What is going on in the world and France!
Discussion
NicD said:
So they already had troops on the street. Things certainly are escalating there.
Indeed: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4978/france-isla...Time to relocate le Mans?
JustAnotherLogin said:
Perspective:
It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
What about the 10000's of people ISIS and Taliban have killed ( in rather nasty ways ) , don't those poor sod's count.It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
JustAnotherLogin said:
fblm said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Perspective:
It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
You can't add 'perspective' with completely made up numbers. There are closer to half that number of Muslims and ISIS alone have murdered ten times that number of Iraqi civilians and god knows the terror they have visited on those they haven't killed.It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terro...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Wikipedia I know, but by all means show evidence to support your case that makes a material difference.
I believe the ISIS vs Iraq may count as war rather than terrorist attacks (if one includes the number killed by US citizens in war that will also of course go up substantially).
Dererk Smith. I do tend to agree with the proposal for balanced RS teaching about all of them. Though for true balance one would need to cover the even worse atrocities committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot) for example. Then perhaps children could learn the dangers of being fanatical about any human organisation - whether it be religious groups, political parties or even football clubs. All such fanaticism seems to end in violence
Point Of Order! You can't teach Atheism in Religious Studies.KareemK said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
fblm said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Perspective:
It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
You can't add 'perspective' with completely made up numbers. There are closer to half that number of Muslims and ISIS alone have murdered ten times that number of Iraqi civilians and god knows the terror they have visited on those they haven't killed.It is estimated that there are 2.3 billion muslims in the world. Muslim terrorist attacks in 2014 (a bad year) have
killed 871 people (as of a few days ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terro...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
Wikipedia I know, but by all means show evidence to support your case that makes a material difference.
I believe the ISIS vs Iraq may count as war rather than terrorist attacks (if one includes the number killed by US citizens in war that will also of course go up substantially).
Dererk Smith. I do tend to agree with the proposal for balanced RS teaching about all of them. Though for true balance one would need to cover the even worse atrocities committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot) for example. Then perhaps children could learn the dangers of being fanatical about any human organisation - whether it be religious groups, political parties or even football clubs. All such fanaticism seems to end in violence
Point Of Order! You can't teach Atheism in Religious Studies.For instance, in my lifetime homosexuals have gone from being hated to loved, although their actions can be condemned but not them. Further Libby Lane would only have been able to display and arrange flowers in her local church rather than being the boss of its vicar.
Mormons have discovered that their god doesn’t want people to marry lots of women.
So secularism is a vital aspect of religious studies.
As is politics of course.
As for atheists doing nasty things: it’s an old argument. The old response is that in history, the evils of political parties is covered. However, in religious studies, the evil is largely overlooked. You have to search for things such as the treatment of women over the centuries. The other argument is that atheism doesn’t teach people to massacre others, whereas many religions do. Stalin didn’t murder all those people because of his atheist beliefs or because of what was written in some ancient tome.
One instance is the crusades. I always thought that I had a good appreciation of European history. I used to read lots of books when I was a kid. Then when I started work as a police officer I used to be on PSUs for a lot of demonstrations, more than two every month, so I used to take books to read. It was a running joke that I’d read history books.
But it wasn’t until my middle 50s that I discovered that one crusade was organised to slaughter the eastern catholics. If you remember, the catholic church was split into east and west before the days of the internet and the western one, run by the pope in the vatican currently, didn’t appreciate a rival so sent an army out to kill everyone. The eastern catholics took shelter in a church - believing that they would be safe there, but a bad choice, that’s what belief does for you - and the western catholics waded in, literally as one brave knight on a horse spoke of the bodies being up to his horse’s guts, and killed the lot of them.
This is not taught in schools and I only discovered it when reading a rather poorly written thesis for a masters.
Further, I was taught that Henry VIII was a protestant. He wasn’t. He was a catholic. Our current queen gets her title of defender of the faith from him, and the faith is catholicism. Yet we still get arguments about nasty Henry ignoring the pope when the truth is somewhat different.
Let’s study religions. Let’s see it warts and all. Everyone knows that Stalin wasn’t the nicest bloke around and killed the occasional bloke, but the same thing went on in the catholic church year after year after year. In total percentages, I doubt there’s much difference.
Must be getting serious if they are deploying troops:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
The majority of history taught at school is twisted Derek.I used to like reading about history and it all depends who writes the books and done the research how it comes out.The goodies and the baddies nonsense, history has never been black or white.
Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
Foppo said:
The majority of history taught at school is twisted Derek.I used to like reading about history and it all depends who writes the books and done the research how it comes out.The goodies and the baddies nonsense, history has never been black or white.
Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
OK but by that logic this "higher power" also created everything (allegedly) so it created the mossie. That little bReligion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
d has killed more humans than all the wars put together! Still the higher beings fault?Grumfutock said:
Must be getting serious if they are deploying troops:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
That's nothing new, when I was in Paris 5 years ago there were troops patrolling the streets around the major tourist attractions then. Admittedly sounds like they are beefing it up though.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
Foppo said:
The majority of history taught at school is twisted Derek.I used to like reading about history and it all depends who writes the books and done the research how it comes out.The goodies and the baddies nonsense, history has never been black or white.
Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
I couldn't agree more about history being warped, at least in any conclusions. I think there are few 'baddies' as such, although Stalin must get a few votes. Last year there were reviews in the Spectator of five or six books on one aspect of the war, the majority by well respected academics, yet they all came to different conclusions. Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
I mentioned in another thread that my history teacher told us in his first lesson that everything he was going to tell us was wrong. The reason he knew this was because everything he'd been taught was wrong. Much of academic writing is about establishing a place in the hierarchy of colleges. I feel certain that these academics do not write in the expectation of anyone believing them, but in the hope that the reader will be overawed by the clever logic and the erudite language.
Mind you, that's what makes history so worth reading.
But if you read that a pope promised a short cut to heaven for those who invaded a church and slaughtered those sheltering there, then certain conclusions can be drawn.
Some vicar said on TV (can't remember who, or why I was listening to a vicar) that religious schools were a positive despite parents who were unbelievers making out to be christians and going to church to get their kids into the school. He said it didn't matter why they brought their kids to the school as it gave him a chance to 'convince' (read indoctrinate) the kids.
I went to a CoE school, and one where religion was a major motivator for the headmaster - a really obnoxious bully who caned anyone who came within range. It in no way indoctrinated me. As soon as I 'put away childish things', religion went as well. When I was a youth it was expected that religion would slowly disappear from everyone's life (as it has for most) and not be a factor (which was wrong). It is most disappointing that it has not and myth and magic is still believed in.
Oddly enough, I was talking about this with some friends recently, looking at a new personal satnav for walkers. The comment was that '50 years ago' such a thing would have been science fiction and viewed almost as magic. Now it is accepted with little thought. Mind you, the conclusion was that those people would not have believed that battery life would have been so short.
So we have wonders all around us. You'd think Hubble, both the man and the machine, would have convinced anyone of the glories of nature rather than silly miracles. Yet we have those who believe in homeopathy. Astrology. Religions. Who'd have thought that 50 years ago?
I'm willing, after a bit of tough balancing, to say that the first up against the wall should not be lawyers but the religionists. Shoot them on day one of the revolution. Then the lawyers in the afternoon. But isn't that what Stalin tried? There will still be those idiots who believe in a book made up by sheep farmers (no offence to shepherds) three thousand years ago and that lawyers don't do the best for lawyers, so what is the point?
I'm critical of academic historians because I know their motivation is not normally to benefit mankind, so the opinions of some bloke who sits staring at goats all day I think should be treated with care.
fiatpower said:
Grumfutock said:
Must be getting serious if they are deploying troops:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
That's nothing new, when I was in Paris 5 years ago there were troops patrolling the streets around the major tourist attractions then. Admittedly sounds like they are beefing it up though.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30586798
Keeps them busy, I suppose. I certainly did a double take when I first saw a load of camouflaged fully armed blokes in a deserted Lille station at midnight...
I meant Lyon was nice, not Marseilles! (although both cities have great food!)
Derek Smith said:
Foppo said:
The majority of history taught at school is twisted Derek.I used to like reading about history and it all depends who writes the books and done the research how it comes out.The goodies and the baddies nonsense, history has never been black or white.
Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
I couldn't agree more about history being warped, at least in any conclusions. Religion be it Christian or Muslim is man made so many people have been killed in the name of organised religion.If there is a higher power and maybe there is. I don't know he or she must be tearing there hair out.
I'm critical of academic historians because I know their motivation is not normally to benefit mankind, so the opinions of some bloke who sits staring at goats all day I think should be treated with care.
The majority of history taught at school is not twisted nor warped, it is however vastly simplified. And thats the stuff that is agreed - there is simply no other way it can be done. The aim of 11 - 14 history teaching is to put in place a framework, basic structural details. From 14 - 16 it should aim to provide either certain themes or period for more detail but int terms of providing deeper insight. From 16+ it should be to examine specific periods in much greater detail. History provides a massive massive scope for the study of different periods. Within this glorious scope there are varying degrees of agreement and depth of evidence.
There is very little standard history knowledge and/or study which is wilfully warped and twisted because in the vast majority of areas of "popular" study there is too much analysis and knowledge. Now, as this is an ant-religion splinter discussion lets take everyones favourite: the Christian schism.
Ferdinand & Isabella
Charles V
Phillip II
Erasmus
Martin Luthar
Dieting Worms
Calvin
Knox
Shock trooping Jesuits
etc etc etc
All much studied, worts and all. What exactly do people think is some hidden agenda in that teaching which is now very well known?
Now, if you had said you were sceptical of the likes of Linda Colley because she is dull as hell then Id have some sympathy for you! And no criticising Francis Fukyama doesn't count because everybody with half a brain asked what the hell he was smoking as soon as he came out with his End of History claptrap.
But basically the vast majority of academically taught history isn't twisted or warped, it is though catastrophically badly taught by horrendously dull people. History is the most exciting subject on the syllabus to study but is let down by tutors and methodologies who should be shot only shortly after you and Eric have been come the Revolution for crimes of criminal drivel.
Another mental case shouting Allahu ackbar destroys Christmas decorations in Le Mans . Tries to get police officers weapon.
Needs translating
http://www.lemainelibre.fr/actualite/le-mans-un-ho...
Needs translating
http://www.lemainelibre.fr/actualite/le-mans-un-ho...
DJRC said:
Oh for the love of Christ. What the hell kind of crap did you lot get taught at school?
I was taught such rubbish as to be critical, to not accept conclusions but to demand that accepted wisdom should be proved. I was told to challenge everything.I have a great deal of interest in the reform acts from 1832 and from what I've read, everything we see on TV is wrong. Quite dramatically so. But that doesn't stop it being presented as absolute truth.
It is rather sweet of people to read history and see that everything is politics and then assume this doesn't go for the historians.
I was taught, this going back to the early 60s, that the second world war was best viewed as an extension of the first. Yet all the books at the time disagreed. Now, of course, things are different. So were the historians crap then or now?
If you read the histories of the British civil wars of the 17thC, one of my favourite periods, you will find the suggestion that one of the sparks was Marxism. There is no agreement as to cause. Ech history favours the prejudices of the writer.
I think my history teacher was remarkable. He was excellent. His intention was to make his students work things out for themselves and not 'cut and paste'. This attitude didn't sit well with many other teachers who would assume that a question was a challenge to authority. My main subject of reading is history over the last 55 years has been history.
It wasn't until long after I left school that I realised that the best way of teaching students is to get them to teach themselves. It has gone on for the rest of my life.
I was lucky with my history teacher. I owe him a great deal.
B17NNS said:
Grumfutock said:
My worry exactly. This is the 2nd one in 2 days 
Third sadly.http://news.sky.com/story/1395402/police-shoot-dea...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff