturalism, often imo masking a motive to demonize religious conservatives and their idea of universal values, is coming back to bite them. Can't offend anyone, except Christians of course. So Jewish and Hindu groups demand rewrites of history and are succeeding. Not that surprising really. This message has been edited by randman, 01-25-2006 04:43 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-25-2006 3:11 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 3 of 194 (281558)
01-25-2006 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by randman
01-25-2006 4:42 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Really? It sounds to me like, after watching oh-so-offended Christians get their way about having secular textbooks redacted in their favor, all the other religions want a piece of the action, too.
Can't offend anyone, except Christians of course. Are you kidding? All we hear from Christians are complaints about how deeply they've been offended by books they haven't actually read or movies or TV shows they haven't actually seen. NBC just canceled "Book of Daniel" because of how deeply the program offended all the Christians who had never actually watched it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 4:42 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 4:55 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 4 of 194 (281561)
01-25-2006 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 4:46 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Crash, Christians have begun to voice their opinion, and some have pulled shows because they will lose money, but no sane, objective person would deny that one of the few groups you can openly mock and express the vilest hatred of are Christians. Just take any mean-spirited commentary or even art towards Christianity, and substitute the same thing for Jews or African-Americans, and consider that the response would be. For example, let's say you decided to create harsh anti-Jewish art, (well maybe you could now with the left's anti-Israeli campaign), but a few years back, imagine art that was meant to publicly deride or seemed to, Jewish identity and religion, as say, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine or something along those lines was towards Christ. There would be an outcry, or would have been, and people saying the artist was a NAZI or some such. Or, how about a Klansman celebrating the past abuse of African-Americans? But a liberal can rave all they want and demonize Christians all they want with the worst slander, the vilest insults, etc,...with nearly no censure from the multi-culturalists, and this despite the fact that globally, Christians have been as persecuted or more persecuted than the Jews. Is there sympathy or even a hint of sensitivity because Christians in the Third World and communist nations were and are sometimes horribly mistreated, persecuted, tortured, raped and murdered for their faith? Nope. The anti-Christian liberals' attitude is akin to people making jokes about the Jews being gassed in the 40s. This message has been edited by randman, 01-25-2006 04:57 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 4:46 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 5 of 194 (281563)
01-25-2006 5:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
01-25-2006 3:11 PM
|
|
Some good, some bad...
as usual, the devil will be in the details. Hopefully the final result will be a more honest representation of what happened. If all that gets accomplished is that we get a better picture of history, that it was more complex, with fewer cultural rewrites, it will have been worthwhile.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Percy, posted 01-25-2006 3:11 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 6 of 194 (281564)
01-25-2006 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
01-25-2006 4:55 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Crash, Christians have begun to voice their opinion, and some have pulled shows because they will lose money, but no sane, objective person would deny that one of the few groups you can openly mock and express the vilest hatred of are Christians. Really? Because I can turn on the radio and hear Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, and Michael Savage spew vile hatred at everybody but. Replace "Christian" in your paragraph with "liberal" and I'd say you have a true statement. Christians, though? Probably the least persecuted members of our society. You might have noticed that they have control of all three branches of government, and that the President has been a Christian for the past, oh, all of our nation's history. They're the only religion recieving direct Federal funding in the form of Bush's "faith-based" initiatives. They've got three channels, just for themselves, on extended cable. Their religious celebrations are all national holidays. Man, sucks to be them, doesn't it? If that's oppression, chain me to the wall, already.
Just take any mean-spirited commentary or even art towards Christianity, and substitute the same thing for Jews or African-Americans, and consider that the response would be. You'd get your own show on CNN, like conservative fruitbat Glenn Beck (who has called both the families of 9/11 victims and black survivors of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags." And don't play that "out of context" card. I listen to his show. I heard him say it. Did you?). And a lucrative book deal, and you'd probably wind up on FOX at least a couple of times.
There would be an outcry, or would have been, and people saying the artist was a NAZI or some such. You're talking about "Piss-Christ"? There was an outcry, as you'll recall, and a lot of folks did call that guy a lot of names. Probably the only reason you or I even heard about that photograph was because Christians were in such an uproar about it.
But a liberal can rave all they want and demonize Christians all they want with the worst slander, the vilest insults, etc,...with nearly no censure from the multi-culturalists ...aside from getting beat up and losing his job, like that professor in Kansas. But, hey, other than that, I guess he got away scott-free, eh?
Is there sympathy or even a hint of sensitivity because Christians in the Third World and communist nations were and are sometimes horribly mistreated, persecuted, tortured, raped and murdered for their faith? You mean, besides the candelight vigils and national days of mourning? You mean besides that?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 4:55 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:19 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 7 of 194 (281570)
01-25-2006 6:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 5:14 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Crash, you've got a seriously twisted view of soceity and the world. Yea, Christians have 3 cable channels. Decidedly non-Christians or people with non-biblical worldviews control nearly all the rest, and yet somehow you think the 3 channels are a majority? What the heck!
Because I can turn on the radio and hear Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, and Michael Savage spew vile hatred at everybody No more than liberals spew towards conservatives, imho, but either way, one expects political discourse to advance their cause and belittle their opponent's ideas. That is qualitatively different than attacking people for their religious beliefs, as many liberals and secularists do towards Christians. On the point of Christians not being persecuted here, neither for the most part are Jews, but that doesn't mean someone spewing anti-semitic bile should be celebrated, and yet it's OK with you to spew the worst insults and smears, I suspect, towards Christians without any regard to the fact that hatred of Christians results in millions of Christians being killed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 5:14 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4132 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 8 of 194 (281578)
01-25-2006 7:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
01-25-2006 4:55 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Just take any mean-spirited commentary or even art towards Christianity, and substitute the same thing for Jews or African-Americans, and consider that the response would be. Being that both of those groups were systematically opressed in the last 60 years, i don't see how you can post this garbage
imagine art that was meant to publicly deride or seemed to, Jewish identity and religion, as say, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine or something along those lines was towards Christ. somehow you must have missed where people were not happy about this? people would be unhappy about any religious icon being trashed
But a liberal can rave all they want and demonize Christians all they want with the worst slander, the vilest insults, etc,...with nearly no censure from the multi-culturalists, and this despite the fact that globally, Christians have been as persecuted or more persecuted than the Jews. and everyone has the right to answer back!, being that christians are the largest group in america, i don't see why people would just sit there, this is freedom of speech not protection from peoples reactions, you say something you better be ready for anything by the way the christians have never be as persecuted as the jews, they have been persecuted by every culture they entered
Is there sympathy or even a hint of sensitivity because Christians in the Third World and communist nations were and are sometimes horribly mistreated, persecuted, tortured, raped and murdered for their faith?
i doubt its for thier faith all the time rand, it could be for any number of reasons
The anti-Christian liberals' attitude is akin to people making jokes about the Jews being gassed in the 40s. way to be a hypocrite rand! show those liberals demonizing christians, by being the better man and demonizing those liberals!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 4:55 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:42 AM | | ReverendDG has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 9 of 194 (281579)
01-25-2006 7:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
01-25-2006 6:19 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Because I can turn on the radio and hear Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, and Michael Savage spew vile hatred at everybody quote:
No more than liberals spew towards conservatives
Exactly who are you referring to, on which networks, on which shows, at what times? And do you have some quotes, some examples of what these people are saying? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-25-2006 07:54 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:19 PM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:43 AM | | nator has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 10 of 194 (281583)
01-25-2006 8:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
01-25-2006 6:19 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Decidedly non-Christians or people with non-biblical worldviews control nearly all the rest Proof of this assertion? Are you saying that the only network a Christian can be a part of is one that offers a strictly Christian worldview? You're sure about that? You're certain that no Christians work at CBS? At NBC? At FOX news? Really?
No more than liberals spew towards conservatives, At black people? At homosexuals? At Muslims? That's who I was talking about.
That is qualitatively different than attacking people for their religious beliefs, as many liberals and secularists do towards Christians. Or as Savage, Hannity, and O'Reilly - lead commentator on the most watched network on cable - spew against Muslims and persons who hold no religion. These men are, of course, Christians.
On the point of Christians not being persecuted here, neither for the most part are Jews, but that doesn't mean someone spewing anti-semitic bile should be celebrated You mean like Christian commentator Michael Savage? Who was recently awarded several times by the AP?
and yet it's OK with you to spew the worst insults and smears, I suspect, towards Christians Where? Who? Document some of these "smears" you're talking about. That's the thing with Christians. You're so certain that you're being persecuted that your imagination is inventing all these insults we're supposedly casting behind your back. I've given you specific names and instances of Christian commentators who feel absolutely free to smear anybody not like themselves. Who are these anti-Christian smear merchants you're so upset about? Give me some names, already.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by randman, posted 01-25-2006 6:19 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 11 of 194 (281631)
01-26-2006 12:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by ReverendDG
01-25-2006 7:42 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
i doubt its for thier faith all the time rand, it could be for any number of reasons Yea, and Hitler had "any number of reasons" I suppose as well for killing Jews. The fact is millions and millions of Christians have been slaughtered in the last 100 years for their faith, and that reason only. Islamic radicals kill Christians over their faith, and communist nations have as well. The light dismissal of such genocide, imo, speaks volumes, but in all fairness, probably more of your ignorance of the levels of persecution since it is often never reported by the press.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by ReverendDG, posted 01-25-2006 7:42 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by ReverendDG, posted 01-26-2006 3:39 AM | | randman has replied | | | Message 17 by wj, posted 01-26-2006 6:57 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 12 of 194 (281632)
01-26-2006 12:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
01-25-2006 7:51 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
I suppose I could quote some liberals here at EVC, but that might start a nasty fight.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by nator, posted 01-25-2006 7:51 PM | | nator has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 13 of 194 (281633)
01-26-2006 12:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
01-25-2006 8:18 PM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
I think it's fairly clear that there are areas in our soceity more dominated by secularists and liberals, and that 2 of those areas are the media/entertainment industry and academia. Now, I will admit some other areas, perhaps the military, are dominated by conservatives, but I am not aware of any major area of soceity, except religion, dominated by Christians. Furthermore, I never claimed American Christians are persecuted, and you know that, but you dishonestly avoid my whole point as you do in general. The point is as Jews have been persecuted due to anti-semitism globally so have Christians globally, but people like you have no problem stoking anti-Christian bigotry and hatred, and as such, you remind me of the neo-NAZIs in your bigotry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2006 8:18 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 14 of 194 (281665)
01-26-2006 3:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-26-2006 12:48 AM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
randman writes: Decidedly non-Christians or people with non-biblical worldviews control nearly all the rest Jews?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:48 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4132 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: 06-06-2005
|
|
|
Message 15 of 194 (281667)
01-26-2006 3:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by randman
01-26-2006 12:42 AM
|
|
Re: multi-culturalism
Yea, and Hitler had "any number of reasons" I suppose as well for killing Jews
gee i don't know could it be because of the race thing?, being that people do not differate between the two things, theres a differance rand, christians arn't a race
The light dismissal of such genocide, imo, speaks volumes, but in all fairness, probably more of your ignorance of the levels of persecution since it is often never reported by the press. no, i think you are mistaken, maybe you think its because they are christian when it really isn't, but because they are in the way, arn't useful to who even killed them, or wouldn't do what the person wanted, being christian may have something do do with it, but not the paranoid stories you keep making up - and i care about people dying but its not a genocide, there wasn't a systematic destuction of a people based on religious belief in the last 100 years, i would think people would care - oh unless you think there is some sort of mass compiseracy to blot it out.. This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-26-2006 03:40 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 12:42 AM | | randman has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by randman, posted 01-26-2006 11:36 PM | | ReverendDG has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2