A hub, or series of hubs, describing the lies about history taught in American schools. Please provide verification...
68Lies About History
Well, I'm not going to go into great detail since most of the so-called lies are really differences of interpretation. I'll throw out a few thoughts and add some links and maybe people can hop in and we can get a civil discussion going.
My high school graduation was in '77, so I haven't been so much exposed to the current lies, though I've read about them. Our boys are homeschooled so they haven't been indoctrinated either.
Context. History is worthless without context. Also important is an understanding of people and motivations.
- Slavery: One thing that needs to be addressed is any history that states or impies that slavery began, or was created by, the US or by white people. Slavery has been around for thousands of years and the slaves used in the US were generally not rounded up or sold by white people.
- Religion: Religions, generally Christian, are given a bad rap in the schools. While the warts of organized religion are gleefully detailed one fact is missed: secular governments are typically far worse. Communism is a wonderful example of this. Of course, fundamentalist Islamic governments give communism a good run for its money in the awful department.
- The Declaration: Did you know that some school won't allow the Declaration of Independence to be taught? Any such school should be immediately lebelled as a Ministry of Propoganda and have any scholastic certifications removed.
- Ditto with the Bill of Rights. For example, the 2nd amendment does allow you and me the right to bear arms. Frequently the lie is that it really means something else, anything else, other than giving the people that right.
- Expansion: Much is made of the US expansion and the result it had on Native Americans. (Native being defined as they were here before we were.) The history taught usually states or implies that the Indians were peaceful, nature loving beatniks or some equally silly thing. Which is far from the truth.
- Cival War: The civil war wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights and slavery was initially a side issue.
- Marxism: Much of US history is taught by self-admitted Marxists. Given the mind-disease of Marxism it's no wonder that these people will give a highly skewed US is BAD, all else is good viewpoint.Want verification? Look at any poll on the political make-up of the teachers of US History.
- Constitution: Very little is taught about how the US constitution came to be or what it means. Read the comments on my How to Fix the US Government hub to see what I mean.
- States Rights: This government was intended to give most of the power to the states, not to have an overwhelming federal power. Any teachings that don't point this out need to be re-examined.
Most teachers these days, especially in college, are very much in favor of big government, socialism, marxism, and so on. Most are strongly anti-capitalist, anti-religion, know nothing of economics, and are staunch left-wing democrats. Which means that their teaching will reflect those biases.
What I want in a History book are facts and discussion that puts the facts in perpective. For example, a discussion on the awfulness of US Slavery isn't complete unless it discusses slavery throughout history and puts US slavery in context.
Context is essential to any worthwhile history and is frequently missing from modern teachings.The books in the first Amazon section below were picked to add context and contrarian views, not necessarily as a complete US History listing.
So what do you have to say about all this?
US History: Food for thought, contrarianism, and ammo to combat the PC view of American History.
 | Amazon Price: $3.73 List Price: $7.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.36 List Price: $7.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.41 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $14.81 List Price: $24.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.99 List Price: $39.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.69 List Price: $16.99 |
Propoganda for Your Amusement
 | Amazon Price: $12.49 List Price: $25.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $6.96 List Price: $19.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.26 List Price: $19.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.18 List Price: $21.95 |
Add Your Say. What Lies About American History Need to be Fixed?Loading...
Thank you, Gems4Friends. It's great! Something mentioned by Francetales (and what actually inspired my request for this hub) was that the rest of the world has a very different perspective on WW2, and our part in it, than we do. Were we taught a skewed version of what happened?
And, before I forget: Thank you for shedding light on the "peaceful Indians" myth. My ancestors -on my father's side- are Eastern Native American, Iraquois, and I've always been taught that they were "mean sons-a-bitches!" Very different from what you'd see in Dances With Wolves.
You make very good points, offering some fresh views. I would add in the fact that public primary schools force evolution down everyone's throats and actually have the audacity to teach it in a manner that depicts it to be factual. However, scientists have never even prooved Darwin's THEORY is correct. In fact, it isn't even Darwin's own theory. He was hired by a bunch of rich people that wanted seperation of church and state, so they asked Darwin to research the matter and come back with proof. They gave him a boat and he sailed the world. Oh, did I mention that his father and uncle were the ones that actually theorized about evolution; my college professor taught us the theory of Darwin stealing his familie's work or at least their ideas in order to satisfy his employers request. Now with that said, regardless if you believe in religion or evolution, both have a right to be taught or at the least presented in a nonbias manner as a possible explaination for the beginning of this Earth.
Also, our country may have done some things that were definitely cruel (slavery, take the land from the Indians, etc.) but I really liked the points you made in regards to the 2. I can't recall ANY country or empire that didn't start out viciously violent.
I think evolution should be taught as "the best scientific theory we have to date," and religion. as a belief, should not be TAUGHT at all. I have no problem with an open discussion about religion with students, if it's brought up by them, but I see no place for any spiritual belief, since everyone's is different, to be taught in a public school.
Religion says the Earth is only about 2000 years old, when every science known to man knows it is billions of years old, and possibly older.
When I requested a hub about "lies taught in history class" I wasn't referring to science vs. religion. I was hoping for something more historically factual.
Good point Constant Walker, religion should not actually be taught in public schools - I should of clarified that. Or mean to start a debate about science versus religion. I guess I was just recalling lies taught to me in all classes that were retaught to me differently in college. I was expanding on gems4friends point that context is important when teaching.
Well, I wasn't taught any sort of surgar coated history, and like Walker, religion shouldn't be taught in school unless it's a major in college. But....
I do have a neice in elementary school who tells me things like..um...a volcanic eruption destroyed the dinosaurs, soooo....I do get a little suspiscious about what they are actually teaching.
I was subing in a class once where the teacher was using Jesus as an example of rhetoric, when lecturing on Ceasar (shakspere).
Other than that, I do want to ask the question, have you actually gone and sat in on the classes where you believe lies are being taught?
I suppose at an elementray level it is better to give little details, a sugar coated version of the truth and then of course more painful details about life as they progress in there acedemic years.
Sandra, the volcano you're referring to is a Super Volcano, and there are several on the planet. Yellowstone, the ENTIRE park, is one of them. I've seen that theory presented on History Channel and it's plausable, as is the giant meteor strike theory. Any catastrophic global event like that could have wiped out the dinosaurs, as it could wipe out the human race. Scientists are still searching for evidence.
The only lies I remember hearing myself in school are about how we came to this country. This was in 6th grade. It was a very sugar-coated version of the carnaige that was actually committed, in which Custar was always portrayed as a hero. He was not. Then later we were taught that Americans won the war in Viet Nam. Those are the ones I remember right now.
Francetales said the rest of the world has a different perspective on WW2 than we do. I remember being told that we were the heroes in that war. I'd very interested to hear the different versions, as well as the actual facts. Some, I've already heard on History Ch. But, as World Wars go, it's very complicated. I'm sure there were lots of heroes.
LOL To my non-American eye the content of this hub looks like genuine propaganda, too. While its point of view probably differs from what is taught in schools here currently, it has very remote connection or no connection at all to what I think was happening in this country based on my not-so-short and quite diverse life experience and common sense :)
Oh, and BTW communist government was religious. The idol still lays on the Red Squre :)
Sure Walker, I see what you are saying, but...passing on only one version and calling it the truth, so that my niece believes that is the truth is different. How can she have a good balanced and intellectual conversation if she wont budge in hearing anything else???
I can remember back to learning about the dinosaurs and I was told a lot of different things as well as them being only theories.
You guys are making some good points. Thanks.
I don't want to get into the religion Vs evolution argument, other than to say the the place for teaching relion is in the churches, teaching about religion is for the schools.
That said, I think the schools could do a much better job teaching about Christianity, since it's kindof important to US history, and drop the thinly vieled contempt. Am I a Christian? No, I'm actually pretty close to being an Atheist. However, I think Christianity deserves alot more respect than it gets.
Actually, if trhe schools wanted to do an honest job of teaching about religion they should invite some of the ranking church folk in for a respectful discussion. Heck, California schools teach Islam with great respect, why not Christianity? Yeah, I know why. It's why homeschooling is becoming increasingly popular.
As far as theory goes, the scientific definition of a theory is not the same thing as the layman's definition. Here's a good discussion on what a theory really is. http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Evolutionary theory has moved way beyond Darwinism, regardless of wwhere he got his ideas, and it really is a very well supported theory.And a scientific theory is far beyond just a guess.
By the way, and correct me if I have this wrong, it isn't religion that teaches the Earth is 6,000 some odd years old. That calculation was done by a cleric who counted up all the generation in the bible and came to the logical conclusion, right? Some people respect that calculation and some, well, don't.
But I'm not going to put a matter of faith under the heading of "lies taught in school."
As far as WW2 goes, much of the rest of the world is ruled by communists, socialists, terrorists, brutal dictators, and all around thugs. Most of them with a very anti-US point of view and most of them will teach an, um,rather interesting view of history that bears little resemblance to anything other than propoganda.
As far as our allies, of course their view will be different. Japan's, for instance. History is written by people with a point of view and it wouild be surprising if their histories were exactly the same. Especially where ego or national pride might be involved.
There are the facts, such as dates things were signed, dates of bombings, etc., and then there are the less tangible motives, reasonings, rationalizations, etc.
Walker,
Yes, the rest of the World and especially Europe has very different perception of what happened in the middle of the last century and who actually won :)
Let me just put it this way - American help was essential in the process of bringing Germany and its allies down, but it was just that - *help*. The main job was done by Europeans, mostly Soviet Union.
Hi Misha, Care to expand on that?
As far as this hub goes it actually has a pretty good connection to what really happened and is pointing out that we think that what really happened is what should be taught.
The revisionist histories frequently taught these days bear little resemblance to what really happened, by the way.
Gems, on what exactly? There is so much packed over here, it will take volumes and volumes to expand on :) Pick the point, and I'll try to give you my view as best as I can :)
Well, I've read a number of articles expanding on that view of WW2. Lots of argument, little good info. Mostly national pride.
As you say, US help was essential to winning the war. So was everyone else's help. I understand the Russians lost millions of lives in that war and that can never be discounted.
Hilter helped too, with some brain dead errors in judgement.
Misha, you actually did expand it it, but the post timing was off (I type slowly and didn't expect this many comments)
I take it you're Russian? I think we could kick around "the facts" for a looong time. :)
Everybody has a point of view, and all the points of view are different in this series of comments.
Therein lies the substance of CW's request and Gems's response. History is told from a particular point of view.
If we could take ourselves back 10,000 years, then we would hear, perhaps, about how the hunting and gathering fields were found, about which clans traversed them, about the plants that cure infections and who discovered them, about the evolution of ourselves, which perhaps began as a seed planted in the earth by the sun. And all of this telling would be aimed at preserving what we have.
History serves survival and persistence. How can we go forward if we have no past? The tellers and shapers of history then, now, and 2000 years from now, construct the past to manipulate the present.
In that respect, all history is a lie. (We can add existentialism and predetermination to this mix, but then I will get a headache.)
Very provoking hub, Gems.
LOL You picked the most contraversial one:)
Well, my view on this is quite different from both American and mainstream European. I tend to think (and this is the area I really devoted some serious time to explore), that WW2 was won by Hitler. More, Hitler actually saved Western Civilazation in the process :)
I am actually thinking of writing a hub or a series of hubs on this, and it is just impossible to put all the thinking and evidence into just a hub comment, so I just give you the thesis: By the beginning of July 1941 Stalin would have been prepared to start the final part of conquering the World - The War. Hitler managed to hit two weeks earlier, and this had a devastating effect and lead to Stalin taking over just small part of Europe instead of whole World.
If not for Hitler, we all would lived now in one huge concentration camp :D
Wow, this is great. Gems, I've read that article -or one like it- in Scientific American Reports. Indeed, a lot goes into a scientific theory. Hence my respect for the process.
Sandra, I didn't know the Super Volcano theory was being taught in schools. Are you sure it wasn't simply presented as one possibility?
Misha, I'm so glad you're contributing to this debate. What would this discussion be without someone from somewhere other than US?
Misha, that's a fascinating idea. I'll be reading those hubs. You're going to be a huge hit with the Nazi Youth. Hey, fans are fans : )
LOL Walker, I by no means support nazis - but communists are even worse :)
But, I'm serious about the Hitler hubs. Please let me know when you publish it.
Gems, yes I am Russian. And Russian history is distorted no less than American, probably way more - considering 70 plus years of communists actively re-writing it with every new twist of the ideological direction :D
Walker, nothing to apologize for :) I'am afraid it's not a humor at all, and I really get that kind of following if I finally write such hubs :(
Interesting point regarding Hitler. One of his first acts as Germany's president was to suspend Civil Liberties, for reasons of "national security." Sound familiar, Americans?
I hope you'll write it anyway.
yeah it sounds scary undue seizure, anyone? We better hang onto the Bill of Rights, Ammendments (was it the 4th ?) with an iron fist. Maybe even read them again? or better yet, send a copy to Congress and the President. He doesn't know there's a Congress. shhhh
Sally, you really got me to thinking, you're right History is manipulated for the purpose of manipulating the present and future. wow. it puts it more into perspective. I 've always said we need to know where we've been to get to where we're goin' -- great comments and lots to think about.
He (Bush) doesn't know how to READ. All those pesky big words, like "nuculer."
I knew this would be an excellent topic. I would have published it myself, but I suck at history. But, thanks to the History Ch. that's changing. It's so good, there's using it in High School now. Had that been the case when I was in school I would have aced History. I hated then... so dry and dull. Now, I love it. I watch that channel more than any other.
All these comments and this article has a rating of 59. Sheesh. :)
Misha, I'm looking forward to those hubs!
As far as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution goes... well, Congress has been ignoring both for quite some time. As have our courts and presidents before Bush. I don't happen to believe that any of the three dems running for pres (Yeah, I'm calling McCain a Dem) would be any better than Bush regarding, um, questionable activites, and probably worse.
I agree that history is manipulated, by not necessarily by those "running the country." At least in this country. Comrade Zinn, for example, who's written a popular series of books. You want to manipulate history? Get one of yours to the head of a publishing company and write a book. Since it'll agree with the publisher's ideology the chances of getting it printed are much higher.
So I think it's really up to us to dig into this stuff and try to get past the ideology and manipulations and get as close to what's real as we can. Sounds to me like you may be doing just that, Misha.
Now get writing! :)
Greg
Nice one, Constant: "He (Bush) doesn't know how to READ. All those pesky big words, like "nuculer."" Just don't believe it. Bush is a lot smarter than people give him credit for and he's smarter than mush, if not most, of his opposition. Which is probably the reason he so effectively drives them insane. :)
Personally, I think he practices the grammatical failings.
But ya know, if you read what was said about many past presidents while they were in office you'll find that it differs greatly from what is said about them when all the dust settles and personal grudges fade away.
Most of the bitter arguments fade and we can pretend to look at them a little more objectively.
I'll bet that when the Russians were permitted to speak they had some interesting discussions about Stalin and those who followed him. Is that true, Misha?
Greg
Gems, I think you're in deep denial. Will Republicans support their President no matter what? I'll give you marks for loyalty.
I didn't always dislike "Gee-Duh." He, himself, forced that on me. I was actually very much in support of him (although I didn't vote for him) right after 911. Remember his record breaking approval rating, something like 98%? But that didn't last long. I'm one of those who believes a President deserves the respect of his office, no matter what your politics, but I'm not blind or deaf, and I don't have my head in the sand. The man has his own agenda, that is that of those who pull his strings because "agenda" is another one of those darned big words, and frighteningly clear that he has no idea what is going on in the counrty he's supposed to be leading, nor does he care.
And as for his intelligence, Gems, com'on... he "practices" looking that illiterate? I've read your writing and I know you're smarter than that.
I'm with you on Misha's Hitler hubs, though. Hope he writes them.
The lie of Paul Revere is always a good one. It was actually William Dawes that rode the farthest.
Hey Constant,
Nope, I'm going to stick by my Bush remarks. I pretty much disagree with you on all points. Btw - youi think I'm a Republican because...? I'm not a die hard Bush supporter, he has plenty of warts. Still, I haven't seen the opposition put up anyone who's an improvement. Heck, the Dems running Kerry in the '04 election was hilarious.
Besides, if you want to talk support and use Bush's ratings to define him, then by that definition our Dem led congress is beyond incompetent. So maybe we should use something other than polls?
I think history will actually treat Bush fairly well.
As far as practicing that look, well, that was obviously a joke, though I half believe it. And he does love to joke about it.
Considder this though, careful photography will make anyone look like an idiot. Leaving Bush and moving to Pols (and people) in general take notice of the agenda behind whichever media is running the photo.
Take Time Mag, or any mag, for example. It's pretty easy to tell who they support. One group of photos will make the subject look pretty good, the other set will make him/her look like a drooling idiot. It's one of the reasons that no one considers Time to be anything close to objective.
Photos aside, thw written word can do the same thing, which is one of the points of this hub. History and views are defined by those who can get their views published. If 95% of the media strongly favors person or position and are opposed to position B how do you think their coverage will reflect that?
I don''t think our media (or anyone's media) was every really objective, though it's been both better and worse than it is now. What we really need to do is read both sides of the issues and we won't get that reading Time or watching CNN. Heck, stick with those guys and you won't even know that there IS another side to the issue.
Sorry to be the fly in the ointment here, but.... Well, I am a teacher in a public school, and my students (I have them from 6-8 grades) learn about the history of slavery as practiced by various people throughout history and in every continent in the world. We start with early people and work our way up to modern times.
I do not sugar-coat things. We often have vigorous and, I am sure, politically incorrect discussions about who writes the histories and how things get handed down in societies.
Some of my students (mostly Hispanics) believe that millions of Mexicans lived in the southwest when those lands were part of Mexico in the 1700's and early 1800's, and that Mexicans always lived there. Few have any notion, for example, that all those lands once belonged to someone else, and were lost in wars and colonizations, and that what the U.S. did to gain those lands was little different from what the early Mexicans did to take the lands away from people who were already living there. But then and again, people willpush their own views to the excusion of those which tend to deny the facts.
As for Paul Revere, I have long believed he was remembered because he drew that propaganda picture showing what is today called the Boston Massacre. Maybe he had friends who knew people. LOL!!!
There is much of history that is written by the victors, proclaiming the victors as God's Chosen. Just ask the Irish or Scottish about who ended up writing their history over the centuries. Ask the 10th century Anglo-Saxons why their brilliant culture was put down and expunged by the Normans. The Normans didn't want England because it was weak and poor, they wanted it because it was arguably one of the wealthiest nations in Northern Europe.
Lastly, the truth is out there. You just need to care enough to find it.
As for Evolution, there is more evidence for evolution than there is for the Bible. I am a Christian, but I don't buy it that only "left-wing Liberals" believe in evolution. A lot of Right-wing Conservatives go along with it because they see it as a tweak to the nose of those cursed Liberals they hate so much. By the way, being Democrat does not make one a Liberal, and being a Liberal is not a disease.
If you want to teach religion in schools, then I suggest you also teach science in church. And get a grip on what a scientific theory actually entails. It's not the modern day bastardization which means "I got some ideas, so I have a theory." It takes a lot of work, evidence and even proof to create a scientific theory.
As for why evolution is not called a scientific law, evolution will never become a scientific law until it can be duplicated. Maybe one day it will, but for now it only qualifies for the next highest to the top category, which is Theory.
If it could be duplicated, then it would qualify as a scientific law. But science, real science, unlike the pseudo-science of Creationists, demands more than gut feeling, passages in one book, no matter how sacred you may believe it to be, and sketchy evidence garnered from people who do not follow the scientific method. When and if Creationists ever pass the scientific tests for presenting the "facts" in their argument, then it will be considered for serious scientific thought. Otherwise it is like passing off the clip-clop of a horse as serious orchestral music. Sorry, but you can't and won't get away with passing off unprovable ideas as science. If you play a game, play it by the rules or find another game. In science, the rules have been set, tested, and found extremely competent over the centuries.
Hey Chet,
Thanks for joining in!
Why do you think you're the fly in the ointment here? Just because you don't follow the PC line with your teaching? You sound like a terrific teacher and you make some great points, especially about theory and scientific law.
You're right that being a Dem doesn't necessarily mean one is a liberal, but coservative Dem voices are rarely heard and the mainstream Dem party is far to the left of the Rep's, who sem to be moving that way anyway. You're also right that liberalism isn't a disease anymore than conservatism is.
Greg
I would give you an 86 hub rating
Gems4Friends,
Context. History is worthless without context. Also important is an understanding of people and motivations. 1. Slavery: Slavery has been around for thousands of years and the slaves used in the US were generally not rounded up or sold by white people. I t appears to me they were rounded up as you call by any one who had access to a ship. The World has had slavery for thousands of years2. Religion: Religions, generally Christian, are given a bad rap in the schools. Where once Australia let their hair down at Christmas now they do not want to annoy, fundamentalist Islamic People. The Moslems give communism a good run for its money in the totally awful department. 3. The Declaration: Did you know that some school won't allow the Declaration of Independence to be taught? Any such school should be immediately labeled as a Ministry of Propaganda and have any scholastic certifications removed. Totally agree!4. Ditto with the Bill of Rights. For example, the 2nd amendment does allow you and me the right to bear arms. Do not agree with your right to carry guns. When you check all your records your hotheads Kill a lot more people especially at Schools by guns. Here we are not counting the fundamentalist Islamic People. They do not have to have an excuse to kill. (Native being defined as they were here before we were.) The history tells or implies that the Indians were peaceful, nature loving beatniks. Harmless unless they are torching you or scalping you. Three months ago Australian (most of them) were led by the New prime minister to say sorry to the Aborigines; for our forbears killing them or trading a bottle of whisky for taking over the land.5. I am extremely sorry for the Atrocities that happened to the Jewish Nation, during World War two. I was 6 years old when it began to happen with Hitler. I can not understand these spin Doctors asking me to apologize for Hitler’s behavior. In Australia, what ever happened 200 years ago should not have the rest of Australia now saying “I am sorry.”6. Civil War: The civil war wasn't about slavery. I have to agree with you.7. Marxism: Much of US history is taught by self-admitted Marxists. Given the mind-disease of Marxism it's no wonder that these people will give a highly skewed US is BAD, all else is good viewpoint. I do not know enough about the subject. 8. Constitution: Very little is taught about how the US constitution came to be I know very little of this subject.9. States Rights: This government was intended to give most of the power to the states, not to have an overwhelming federal power. 10. We went down that road and now the new federal Government is endeavouring to take it back Most teachers these days, especially in college, are very much in favor of big government, socialism, Most are strongly anti-capitalist, anti-religion, know nothing of economics, and are staunch left-wing democrats. Your word Socialism is known in Australia as the Australia Labour Government. Same thing different spin doctors. Funny most of the people are very rich. You could say good for the Goose not for the Gander.What I want in a History book are facts and discussion that puts the facts in perspective. I would have to believe that probably 85% of the Western idea of Government wants exactly what you and I want. Power is corrupted and Ultimate power is totally corrupt.So what do you have to say about all this? Those are my thoughts on your hubThank you.Incidentally one of your hubber’s stated that the bible has a history of only 2000 years. This comment is totally wrong. The Bible actually states that God made the World in six days and rested on the 7th day. Probably if we accepted that comment litteraly the World was created last Friday. I wonder where I was for the last almost 74 years.
Another factor the Dinosaurs became extinct 60,000,000,000 years ago. Thos same animals ruled the Earth for 160,000,000,000 Years.
Incidentlly You have wriiten a very sound hub and by the nmuber of flies you have drawn, it has the looks of being a 100.
I do agree with Chef Jeff, I belive Son 3 would endorse 99% of Chef Jeff sayings
Great hub, I have beccome a fan
Hey MrMarmalade, thanks for joining in.
About the guns, I'm not going to go there except to say I disagree with you 100% and no, I don't own any guns. Probably someone will request a hub on that issue at some point and I'll respond, or not, at that point.
Good point about the dinos.
Chef Jeff, that is the best response I've have heard yet, and you sound like an excellent teacher. Where were you when I was in school? Wow!
Mr.Marmalade, call me dense, but I'm not following your comments regarding God creating the world in 6 days, etc. A joke, perhaps? Anyway, the 2000 years -or so- is the typical number I hear from "born agains" and the religious.
I think the scriptures say that a day for us is 1000 years to the Lord. So, that makes it 6000 years, if my math is correct? LOL Resting for 1000 years afterwards and that is definitely my kind of rest!! =)
Gems, you made me grateful for my parents. They taught me most of the concepts you pointed out and school did the rest. It's different now, but I don't believe I was taught lies, as most of my reading from then and to now has confirmed what I was taught at home and school. (in the 50' 60's) Now that is not to say I've read all books about history, but you cannot be an adult today and listen to the world and not pick up bits of truth, which is subjective sometimes.
MrMarmalade, great comments,
Chef, here's what I remember being told about Evolution; 1. God could do it any way he wanted. 2. If man once came from Apes, why isn't he still coming from apes. (though I've known a few people who might fit that category so this one could be that man IS still coming from apes...) 3. Evolution occurs within a species, not across species.
I don't know, but I'm just thinking...
And, 4. If we were created in the adult form for reproduction purposes as some Christian attest to (and I believe) that would mean the Chicken came first, then the egg.
But, what do I know?
Lastly, Christians don't require science to prove the existence of God as it is built on faith which is built on things believed but not seen.
For those wanting only to rely on science, which I'm not saying is a bad thing; they want the facts. I definitely think all people would have to say that things evolve. (advance, go forward, change.) Seems to be natural.
Marisue, oh ok. I'd never heard that day as 1000 years thing. And you hit the nail perfectly regarding evolution. Man IS still coming from apes. The evidence is everywhere: ever seen The Jerry Springer Show? Joking... sort of. But, seriously I honestly see evidence of evolution in Man going on all around us, both "still brewing" and at a higher state. We cannot see it ourselves because we are in the middle of it. If you were to watch us from the outside looking in as, say, aliens (a subject for another hub) it would be more clear.
If you were to look at the time line of the evolution of just this planet in say, terms of hours, you'd see that Man's presence here equals just a few seconds. As smart as we like to think of ourselves, we are very much "still brewing."
Hey guys, I love the comments this hub is getting. :)
Hi Marisuewrites!
Evolution - That things evolve is pretty easily proven and I think it can be accepted as fact, though some philosophies will say it's simply the hand of God making the constant changes. Islamic philosophy, for one.
6 days - Ya know... even though one day to God may be a 1000 years those 6 days happened a looooong time ago.
Ponder this - Religion and science are not incomptable. You just make God bigger. A lot bigger. God was wondering the field of infinite possibility, poked a spot that was ready, and the universe was createwd in all it's Big Bang glory.
All of the laws of physics came along with it, otherwise there is no universe. Evolution is simply one aspect of God's machine. We did evolve from "lesser" beings because that's God's will. The evolutionary mechanism is built into the machine.
Since God is frequently defined as infinite, as opposed to some fellow sitting on a cloud, the above is perfectly within the realm of possibility. Science is simple the method we follow to understand God's machine. Therefore evolution, genetics, black holes, etc. are all real and are all part of that machine.
Science, of course, must ask "What is God, then?"
And the machine can be understood. It's gonna take awhile, but as Constant says, we're still evolving.
Marisuewrites - "...but you cannot be an adult today and listen to the world and not pick up bits of truth, which is subjective sometimes..."
I think you're right on here. People need to read the alternative and contrarian views, not just the pablum fed to us these days. People also need to put that learning is context and get some perspective on it. History by soundbite is a pretty sorry history.
I actually think a lot of Christians believe the earth to be between 6000-8000 years old. You may be thinking 2000 years because that would be from the bc/ad mark in history until now. But obviously the Bible goes back farther than that. I've enjoyed reading this Hub and all the comments, although I don't agree with most of them. And don't get me started on guns.
Gems, that's new twist: "Science as created by God." I guess it's better than the two constantly being at odds. I'm not buying for a second, you understand, but at least it's interesting.
Actually, I'm with Gems on God and science :) To the letter - with one exception though - I believe the machine cannot be fully understood. Cause it's eternity, and to fully understand the eternity one needs to spend the eternity :)
Hey Constant,
I've participated in too many discussions where both sides butt heads. Let's face it, there will never be any agreement, so I came up with an idea that let's both systems exist in the same universe. I think that's a good thing.
Misha, you may be right about that. The universe is billions of light years in size. We're not likely to ever experience 1st hand what's way out there, but isn't it an awesome thing to contemplate?
Duanksta, glad youi chimed in. We'll leave the gun thing to another hub. In fact, why don't you write it up?
Gems. I do believe you just made my point. It's is a good idea, in which both can co-exist, but as you said yourself, YOU came up with it. Just as another "YOU" came up with the whole religion idea in the first place, thousands of years ago. It was a good idea, at the time, and mankind certainly needed something. It's just gotten so out of hand, and twisted and manipulated in the wrong hands.
And you're right that we'll never agree, but I enjoy the intelligent debate.
One last thought: I'm appalled at the atrocities commited by Man in the name of God and religion throughout history. Atrocities that continue to this day. All because an enlightned, forward-thinking hippy tried to spread a message of hope and tolerance.
If there is a Jesus Christ he must live in heart-broken anguish over what his message has brought about. How can a People take something so beautiful as Peace, Love and Understanding and twist it into something so ugly, bloody and violent? I just don't understand.
Great point Constant Walker about Jesus living in heart-broken anguish over what his message has brought about. I couldn't agree more.
Thank you.
Well, Jesus understood the human condition and his message has brought some beautiful things. Somehow I think He would understand at a depth that none of us can understand, in much the same way as Misha's comments about eternity being beyond our understanding.
Constant, You're right about the teachings, but remember than Jesus wasn't a pacifist and didn't insist on his followers being pacifists (according to the Christians I've asked.) Yes, the message has been abused and frequently s*** upon.
One of the lies that this hub is about is that the good things brought about by Christianity, and there are many, are so rarely mentioned.Also, since we're talking about context and perspective - consider that the secular alternatives to Christian courts and governments have typically been *worse.* Secular courts have been less tolerant and more sadistic and brutal than Christian ones. Think the indquisition was awful? Look at the secular couirts of the time.
Some of Christianity's harshest critics are communists and the record of communism is one that bin Ladin can only envy.Awful as the crusades may have been, they were in response the the burning, looting, raping, and pillaging by the Islamic forces of the time. By the way, buring, looting, pillaging, and raping has been standard operating war procedure for thousands of years. Outside of western Christianized democracies, *it still is*. But those facts are rarely mentioned along with the awfullness of the Christians. More perspective. When I was young I read every news magazine and newspaper I could get my hands on. I registered as a Democrat, because my belief was that Republicans were all bad. Or worse. Gee, I wonder how I got that impression. Couldn't be because of the subtle lies of a biased media, could it? Naw... (No, I'm not a Republican.)My point is that the history of Christianity is usually told the same way. All the awfullness is on display and, for some reason, the good stuff is just never mentioned. Then you take a look at how Islam is treated in the schools and wonder, How does THAT work??? Think there's some subtle lying going on there?
My argument is that Christian influence on western culture has, in large part, been a good thing. Do people always live up to the ideals. Heh. Not quite. Are the ideals worthy? Of course.
The lies of history aren't necessarily blatent lies, they're worse. They're insidious. They lack context and perspective. People have no understanding of the world of those times and nothing to compare A to B with. Chef Jeff made some great remarks and sounds liuke a great teacher, since he includes politically incorrect materials in his teachings. By the way, if you're wondering, you can discover my religious leanings in a previous comment on this hub. So I try to remember to add some deeper perspective to my learnings.
We live in an imperfect world, and we ourselves are imperfect. The danger lies in thinking that one is perfect or has a better knowledge of what is good for others. Do we, for example, really believe that we will create a U.S. style Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan? If so, why do we believe this?
I mention this because it seems that is our intent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I do believe that what makes our nation the way it is can only be explained by a unique set of circumstances that maybe do not exist in that area. Our intentions may be noble, but our effort, I fear, will produce only more anger and hatred toward us.
Over the weekend I attended a graduation ceremony for a small group of homeschooled students. Our friends’ daughter was “graduating”, although she is already in college. I marvel that at 16 she already had the basic knowledge to graduate and by 18 had half her college completed, but for some families, homeschooling does work better than for others.
However, during one of the speeches it was mentioned that U.S. schools are a terrible place to educate people, and that our system of education is all wrong. Parents were told that homeschooling is the only alternative to a Godless attack by “the schools” against society. It was said that if only we “brought Jesus back into the schools,” things would be OK. I respectfully disagree.
Many people cringe at the idea that America is a very diverse nation. They immediately think, “Oh yeah, there are Christians, and then all those foreigners with strange beliefs”. But I humbly believe that there are as many divisions between Christians as there are differences between Christianity and other religions. There is no one, monolithic Christian group which would dare speak for all Christians of all denominations and doctrines.
Also, when a national policy seems tied very closely to a religious belief or set of doctrines, people of other beliefs tend to step back in fear. Just think of it this way: People who are more fundamentalist Christians decry the lack of religious teaching in public schools, and tell us that a lack of Jesus in school is the reason our society is in such pain. To me, that sounds like Islamic Fundamentalism, applied to our nation. In some Islamic nations, only Islam can be taught.
Yet, many Americans would tell me that in American schools, only Christianity should be taught. I ask them, which brand of Christianity should we teach? Catholicism? Methodist doctrines & beliefs? Southern Baptist ideas? Mormonism? Greek Orthodox? What doctrines & beliefs should we follow? There is no one monolithic, over-all acceptable to every Christian belief system that could be taught. Protestants would object too many aspects of Catholicism, just as Baptists and Lutherans would not see eye-to-eye on which versions and interpretations should be taught.
Which Bible should the schools follow? King James? Modern Standard? I think that to expect the public schools to start putting Jesus back in the classroom is a simplistic idea that somehow returning to the past would make things OK. You see, I remember the past, I lived in it, and I frankly do not remember any time when putting religious doctrines in the classroom was a popular thing.
Also, the idea that somehow we were once a Christian nation strikes me as odd. Yes, there were Christians in America, and some of them were good-hearted souls, but there were also many people who only paid lip-service to Christianity. Mafia families were Catholic. KKK families were Christians who went to church. People who hated other ethnic and racial groups were all good Christians, if one goes by church attendence alone, and not by whether or not one is actually following Jesus' teaching. But were they really “Christian”? Maybe in name only, but I think you get the idea.
To blame everything on communism without understanding that people can see through hypocrisy is a bit naïve, in my opinion. There are many reasons for things that happen in history, many causes that lead to many effects. We all like simplistic explanations, but even those can be lies. The truth is, no history is 100% accurate, nor can it be, simply because the truth is so complicated that if one were to try to explain it all, it would be impossible to teach in school. No, I think we agree on certain “truths” to be self-evident, and the categories we tend to follow as self-evident change from one generation to the next.
Hi Chef Jeff,
Well said. I agree completely with your points about the many flavors of Christianity, and the interesting characters who call themselves Christians. Of course the teaching of that group of religions have been highly abused many times. I just don't believe that the alternatives are necessarily an improvement.
My point was that endlessly criticizing that religion, of whichever flavor, and the people who are, were, or claim to be a part of it overlooks one heck of a lot of interesting data. Hence the lies of half truths.
There are several flavors of Communism, as well. Given how that system has played out in the real world I still argue that it's hypocritical for a communist to criticize religion. Not that hypocrisy has ever stopped anyone from cricizing anything.
Homeschooling - The reason a lot of people homeschool is that their local schools are pretty bad, which was one of our reasons to homeschool. The religious types are right in much of their view of the schools as being godless (fill in the blank.) I can see how that would be highly offensive to them. (In todays highly PC society how come no one gives a damn about *their* views? )
That said, the teachings of any particula religion should be kept to the churches or other places of religious instruction. Teaching *about* religion is a right and proper thing for the schools to do, but they should teach about it, not propogandize for or against it.
Middle east - you mean like the US style democracies we forced on Japan, Germany, etc? I argue that the people of Iraq *want* a democracy, very deeply, but with their own flavor. In fact, I think they want it more than many of us do. Many of them are even willing to die for it.
Can democrary (yes, I know this is a republic) in Iaq happen? Well, it *has* happened. Can it survive? I sure hope so, but I think Iraq needs our help and presence to have any hope of reachng that point, whether or not it's any particular flavor of democracy. And that's about all I want to say about Iraq, in this hub.
Your last paragraph is dead on. We do like simple answers and history is not a simple thing. Beyond the interpretation of "the facts" there is our own viewpoint coloring things. Marxists and Capitalists, for example, will have a very different view of history.
In our school in social studies we cover many aspects of religion, such as The Great Awakening, te revivals of the early 1800's, and religious views during the Civil War, and so forth. (I don't teach beyond 1872, so we don't get into modern views of religion and society.) Do we teach from the Bible? No, not scripture and verse, but we do discuss aspects of the Bible, as well as other religious books, as they pertain to the subject at hand.
For example, it would be foolish to teach about the many interesting topics around the world without mentioning, and even delving into, the religious differences that have some effect upon the events. Imagine teaching about, for example, the Ottoman Empire and never mentioning religion?
I have never run into any trouble talking with my students about religion, and believe me, we have at least a dozen religions represented in my classroom. Most are variations of Christianity, but others are not. But I feel uncomfortable talking about the specifics of religion because I know my version of Christianity is different than most of my students. I don't know that much about Catholic, Luthern, Baptist or Evangelical teachings, not to mention some of the other faiths my students' familes belive in.
But apart from this, we hold a "silent moment of reflection" at the start of every school day and some students silently pray. And religion plays a huge part in my teaching of history. I just don't press one view as better than any other. Privately, and outside of school, it is a different story. That is why I go to church - to express my religious views and celebrate my faith in God.
well Chef Jeff, I am certain that this method will catch up to you and it wont be nice. You may be very well nuetral and accurate, but....not everyone is like that.
Well Chef, I said it before, but it's worth saying again. You sound like a terrific teacher. If my kid had you for his history teacher (in the 7th grade) he'd probably have stayed in school, at least for awhile. Instead, they watched way too many Selena videos.
Hey Sandra, You may be right, but it sounds like Chef might just have the school backing his "deviant" teachings. ;) I think our local Jr. High (the one with the Selena video) would have shut him down.
I see I failed to mention that the silent moment of reflection is an Illinois state-mandated act. The principal has been in my classroom and has seen what I teach. It's all in the text book - we have entire chapters dedicated to how religion, mostly Christianity, shaped the nation. I'm not deviating from our normal curriculum, just amplifying upon it.
At times people tell me about how they believe schools treat Christianity badly in school, but I have yet to see it. Maybe other states are not as open as Illinois, but somehow I doubt that. The point is, we don't only teach about Christianity, we cover all religions and how they affected history. We don't push one belief over another, yet the kids are not indoctinated as some have suggested, to believe that religion is bad or evil, and that they should reject Christinaity, if that is their faith. In short, we are not anti-Christian, nor anti Jewish, Islam or Buddist or anything like that.
Now, if I were a science teacher, I would not teach Creationism, because I have yet to find any scientific merit in any of the ideas put forth. I do not deny that behind it all there is a creator, I just say that religion is not science and science is not religion.
I can not in good faith teach a curriculum that is based upon speculation and scant evidence. One day perhaps enough evidence will be gathered to make the Creationist point of view more scientific, but until then, I would leave that one out of the public school curriculum. I also believe that if I have faith in God then I do not need scientific proof to back that up. Does that make sense to anyone but me? Faith is faith, regardless of the circumstances, and faith means beliving in something even though what you see and hear tries to persuade you against having faith.
Chef,
The guys who have you as a teacher are lucky guys :)
I think that faith, in something, is important in accomplishing anything. If you're starting up a business, for example, or running a country, you'd better have some faith in where you're going and what you're doing, despite the nay-sayers, or you just won't get there.
As far as the schools go - I think that when you get to the coasts, SF Bay Area for example, you'll see some differences.
I unsderstand that many, or most, great scientists over the last several hundred years have believed in God and had solid faith of His existence. Few have been atheists. As you say, there's room for both.
Gem4Friends - I find I can believe in God, be a Christian and still lead a normal, productive life. I don’t have to apologize to anyone for my faith, and neither do I need to spend every waking hour showing it off to everyone I meet.
I find that if I live my life according to my best understanding of what Jesus wants me to do, and then my faith shines through like a beacon. That is how I live my life.
I also remain open to many ideas. I can easily believe in evolution, and this does not conflict with my belief that God oversaw everything. However, I do not mix science with my religious faith. I believe it cheapens how we love God to try and prove Him through science.
If God invented science and everything there is, then He will shine through without my having to beat the drum about Intelligent Design or Creationism.
BTW, I do not accept Creationism - I think it is not science. Those who want to make it science need to follow the rules of how to get new ideas accepted as scientific theory. Like Evolution, Creationism will never become a scientific law until it can be recreated - something we humans are not likely to ever accomplish.
Yet Creationism can not even be considered a Scientific Theory, for the simple reason that in order to become a Theory in science, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence must support the conclusions.
I often have to school people that a Theory in science is not the simple thing it is in everyday life. A Theory in science is just one step beneath a Law, and is placed there only because it can't be recreated or reproduced – it is in effect a place-holder for something which is undeniably true, but can’t be shown in an experiment.
I know many pundits cheapen the word Theory in science by equating it with, say, a theory about why Jack ate the cake. Not the same thing, just as the words god and God are not the same. The first is more generic; the second very specific.
Yes, I know I lead a crazy life of unexplainable dichotomy, but that is who I am!
Earier there were some remarks about the awfulness of Christianity over the centuries. I think that you and people like you are ample proof of the error of that meme.
You're absolutely right about what a theory is. I think this page provides a terrific explanation for the non-scientist: http://www.notjustatheory.com/ I bookmarked that page on my Del.icio.us for easy finding. :) That said, a theory isn't *the* answer, rather the best possible fit for the observed data at the present time. There's room for a better theory, but as you say, it has to pass some pretty serious requirements to be accepted as one.
If God DID create the universe then it seems obvious, to me, anyway, that He created in insuch a way that we can analyze it and figure it out. Maybe that's the riddle, to understand God by discovering how God's machine works.
Or maybe I'm just babbling away inanely. :)
I think this is not babbling, but pretty viable hypothesis. :)
Every discussion ends up becoming a debate about God. Why???
Because god gives people a great excuse to ignore reality. Everything is "the will of god."
Because when god is on your side you never have to prove anything. All you need is faith.
That's just 2. Could probably write a book.
Gems4friends - science can not and will never be able to prove or disprove whether or not God created everything that exists. Science is not even looking for such a quest. While some may pronounce Christianity "evil", that is a matter of history and personal opinion.
Yes, there have been bad things done in the name of God and Christ. I believe that anything good can be corrupted by bad people. ColdWar Baby has certainly shown how men of seeming good will can mismanage and destroy things around them, whether intentionally or not. Others have pointed out how men of faith have entered into politics and have messed things up. King Henry VIII did not start out to found a new faith, but his greed and ego certainly did that. He became both Church and State, and we see the results of that fiasco.
Other religions also have their evil and cruel proponents, people who are bad and who try to fool the good. That unfortunately is the nature of evil, to corrupt the good. Whether evil is a personage (Satan) or a trait inherent in us all, I can't say, and science will never prove or disprove, just as religion can't prove or disprove evolution and natural selection.
I believe God exists, and I am a Christian, even if I disagree with much of mainstream Christianity and people who represent it. Along that line I think I am finally getting to know who is "real" and who is just dragging me along for the ride.
As for science - and as for government - I do not want either to dictate what my religious or faith-based beliefs, ideas or knowledge should be. I keep the two very separate, because I fear just a tad-bit more what government will do to my faith than I do to what my faith may do my government, although the latter also makes me afraid.
You see, I have seen what direct involvement in government does to any person of faith, and it's an ugly experience. That is why I fiercely fight for separation of Church and State - not so much as to keep Church out of my State, as to keep State out of my Church.
Does that make sense?
it does to me Chef. good comments, as always I learn from you. Marisue
I may disagree to some parts, but it definitely makes sense :)
The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow Americans to form a militia, a standing army made of the people of a town or group of towns, to protect themselves from the soldiers who forced themselves on homes and families. It was pretty clear on this point, the second amendment was not some willy nilly free license to pack heat.
Agreed on slavery, but I'm not sure who's under a different impression. As for secular governments, here's a great example: the United States of America. The US is *not* a theocracy (much to more than a few people's chagrin) and it owes a lot of its success to the separation between state and church. Let's not forget that.
Hey Chef, Good points, as always. While science in general is apart from religion there are certainly people who will try to use is findings to "disprove" God. Also for all the evil people who have abused religion (or any other system) there are others who have risen above their circumstances and become good people. No, government shouldn't dictate religion any more than religion should run the government. That said, the people who put together the laws of this country were religious people and religion is where they got much of their inspiration. That, and being good students of history. At the time they also thought that Government should be minimal and that the people should be responsible for their own affairs. Quite the reverse of modern times. I expect they'd be quite appalled by our Nanny Statists.As for the 2nd,, actually, at the time the MIlitia WAS the army, so it wasn't just to defend from soldiers entering homes. The section about the Militias is the justification for the law, which makes it legal for you, me, and him to bear arms.Which leaves you two choices 1) viloate the constitution and ban guns, but since congress has no qualms about violating the constitution I guess that isn't such an issue; or 2) amend the constitution to negate the 2nd. Yes, it IS a license to pack heat, but that doesn't mean that society can't demand some responsibility to be wrapped around that. Like driving a car. It also doesn't mean that you can keep machine guns or missile launchers in your garage, since the writers had no concept of such things. Theocracy? No, the US isn't, despite what some Wags say about Bush & Co. Never has been, probably never will be, unless something like Islam has its way. While we do owe much to the separation of Church and State we also owe a fair amount to religious beliefs on morality as well as to certain precedents from European/English history. Darn good discussions here. Thanks all for making this a killer hub. :)
J D Murrah 4 years ago
Gems4friends,
Your hub did an excellent job of addressing the question. I enjoyed it and am encouraged that there are some breaths of fresh air about.
J D Murrah