Can we agree that X-ing out/revising religious events and aspects of history is bypassing scholarship in history classes? Case in point: the student in my link citing Martin Luther being depicted solely as a social reformer.
How would this even be possible? If nothing else, the man nailed his reforms to the door of a freakin' church.
I dunno, Buz. I was in high school less than a decade ago, and we learned about Martin Luther in full. We also learned about the formation of the Church of England, and the conversion of Emperor Constantine. (Amongst other Christian-themed topics.)
The reason we learned about these things in history class was because they were major world events. We learned the reasons behind them, and the effect they had on later times. The only thing we weren't taught was religious-philosophy-as-fact. They left that to any churches we may or may not have chosen to attend.
And like I say, this was all in the mid-nineties. Has there been some massive schism in education since 1996 that I blinked and missed?
™ Version 4.2
