It wasn't the internet that created the FSM, it was originally a joke letter sent in to the Dover school district to showcase the silliness of having equal time for unsupported things.
Chris Hallquist has been tweeting the bible, and even I found some interesting things in his posts that I'd never heard of, and not all of it was "bears eat kids" stuff.
"Why should the bible not be taught in schools as the dogmatic truth"
Because no only does this country have freedom of religion(subjugating kids in public schools to do does not leave the option of freedom) but because according to science the bible is about as true as harry potter. This can be said about any dogmatic religion it is as simple as that. Now the religion of Christianity is taught just liek most other influential regions for a historical standpoint and such. Although I have found that most of the text books I have found actually have a bias towards Christianity in that they point out the faults of Christianity like the Crusades for instance. Often times I have seen these glorified which makes me sick. Really no different from islamic suicide bombs and such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Why are some people opposed to the Bible being taught in schools?
Because we live in what Jeremy Clarkson calls the Nanny state.
I was taught religion at school. We actually started every week in high school with the Head Master reading out of the bible and talking about a current event. It was almost like a mini church service. I wish I listened more I might have learned the Bible better. It was a bit easier in the Afrikaans schools because those who where religious where almost without exception Dutch Reformers so we had that. In primary school we actually ended each day with prayer. You do not truly realise how big of a deal that is until you are finished with school
It also helps that we are governed by weak willed communists. They tried getting religion out of schools but it made too many people unhappy so they let it go. (PS when I say us I mean South Africans)
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
Wow ECP Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible??? Why then is he so ignorant of it.
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
I'd love to hear how the church manage to recruit thousands to fight the war(s) for them.
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
Ok this is seriously funny. First things first, there was more than 1 crusade. Most of the crusades consisted on Christians looting and pillaging the holy land in the name of god. The crusades were barbarism at its worst and attempting to paint them any other way is a fool errand.
Wow ECP Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible??? Why then is he so ignorant of it.
If you had actually read anything from Dawkins or listen to him speak without dismissing him ahead of time, you would realize that Dawkins is EXTREMELY knowledgeable of the bible and even Catholic doctrine. As in, I was raised in a Catholic household for 23 years, attended mass weekly and on holy days for 19 years, and was taught in Catholic schools for 14 years; and I can be absolutely certain Dawkins STILL knows more than me or any of my fellow Catholic school students do of the bible, including the one becoming a priest.
There is a monumental difference between knowing about the bible and doctrine vs. accepting the bible and doctrine as perfect revelation that is infallibly true. Dawkins certainly knows the bible, even if he doesn't accept it as perfect revelation.
As for the Crusades, the Turks were natives in those lands for hundreds of years prior to the Crusades (since about 6th century AD when the Turks were captured as slaves in the Muslim conquests). How can you hold the Turks as the aggressors when they were defending their homeland from the culturally oppressive Byzantine empire? The Turks didn't have to invade anything. They were already living in the Middle East.
It sounds to me like you actually believe the "Just War Doctrine". The Crusades were started almost entirely because of the culturally and historically motivated animosity between westerners (Romans, Normans, other Europeans) and easterners (Arabs, the Byzantine, and others). Those cultural groups were constantly fighting even during "peace times", and the Church only embraced the Crusades because large-scale fighting was going to break out anyway. The Church embraced war, and then claimed it was justified through religious reasons. The Crusades were many things, but they certainly were not just.
Both the Crusades and 9/11 were religiously "justified" acts of war against foreign cultures. I see very little difference between the two, other than scale (the Crusades were much larger). Don't let your upbringing blind you to historical fact.
the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict.
So, in order to save the Byzantines from the Seljuks, the crusaders provided them with the token capture of Nicaea, and then left the Byzantines to fend for themselves as they marched down to a city the Byzantines hadn't occupied for 400 years, which was also not held by the Seljuks, and proceeded to massacre its inhabitants.
Then, 200 years later in the fourth crusade, they decided the best way to help the Byzantines was to siege and then sack their capital at Constantinople.
What I'm hearing is that Catholics are really, really bad at saving people.
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
Wow ECP Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible??? Why then is he so ignorant of it.
The crusades were, intially, intended to help the byzantines by killing turks. Also to take back the holy land. Also to give younger sons a way to work off some violent impulses and get some land for themselves.
Saying that the western church were not the agressors in that conflict requires some special linguistics though.
the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict.
So, in order to save the Byzantines from the Seljuks, the crusaders provided them with the token capture of Nicaea, and then left the Byzantines to fend for themselves as they marched down to a city the Byzantines hadn't occupied for 400 years, which was also not held by the Seljuks, and proceeded to massacre its inhabitants.
Then, 200 years later in the fourth crusade, they decided the best way to help the Byzantines was to siege and then sack their capital at Constantinople.
What I'm hearing is that Catholics are really, really bad at saving people.
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
Wow ECP Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible??? Why then is he so ignorant of it.
The crusades were, intially, intended to help the byzantines by killing turks. Also to take back the holy land. Also to give younger sons a way to work off some violent impulses and get some land for themselves.
Saying that the western church were not the agressors in that conflict requires some special linguistics though.
What would you guys recommend for reading about the Crusades? I'm curious to how it started and I played Assassin's Creed so I want to learn more about it. I don't know if this is accurate, but basically the Christians killed people who didn't convert?
What would you guys recommend for reading about the Crusades? I'm curious to how it started and I played Assassin's Creed so I want to learn more about it. I don't know if this is accurate, but basically the Christians killed people who didn't convert?
Wikipedia is a very good starting point.
Don't take anything from the AC series to be truthful, it merely uses history as a backdrop for the game.
That really is all I need to know solidify my stance that religion should not be taught in schools.
PS. Dawkin's isn't ignorant of the bible, no matter how badly you want to believe he is. All the mainstream atheists whose work I have read are well educated about the bible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
PS. Dawkin's isn't ignorant of the bible, no matter how badly you want to believe he is. All the mainstream atheists whose work I have read are well educated about the bible.
People are opposed in the US to the bible being taught in schools as religious instruction or science. The more pragmatic ones are fine with it being taught in a religious studies class, but the folks who really want it taught aren't the same group of folks who cotton to the interpretation of texts. It's fine for bible to have its place, but that's not in science class.
The Crusades were an interesting period, if only because they were as much a political cluster**** as Constantinople was.
What would you guys recommend for reading about the Crusades? I'm curious to how it started and I played Assassin's Creed so I want to learn more about it. I don't know if this is accurate, but basically the Christians killed people who didn't convert?
Wikipedia is a very good starting point.
Don't take anything from the AC series to be truthful, it merely uses history as a backdrop for the game.
Well of course, it's fantasy. There are a lot of conspiracy theories in the AC games. Thanks though, I'll go read the wiki.
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
In the end it is very easy to criticise others, but to see your own faults and the faults of your own beliefs is indeed very hard. Maybe if atheism as a whole can get past the point of telling us what exactly is wrong with religion and focus more on what is right with atheism then maybe the world would be better.
I'd love to hear how the church manage to recruit thousands to fight the war(s) for them.
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
In the end it is very easy to criticise others, but to see your own faults and the faults of your own beliefs is indeed very hard. Maybe if atheism as a whole can get past the point of telling us what exactly is wrong with religion and focus more on what is right with atheism then maybe the world would be better.
I'd love to hear how the church manage to recruit thousands to fight the war(s) for them.
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
You seem to be supremely misinformed on this subject. To date, I have only seen terrible things done for completely political reasons by groups that, only tangentially, officially support no religion (and in many cases the religious claim those responsible for terrible deeds are atheists, even when they self-profess as religious *cough* Hitler *cough*). Never, NEVER have I seen such terrible, terrible things done in the name of holding no god. Seriously, if you find some, please enlighten me, as I'd really like to expand my worldview. But as of the present, never have I found a case like this.
In particular, the Tiananmen Square protest was of exactly this form. It was a completely political government response, in order to suppress views against those in power. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion at all. Trying to portray it as an atheist movement against religion... well that's just plain deceitful.
Meanwhile, history is certainly riddled with terrible things done, lives sacrificed, people killed, and many sent to their deaths in the name of religion. That is fact. No one can deny that.
Really, if you're an atheists, anyone doing bad things is a bad person, and it is always the individual to blame. There is no "supreme being" or "lawmaker" to fall back on, no higher power used to justify horrific actions against other humans. There are no "good people doing bad things in the name of god", only bad people doing bad things.
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
Who, exactly, doesn't think Tiananmen Square was terrible?
I'm just constantly left flabbergasted at the indignation atheist have for the crusades but turn a blind eye to their own world views sordid past. At least I do not have to go ten centuries in the past to see atheism bad deeds.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
Who, exactly, doesn't think Tiananmen Square was terrible?
Because obviously since the chinese regime forced atheism on the populace, that means it is part of the atheistic traditions and past.
In the end it is very easy to criticise others, but to see your own faults and the faults of your own beliefs is indeed very hard. Maybe if atheism as a whole can get past the point of telling us what exactly is wrong with religion and focus more on what is right with atheism then maybe the world would be better.
There is no "Atheism as a whole". Atheism isn't a religion, or belief system or set of ideals etc. Atheism doesn't tell you whats wrong with religion. An atheist might but there is no scipture or atheist rulebook that says anything of the sort. There are no linking ideals, morals, concepts etc. that link one atheist to another apart from the lack of belief in God. Atheism is merely an opinion about one issue, the non-existence of a God. That's it.
What is an atheist tradition? Sounds like talking about the common habits of people who don't collect stamps
This. Funny and true.
Back on topic. I agree with what people have posted before. Many people have no problem with school kids learning about Christianity in a religious education class. People object to religious ideas being taught as science when their is no scientific basis for such ideas, or having religous belief foisted upon their children.
This is true, not all atheists believe the same things. I've met atheists who believe Jesus existed, some who didn't, and some who believe there was no big bang and that the earth was always here, etc. There are also atheists that will respect other people's beliefs and there are militant atheists who are very vocal about their opposition to any kind of religion, and will tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. I had a friend working in a tea shop:
This conversation actually happened at work. And for those who don't already know, I'm currently working at a Chinese tea store. Woman comes into the store, walks around, spots the cute little Buddhist altar in the corner of the store. It belongs to the shop owner, who is Chinese, and lights incense for it every morning. Coming from a Taiwanese family I'm pretty aware of how it works. I'm not religious, but it's not my store, and I respect that and was just answering the woman's questions.
Woman: "What do you do with the fruit afterwards?"
Me: "You can eat it..."
Woman: "Why do you guys worship that... thing?" (pointing to the altar)
Me: "It's tradition."
Woman: "Well, sometimes the tradition can be dumb-- uh, not dumb, I mean, the tradition can be wrong."
At this point I was feeling like rolling my eyes, and not wanting to bother arguing with her. Me: "Well, it's a personal thing."
Woman: "You're worshipping an idol, it's not real, it's not the sun or the rain or something you can see and feel."
Me: *sigh* "Again, it's a personal thing..."
Woman: "Well, I'm just telling you that it's wrong." And walks out of the store.
Again I'm not religious myself, the altar isn't even mine, I was merely answering her question at first. I like how despite religious people usually being seen as the pushy ones, I was amazed at this great example of an atheist doing the same. No matter what your beliefs (or disbeliefs) are, it's rude and uncalled for to force your views on others.
On some of the stuff mentioned in the thread thus far.
1) I can go back this past year and show some horrific offenses in the name of god. Care to know how many people in Uganda have been killed for being gay? The crusades aren't the only red mark on Christian's history.
2) The crusades were very different than 9/11. In 9/11 it was a single extremist organization in a single isolated incident that killed 2,996 people. The crusades was a Religious movement that spanned across the entire religion (not just a few extremists) and was repeated several times to wrack up to an estimated death toll that ranges realisticly between 500,000 and 3,000,000. They were very poor at keeping records. Though we can at least deduct some of those deaths since there was an extreme number of rapes that I"m sure turned into sucessful pregnancies. So there is that.
3) Despite what has been stated in points 1 & 2 I don't find Religion to be inherently or innately wrong or destructive. The idea of spreading peace and love and understanding is a great great great thing. Its the human element that takes this idea of god and total control of a population via "god". The crusades had nothing to do with Jesus and his message and WAY more to do with some cranky old men wanting power and land sending ignroant mis-informed young men with broken moral compases into battle and telling them "not only is it okay to kill but god wants you to kill and be extra brutal. No rules at all"
4) To sum up everything from all 3 points. I don't want my child being taught christianity or any other religion in school as FACT or TRUTH. We can learn all kinds of secular history of the church though that might simply turn them away from it.
A child's mind is far too malleable to be fed misinformation as truth at such a young age, it's dangerous. In my opinion, religion shouldn't even be introduced until a persons mind is mature enough to actually comprehend what is is they're reading/hearing, in which case I'm betting they'd label all biblical scripture as incomprehensible bull****.
Why are people opposed? What a silly question. You may as well ask why some people oppose the Jihad being taught in schools.
When you teach a bible as being true to kids, any bible from any religion, you don't open their minds...you close them. You strip away their free will and replace it with indoctrination. Young minds are such a precious resource - its an awful crime to take away their potential for free, independent thought and instead put them on one path where they will inevitably think everyone who chooses a different path is wrong. There is no force more divisive than religion.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
~Vladimir Lenin
It wasn't the internet that created the FSM, it was originally a joke letter sent in to the Dover school district to showcase the silliness of having equal time for unsupported things.
Also,
Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible
Well, for all the great literary references in it, because, well, there is nothing new under the sun, Ecclesiates 1:9
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/10/the-actually-good-books-in-the-good-book-or-no-im-not-just-tweeting-the-nasty-stuff/
Chris Hallquist has been tweeting the bible, and even I found some interesting things in his posts that I'd never heard of, and not all of it was "bears eat kids" stuff.
Because no only does this country have freedom of religion(subjugating kids in public schools to do does not leave the option of freedom) but because according to science the bible is about as true as harry potter. This can be said about any dogmatic religion it is as simple as that. Now the religion of Christianity is taught just liek most other influential regions for a historical standpoint and such. Although I have found that most of the text books I have found actually have a bias towards Christianity in that they point out the faults of Christianity like the Crusades for instance. Often times I have seen these glorified which makes me sick. Really no different from islamic suicide bombs and such.
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823
Because we live in what Jeremy Clarkson calls the Nanny state.
I was taught religion at school. We actually started every week in high school with the Head Master reading out of the bible and talking about a current event. It was almost like a mini church service. I wish I listened more I might have learned the Bible better. It was a bit easier in the Afrikaans schools because those who where religious where almost without exception Dutch Reformers so we had that. In primary school we actually ended each day with prayer. You do not truly realise how big of a deal that is until you are finished with school
It also helps that we are governed by weak willed communists. They tried getting religion out of schools but it made too many people unhappy so they let it go. (PS when I say us I mean South Africans)
And just btw Random Nerd their is a HUGE difference between the crusades and 911. 911 was the petty killing of thousands by Islamic radicals while the crusades where military operations done to by the church to save the Byzantine empire from the invading Seljuk Turks. Catholicism was not the aggressors in that conflict. |Remember that before you tell us what makes you sick again.
Wow ECP Richard Dawkins thinks you should read the bible??? Why then is he so ignorant of it.
I'd love to hear how the church manage to recruit thousands to fight the war(s) for them.
Ok this is seriously funny. First things first, there was more than 1 crusade. Most of the crusades consisted on Christians looting and pillaging the holy land in the name of god. The crusades were barbarism at its worst and attempting to paint them any other way is a fool errand.
If you had actually read anything from Dawkins or listen to him speak without dismissing him ahead of time, you would realize that Dawkins is EXTREMELY knowledgeable of the bible and even Catholic doctrine. As in, I was raised in a Catholic household for 23 years, attended mass weekly and on holy days for 19 years, and was taught in Catholic schools for 14 years; and I can be absolutely certain Dawkins STILL knows more than me or any of my fellow Catholic school students do of the bible, including the one becoming a priest.
There is a monumental difference between knowing about the bible and doctrine vs. accepting the bible and doctrine as perfect revelation that is infallibly true. Dawkins certainly knows the bible, even if he doesn't accept it as perfect revelation.
As for the Crusades, the Turks were natives in those lands for hundreds of years prior to the Crusades (since about 6th century AD when the Turks were captured as slaves in the Muslim conquests). How can you hold the Turks as the aggressors when they were defending their homeland from the culturally oppressive Byzantine empire? The Turks didn't have to invade anything. They were already living in the Middle East.
It sounds to me like you actually believe the "Just War Doctrine". The Crusades were started almost entirely because of the culturally and historically motivated animosity between westerners (Romans, Normans, other Europeans) and easterners (Arabs, the Byzantine, and others). Those cultural groups were constantly fighting even during "peace times", and the Church only embraced the Crusades because large-scale fighting was going to break out anyway. The Church embraced war, and then claimed it was justified through religious reasons. The Crusades were many things, but they certainly were not just.
Both the Crusades and 9/11 were religiously "justified" acts of war against foreign cultures. I see very little difference between the two, other than scale (the Crusades were much larger). Don't let your upbringing blind you to historical fact.
So, in order to save the Byzantines from the Seljuks, the crusaders provided them with the token capture of Nicaea, and then left the Byzantines to fend for themselves as they marched down to a city the Byzantines hadn't occupied for 400 years, which was also not held by the Seljuks, and proceeded to massacre its inhabitants.
Then, 200 years later in the fourth crusade, they decided the best way to help the Byzantines was to siege and then sack their capital at Constantinople.
What I'm hearing is that Catholics are really, really bad at saving people.
The crusades were, intially, intended to help the byzantines by killing turks. Also to take back the holy land. Also to give younger sons a way to work off some violent impulses and get some land for themselves.
Saying that the western church were not the agressors in that conflict requires some special linguistics though.
What would you guys recommend for reading about the Crusades? I'm curious to how it started and I played Assassin's Creed so I want to learn more about it. I don't know if this is accurate, but basically the Christians killed people who didn't convert?
Wikipedia is a very good starting point.
Don't take anything from the AC series to be truthful, it merely uses history as a backdrop for the game.
That really is all I need to know solidify my stance that religion should not be taught in schools.
PS. Dawkin's isn't ignorant of the bible, no matter how badly you want to believe he is. All the mainstream atheists whose work I have read are well educated about the bible.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Which mainstream atheists are those?
The Crusades were an interesting period, if only because they were as much a political cluster**** as Constantinople was.
Well of course, it's fantasy. There are a lot of conspiracy theories in the AC games. Thanks though, I'll go read the wiki.
I guess I'm left wondering where the moral atheist was when Tiananmen square massacre happened. Why that does not make Random Nerd sick is also a question I'm left to wonder about?
In the end it is very easy to criticise others, but to see your own faults and the faults of your own beliefs is indeed very hard. Maybe if atheism as a whole can get past the point of telling us what exactly is wrong with religion and focus more on what is right with atheism then maybe the world would be better.
You can read more about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
If you read the link you so kindly provided for me, then you would see some uncanny similarities between the Crusaders and the perpetrators of 9/11.
And yes I do know that the Crusaders do not own explosives and AK-47's
You seem to be supremely misinformed on this subject. To date, I have only seen terrible things done for completely political reasons by groups that, only tangentially, officially support no religion (and in many cases the religious claim those responsible for terrible deeds are atheists, even when they self-profess as religious *cough* Hitler *cough*). Never, NEVER have I seen such terrible, terrible things done in the name of holding no god. Seriously, if you find some, please enlighten me, as I'd really like to expand my worldview. But as of the present, never have I found a case like this.
In particular, the Tiananmen Square protest was of exactly this form. It was a completely political government response, in order to suppress views against those in power. It had absolutely nothing to do with religion at all. Trying to portray it as an atheist movement against religion... well that's just plain deceitful.
Meanwhile, history is certainly riddled with terrible things done, lives sacrificed, people killed, and many sent to their deaths in the name of religion. That is fact. No one can deny that.
Really, if you're an atheists, anyone doing bad things is a bad person, and it is always the individual to blame. There is no "supreme being" or "lawmaker" to fall back on, no higher power used to justify horrific actions against other humans. There are no "good people doing bad things in the name of god", only bad people doing bad things.
Who, exactly, doesn't think Tiananmen Square was terrible?
Because obviously since the chinese regime forced atheism on the populace, that means it is part of the atheistic traditions and past.
This is true, not all atheists believe the same things. I've met atheists who believe Jesus existed, some who didn't, and some who believe there was no big bang and that the earth was always here, etc. There are also atheists that will respect other people's beliefs and there are militant atheists who are very vocal about their opposition to any kind of religion, and will tell other people that their beliefs are wrong. I had a friend working in a tea shop:
1) I can go back this past year and show some horrific offenses in the name of god. Care to know how many people in Uganda have been killed for being gay? The crusades aren't the only red mark on Christian's history.
2) The crusades were very different than 9/11. In 9/11 it was a single extremist organization in a single isolated incident that killed 2,996 people. The crusades was a Religious movement that spanned across the entire religion (not just a few extremists) and was repeated several times to wrack up to an estimated death toll that ranges realisticly between 500,000 and 3,000,000. They were very poor at keeping records. Though we can at least deduct some of those deaths since there was an extreme number of rapes that I"m sure turned into sucessful pregnancies. So there is that.
3) Despite what has been stated in points 1 & 2 I don't find Religion to be inherently or innately wrong or destructive. The idea of spreading peace and love and understanding is a great great great thing. Its the human element that takes this idea of god and total control of a population via "god". The crusades had nothing to do with Jesus and his message and WAY more to do with some cranky old men wanting power and land sending ignroant mis-informed young men with broken moral compases into battle and telling them "not only is it okay to kill but god wants you to kill and be extra brutal. No rules at all"
4) To sum up everything from all 3 points. I don't want my child being taught christianity or any other religion in school as FACT or TRUTH. We can learn all kinds of secular history of the church though that might simply turn them away from it.
This is the big one here. There's a huge difference between letting someone decide for himself what he believes is true and indoctrination.
When you teach a bible as being true to kids, any bible from any religion, you don't open their minds...you close them. You strip away their free will and replace it with indoctrination. Young minds are such a precious resource - its an awful crime to take away their potential for free, independent thought and instead put them on one path where they will inevitably think everyone who chooses a different path is wrong. There is no force more divisive than religion.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
~Vladimir Lenin
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.