1) History of art is not a religious course.
2) Learning about history that includes religious wars, revivals and the whatnot is not the same as learning about a religion. Again, learning about a religion has never been forced upon me in any classroom, and it should never be either. I strictly made sure I didn't take any of those classes so I didn't have to hear the propaganda.

I took classes on Buddhism, Islam, etc. We covered faiths, tenants, prayers, etc.

Never once did i feel like there was any propaganda, desire to convert, etc.

Just a factual teaching of the religion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not like there was actual worshiping going on.

And, these were some of the most rewarding classes i took. Nothing wrong with studying religion and the like at any level, so long as it isn't a class promoting one over the other.

"The history of Christianity" and "The history of Islam" and "The history of Buddhism" should be offered at as many levels as possible, IMO.

I've seen them taught well and without bias, and simply offered a history of the formation and practice of these religions.

Valuable for children to learn about the faiths and people around us. Nothing wrong with it, IMO, as long as the classes are taught by solid academics without a perceived bias.

Oh I agree. I've read books about every religion and studied them all. My experience with most college classes is that the professor is biased and loves to throw unbiased opinions in arguments as if they were facts. I've learned about all religions on my own, which is the way it should be, IMO anyway.

bigmanbt wrote: Oh I agree. I've read books about every religion and studied them all. My experience with most college classes is that the professor is biased and loves to throw unbiased opinions in arguments as if they were facts. I've learned about all religions on my own, which is the way it should be, IMO anyway.

Our world religions class was taught by a retired Methodist pastor that never mentioned Christianity once.

LJ wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Oh I agree. I've read books about every religion and studied them all. My experience with most college classes is that the professor is biased and loves to throw unbiased opinions in arguments as if they were facts. I've learned about all religions on my own, which is the way it should be, IMO anyway.

Our world religions class was taught by a retired Methodist pastor that never mentioned Christianity once.

Well, you got a good teacher, good for you. It was my experience that many professors I had in classes where facts should have reigned supreme loved to throw in baseless opinions and state them as fact. Our college experiences were different, not surprising.

bigmanbt wrote:

LJ wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Oh I agree. I've read books about every religion and studied them all. My experience with most college classes is that the professor is biased and loves to throw unbiased opinions in arguments as if they were facts. I've learned about all religions on my own, which is the way it should be, IMO anyway.

Our world religions class was taught by a retired Methodist pastor that never mentioned Christianity once.

Well, you got a good teacher, good for you. It was my experience that many professors I had in classes where facts should have reigned supreme loved to throw in baseless opinions and state them as fact. Our college experiences were different, not surprising.

What I find surprising is that I went to a Methodist Private College and had great unbiased teachers, even in my History of Christianity class, yet you go to a public university with no affiliation and had biased teachers.

Talk to my history professor who stated that the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to stop the recounts in Florida in 2000 was "declared the worst Supreme Court decision ever, worse than Dred Scott." Or my sociology teacher who stated "if Bush had not cut taxes, we could have had New Orleans back above water (literal, not figurative water but seriously 1 week after the floods) and saved hundreds of lives."

Those are just 2 examples, there were many others. You weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do. BTW, private institutes are usually a better source for unbiased information that public schools. Public schools are an extreme failure.

Much like cbus, I took a Sociology of Religion class at BG.

The purpose of the class was to learn about the histories of religion and what people got/get out of them, or what purpose they see in them. I was taught how Muslims pray, but it was a demonstration not an actual practice. This class also went way beyond the Big 3,4,5 w/e you want to call it. We studied cults and witchcraft based religions. It was a 200 level Humanities Elective, and was still one of my favorite classes during my undergrad.

bigmanbt wrote: ou weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do.

???? no one claimed anything like that....

bigmanbt wrote: Talk to my history professor who stated that the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to stop the recounts in Florida in 2000 was "declared the worst Supreme Court decision ever, worse than Dred Scott." Or my sociology teacher who stated "if Bush had not cut taxes, we could have had New Orleans back above water (literal, not figurative water but seriously 1 week after the floods) and saved hundreds of lives."

Those are just 2 examples, there were many others. You weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do. BTW, private institutes are usually a better source for unbiased information that public schools. Public schools are an extreme failure.

Lol. Are you talking about public colleges and universities?

cbus4life wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Talk to my history professor who stated that the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to stop the recounts in Florida in 2000 was "declared the worst Supreme Court decision ever, worse than Dred Scott." Or my sociology teacher who stated "if Bush had not cut taxes, we could have had New Orleans back above water (literal, not figurative water but seriously 1 week after the floods) and saved hundreds of lives."

Those are just 2 examples, there were many others. You weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do. BTW, private institutes are usually a better source for unbiased information that public schools. Public schools are an extreme failure.

Lol. Are you talking about public colleges and universities?

Moreso the K-12 level. But tenure exists still in public universities that makes it very hard to replace bad teachers. And public universities are known progressive institutions, which can place serious slant on the items being taught. In my own experience, the teaching of Keynesian principles over the teaching of Austrian principles. I, and many others, feel that both sides should at least be presented.

bigmanbt wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Talk to my history professor who stated that the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to stop the recounts in Florida in 2000 was "declared the worst Supreme Court decision ever, worse than Dred Scott." Or my sociology teacher who stated "if Bush had not cut taxes, we could have had New Orleans back above water (literal, not figurative water but seriously 1 week after the floods) and saved hundreds of lives."

Those are just 2 examples, there were many others. You weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do. BTW, private institutes are usually a better source for unbiased information that public schools. Public schools are an extreme failure.

Lol. Are you talking about public colleges and universities?

Moreso the K-12 level. But tenure exists still in public universities that makes it very hard to replace bad teachers. And public universities are known progressive institutions, which can place serious slant on the items being taught. In my own experience, the teaching of Keynesian principles over the teaching of Austrian principles. I, and many others, feel that both sides should at least be presented.

When you get deep into economics (aka 300 and 400 level classes) things are presented more in theory and mathematics rather than ideals.

Well, my degree is in economics so I've taken the 500-700 economic courses (your 300-400 equivalent). I can agree that things are taught more on theory and mathematics, but I guess that is also my problem. When you teach these items as just inputs with no thought of human interactions and free will, you dumb down the profession. Human choice has a huge impact on the market, and IMO, its foolish to think we can steer economies effectively in the long-term. My problem with those classes is we need a little more economic philosophy taught, not just charts and equations. I have 3 more 500+ level econ courses to take so I hope you are correct that some economic philosophy is taught, but in most of my classes it seems like I'm the only one asking about why we artificially adjust interest rates, increase the money supply and run up huge deficits. To me the other side of free markets needs to be taught, not just "steered" markets.

bigmanbt wrote: Well, my degree is in economics so I've taken the 500-700 economic courses (your 300-400 equivalent). I can agree that things are taught more on theory and mathematics, but I guess that is also my problem. When you teach these items as just inputs with no thought of human interactions and free will, you dumb down the profession. Human choice has a huge impact on the market, and IMO, its foolish to think we can steer economies effectively in the long-term. My problem with those classes is we need a little more economic philosophy taught, not just charts and equations. I have 3 more 500+ level econ courses to take so I hope you are correct that some economic philosophy is taught, but in most of my classes it seems like I'm the only one asking about why we artificially adjust interest rates, increase the money supply and run up huge deficits. To me the other side of free markets needs to be taught, not just "steered" markets.

I had to take 2 behavioral economics to get my econ degree, so hopefully you get some of that.

bigmanbt wrote: In my own experience, the teaching of Keynesian principles over the teaching of Austrian principles. I, and many others, feel that both sides should at least be presented.

Well...back in the late 70's when I minored in econ, Austrian Economics was taught right along with Keynesian economics.

And....these 2 models are not really dichotomies. They are supposed to be utilized to reflect economic conditions.

John Meynard Keynes did not promote unbridled government spending. This is something that people misdunderstand.

bigmanbt wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: Talk to my history professor who stated that the Gore v. Bush Supreme Court decision to stop the recounts in Florida in 2000 was "declared the worst Supreme Court decision ever, worse than Dred Scott." Or my sociology teacher who stated "if Bush had not cut taxes, we could have had New Orleans back above water (literal, not figurative water but seriously 1 week after the floods) and saved hundreds of lives."

Those are just 2 examples, there were many others. You weren't in my situation, you didn't attend every class I did. I find it very condescending that you think you know what happened in my classes more than I do. BTW, private institutes are usually a better source for unbiased information that public schools. Public schools are an extreme failure.

Lol. Are you talking about public colleges and universities?

Moreso the K-12 level. But tenure exists still in public universities that makes it very hard to replace bad teachers. And public universities are known progressive institutions, which can place serious slant on the items being taught. In my own experience, the teaching of Keynesian principles over the teaching of Austrian principles. I, and many others, feel that both sides should at least be presented.

I've never had an economics class that emphasized Keynesian principles over say the ideals of Adam Smith.

Footwedge wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: In my own experience, the teaching of Keynesian principles over the teaching of Austrian principles. I, and many others, feel that both sides should at least be presented.

Well...back in the late 70's when I minored in econ, Austrian Economics was taught right along with Keynesian economics.

And....these 2 models are not really dichotomies. They are supposed to be utilized to reflect economic conditions.

John Meynard Keynes did not promote unbridled government spending. This is something that people misdunderstand.

Very well said.

bigmanbt wrote: 1) History of art is not a religious course.
2) Learning about history that includes religious wars, revivals and the whatnot is not the same as learning about a religion. Again, learning about a religion has never been forced upon me in any classroom, and it should never be either. I strictly made sure I didn't take any of those classes so I didn't have to hear the propaganda.

Now you are just either acting very dense on purpose or you are dense.

1. I never said history of art was a religious course. I was stating the typical humanities course that covers the history of art, religion, and literature.

2. Read what I've said over and over, due to these being social studies texts, I suspect any and all religion is a historical context, not "propaganda".

jmog wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: 1) History of art is not a religious course.
2) Learning about history that includes religious wars, revivals and the whatnot is not the same as learning about a religion. Again, learning about a religion has never been forced upon me in any classroom, and it should never be either. I strictly made sure I didn't take any of those classes so I didn't have to hear the propaganda.

Now you are just either acting very dense on purpose or you are dense.

1. I never said history of art was a religious course. I was stating the typical humanities course that covers the history of art, religion, and literature.

2. Read what I've said over and over, due to these being social studies texts, I suspect any and all religion is a historical context, not "propaganda".

I guess it's a matter of opinion really. To some, the historical context of the book is fact, to others it's opinion. For me, I believe it's just opinion and there is little historical context in the Bible and related works. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the historical context of the Bible and the religion.

There is quite a bit of historical fact in the Bible, that really can't be disputed...

And, you don't have teach historical fact from the Bible itself to teach a history of Christianity class. Can talk about origins, development, different denominations, trials and tribulations of the faith, etc.

Teaching the history of the religion has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible has a great deal of historical fact actually within its pages.

bigmanbt wrote:

Now you are just either acting very dense on purpose or you are dense.

1. I never said history of art was a religious course. I was stating the typical humanities course that covers the history of art, religion, and literature.

2. Read what I've said over and over, due to these being social studies texts, I suspect any and all religion is a historical context, not "propaganda".

I guess it's a matter of opinion really. To some, the historical context of the book is fact, to others it's opinion. For me, I believe it's just opinion and there is little historical context in the Bible and related works. We'll just have to agree to disagree about the historical context of the Bible and the religion.

You are still not getting it.

No one has said that in these history classes that they will be reading from the Bible. Its the historical context of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddishm, etc. As in their rolls in history as well as what their core belief systems are and how that affects their societies.

They aren't teaching the class from the Bible or the Koran.

And, even if they do read from the Bible, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as it isn't reading from the Bible from the point of view of "this is the one true faith, blah blah blah."

These aren't like Sunday School courses.

I mean, i've read from the Koran and Buddhist and Hindu texts in a number of different religion classes, and the reading is done to understand the faith, not to be indoctrinated into that being THE faith that is correct and true and all others are wrong.

I'm really confused as to where Bigmanbt is coming from, as i'm not sure what he's getting at.

People go off their nut even thinking about the Bible or Christianity LOL

Dayum!

the texas boa. what a bunch of racists
their euphemism for the slave trade "the atlantic triangular trade" is despicable.
When the Ohio Standards discuss it in a more open and positive way.
"The practice of race based slavery lead to the forced migration of millions of Africans to the American colonies. Their knowledge and traditions contribution to the development of those colonies and the United States."
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1706&ContentID=76598

Isi's back in town!