Holocaust Dropped From Some UK Schools

dteichman2 writes "It appears that some UK schools are ignoring the Holocaust. A government-backed study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, found that some teachers are reluctant to teach history lessons on the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. Additionally, similar problems are being encountered with lessons on the Crusades because these lessons contradict teachings from local mosques."

Comments

Interesting

[Himring]

I have seen posts violently modded down on /. for evening mentioning the holocaust or holocaust denial. It is interesting that it is now a full story here. I always felt the global usership of /., and differing opinions, had something to do with it....

Re:Interesting

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

have seen posts violently modded down on /. for evening mentioning the holocaust or holocaust denial.

I think you're inferring emotion, based upon your own preconceptions. Moderation is a numerical system. Things are not "violently" moderated. They might be "quickly" or "repeatedy" moderated. Can you show me an example of a post that mentions the holocaust or holocaust denial and which was not either completely offtopic, or an emotional appeal instead of a logical argument?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of discussion of the holocaust. My grandfather did not like to talk about the war, but he made a point of telling all of us kids that the deniers were full of crap because he saw the furnaces full of bones and the camps. For the most part, however, the topic is not pertinent to subjects being discussed on Slashdot and an impartial audience probably should mod them down, regardless of nationality.

Re:Interesting

[fishdan]

It's all about being on topic. If you mention the holocaust in an article about laptop batteries catching fire, yes -- you'll be modded down. If you deny the holocaust in an article about the IPhone, you'll be modded down. THIS is finally the right thread for your comments.

Re:Interesting

[NewWorldDan]

Well, I don't recall my own high school history being terribly accurate on the subject. It was presented in the context that 6 million Jews were killed in concentration camps for no reason other than being jewish. There was never any mention that the Nazis also killed 9 million non-jews (including Poles, Russian POWs, Gypsies, other christian sects like Jehovas Witnesses, etc), or that half of those 6 million jews were killed for being Polish as much as any other reason. I'm no scholar on the subject, and this post isn't meant to shed light on anything except that the typical high school education dumbs the whole complicated mess down to 2 things: Concentration camps and 6 million dead Jews. Except that the vast majority of the dead weren't actually killed in concentration camps. Again, let me repeat my point: high school history takes a complex event and dumbs it down to a couple of multiple choice questions. I'm inclined to think that a more accurate and detailed history lesson would draw fewer objections. The above paragraph takes a couple of stats haphazardly lifted from Wikipedia and contains no serious scholarship. No flames please.

Re:Interesting

[Himring]

A belief that positive /. modding sticks to topical posts... quaint....

Re:Interesting

[manifoldronin]

It was presented in the context that 6 million Jews were killed in concentration camps for no reason other than being jewish. There was never any mention that the Nazis also killed 9 million non-jews (including Poles, Russian POWs, Gypsies, other christian sects like Jehovas Witnesses, etc), or that half of those 6 million jews were killed for being Polish as much as any other reason.

I'm not a scholar on the subject either, but I think you are missing the point. The Nazis killed a lot of other people (even more than the 6 million Jews as you mentioned), but most of those killings weren't made based on their races or whatever general category they happened to fall in. As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals. That, instead of the shear numbers of killings themselves or any comparison between them, is what I think fundamentally important as far as teaching the kids is concerned.

Re:Interesting

[PatrickThomson]

I have no sympathy for holocaust deniers. Let me quote a good man:

Almost all of the survivors, verbally or in their written memoirs, remember a dream which frequently recurred during the nights of imprisonment, varied in its detail but uniform in its substance: they had returned home, and with passion and relief were describing their past sufferings, addressing themselves to a loved person, and were not believed, indeed were not even listened to. In the most typical (and most cruel) form, they interlocutor turned and left in silence. [Primo Levi: The Drowned and the Saved]

And the diatribe issued by a member of the SS to camp inmates upon arrival:

However this war may end, we have won the war against you; none of you will be left to bear witness, but even if someone were to survive, the world would not believe him. There will perhaps be suspicions, discussions, research by historians, but there will be no certainties, because we will destroy the evidence together with you. And even if some proof should remain and some of you survive, people will say that the events you describe are too monstrous to be believed: they will say that they are the exaggerations of Allied propoganda and will believe us, who will deny everything, and not you. We will be the ones to dictate the history of the [camps] [Simon Wiesenthal: The murderers are amongst us]

The nazis had such an effective shredding campaign, we only know the death toll is between 4 and 8 million. Inmates themselves were responsible for furnace operation and ash disposal, teams being regularly disposed of to prevent information leaks. The retreat at the end of the war was accompanied by systematic recall/slaughter of prisoners, and was given more importance than millitary strategy. Holocaust sympathisers are making the holocaust perpetrators win from beyond the noose. And yes, you may invoke godwin's law.

Re:Interesting

[gustafsd]

I agree with you that high school teachings can be dumbing, and this is just another example. Instead of starting a discussion and arguing over this topic they just ignore it and make it worse. How are Muslims view of the Holocaust going to change if the only story they hear is the one they are told in the mosques? On a related topic (the article mentioned the crusades). Yes, the Muslims have a different view of the crusades than we have in the western world. The most unpleasant part is the tales of the cannibalistic habits of the invaders during the first to third crusade. It's unpleasant because it's probably true. (google cannibalism crusades for references) This part of our history is never or rarely told and when it's ever told it is always in the context of "they where so hungry". Lets just say the Muslims tell another story...

Re:Interesting

[Mattintosh]

Actually, Hitler was quoted as saying that he was going to exterminate Jehovah's Witnesses, too.

Oddly enough, JW's were the only group given the opportunity to sign a paper denouncing their faith and walk away. Very few of them did it.

Re:Interesting

[Chris Burke]

As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals.

Gypsies were also the target of systematic extermination.

Re:Interesting

[Skinny Rav]

As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals.

Others have already mentioned Jehova Witnesses and Gypsies.

Remember that also Poles were killed systematically. Not with the ultimate goal to destroy the whole nation, like it was with Jews, but in order to kill everyone educated, to create a nation of slaves for simplest jobs.

So true, being a Pole was not enough to be exterminated, but being a Polish professor, priest, doctor, teacher - was quite enough.

Incidentally, the same was enough to be killed by Soviets, or sent to Gulag.

Cheers

Raf

Re:Interesting

[Belial6]

Heck, I didn't even hear about the crusades in school. The only reason I even know that it existed was from non-school related sources. Does that make California schools 'crusade deniers'? I would say no. It probably has more to do with the fact that we are legally mandated to teach about the evils of the Nazi regime. If they have to choose due to time or resource contstraints, they are legally mandated to teach about WWII. One of the problems I always had though was that what is taught was very poor on the facts and high on the propaganda. This always struck me as a mob feeding frenzy, as you don't really need to make things up to vilify the Nazi party. They succeeded in that by the things they actually did.

Re:Interesting

[Crazy Taco]

You are correct that cannibalism did happen, but it was only in a single conquered city during the first crusade. It was not an ongoing thing, and many of the crusaders (including those who chronicled it) were even ashamed of their actions later. If you want a very thorough, unbiased view of the Crusades, watch the History Channel program "The Crescent and the Cross." Their research shows that almost every leader on all sides was pretty cruel and barbaric (by today's terms) because, in their words, "you had to be during that time period." All of those rulers, whether they were Richard the Lionhearted on the Western side (exterminating all the captured Muslims after ransom talks broke down) or Saladin (suspected of repeatedly murdering rivals/superiors to gain power) were quite brutal, and I think that made it fairly easy for the History Channel to avoid taking sides in their program.

Re:Interesting

[jedidiah]

Geez, it's funny to hear you guys rant about this and not even bother to mention Lebensraum.

It was referenced in a STAR TREK MOVIE for crying out loud.

Re:Interesting

[orclevegam]

And yes, you may invoke godwin's law.

Ok, first, by stating this, you automatically invoke Quirk's Exception to Godwin's law and thus Godwin's law doesn't apply. Secondly, since at least part of the topic has to do with holocaust referring to the holocaust does not invoke Godwin's law. And finally, you are not drawing a comparison between something else and either the Natzis or Hitler which is what Godwin's law refers to, rather your citing relevant quotations so this also exempts you from Godwin's law.

I think maybe we need a new law that applies to people invoking laws in incorrect situations.

Re:Interesting

[Russ Nelson]

No, Godwin's Law only applies to comparisons to Nazis, not to talk about the Nazis themselves.

Re:Interesting

[Rachel Lucid]

Orclevgam's Corrolary to Godwin's Law doesn't roll off the tongue right.

Re:Interesting

[PatrickThomson]

Well, I was calling holocaust deniers nazi collaborators when I didn't have to, that's kinda the same thing.

Re:Interesting

[orclevegam]

Orclevgam's Corrolary to Godwin's Law doesn't roll off the tongue right. You can just shorten it to Orclev's Corollary. I normally use Orclev as my screen name, and actually have a /. account with that name, but I forgot the password, and the e-mail is set to a now defunct domain name on a server I quit using long long ago. So, on a related note, anyone know how to reclaim a old slashdot account when you don't have the e-mail anymore?

Re:Interesting

[lahvak]

Romanies, also known as Gypsies, were also subject to a systematic extermination, very similar to the holocaust of Jews.

Re:Interesting

[happyemoticon]

I know I'm making a mistake attempting to have a rational discussion of this on the internet, but here goes.

The most prominent primary target of the Nazi's killing spree was indeed the Jewish people, and their story of systematic, legitimized oppression, and how the general German populace went along with it by degrees is the most harrowing. It teaches us that when you start institutionally marginalizing a people or class of persons, even if only slightly at first, you go down a road which may lead to something truly horrific.

That having been said, the current state of holocaust education effectively denies the deaths of the millions of non-Jews by focusing exclusively on the deaths of the Jews. It invalidates their suffering. You yourself implicitly said it was unimportant. And thus, people grow up thinking that genocide is some kind of rare thing which confines itself to one people at a time, and not only is this not correct, but the message is injured. Think I'm wrong? Ask an average American high school kid about Darfur, or the Armenians, or the purges in the Soviet Union, or Cambodia.

I would rather teach kids that if they start letting intolerance into their hearts, not only is it going to be the people of x super-vilified minority who go against the wall, it's going to be your little sister with a bum leg, your evangelical uncle, the sad beggars in downtown, those two boys holding hands, anyone who voices a dissident opinion, and everyone you know who's not white, brown, yellow, or whatever the uber-race is supposed to be.

Re:Interesting

[Lars T.]

Lebensraum? Is this something like "a Land Without People for a People Without Land"?

Re:Interesting

[Himring]

The retreat at the end of the war was accompanied by systematic recall/slaughter of prisoners, and was given more importance than millitary strategy.

Indeed. Some estimates calculate that one possible reason Germany lost the war in the east was due to none other than their "cleansing" campaign. It took away men and resources as well as solidified the populace in the east against them. Had they done the opposite, and behaved as the liberators from Russian oppression that there were first hailed as, the outcome could have been drastically different....

Re:Interesting

[manifoldronin]

That having been said, the current state of holocaust education effectively denies the deaths of the millions of non-Jews by focusing exclusively on the deaths of the Jews. It invalidates their suffering. You yourself implicitly said it was unimportant. And thus, people grow up thinking that genocide is some kind of rare thing which confines itself to one people at a time, and not only is this not correct, but the message is injured. Think I'm wrong? Ask an average American high school kid about Darfur, or the Armenians, or the purges in the Soviet Union, or Cambodia.

I understand your point, and, to some degree, agree with you in principle. But I also want to go on the record and say that I find your statement above (highlighted by me) insulting. I have never said, explicitly or implicitly, that the other deaths are unimportant. What I said was that it was not a FUNDAMENTALLY important thing to focus on comparing which race/group got killed more and competing for the "most suffering victim" award, which seems to be what a lot of people (including some of the Jewish people) are trying to do these days.

Re:Interesting

[PatrickThomson]

Ok, so he wasn't all bad then ;)

Before you mod me troll, see my regular attacks on holocaust deniers. I'm just saying, here and now in the UK in 2007, the f*ing gypsies steal everything.

Re:Interesting

[dave_boo]

I'm so sorry, but I'm really tired of people stating that Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam all have the same god. Just as the Jews selectively took ideas from other religions, the Christians did the same from them, and the Muslims from both of the predecessors. To continue to perpetuate the myth would be just as bad as saying that OSX and OpenBSD have the same kernel.

One of the major differences is the afterlife. Jews did not believe in it until they had wide exposure to Zoroastrianism. The Jewish sect that promoted Jesus as a spiritual messiah instead of the secular one promised selectively quoted texts from after Persian occupation to affirm their beliefs. The Muslims, who's founder was part of the clan who bought and cared for the idol "Hubal" in Mecca (interesting fact; homage was payed by circumambulation of the shrine in Mecca and shaving of one's hair before seeing the family) who was the moon god, had another name for their moon god "allah". So while it's convient to claim an association with a former religion to bolster the standing yours, it's not a good idea to claim to follow the formers when you so casually disregard the said former's rules.

Yes, genocide was commited by the Jews. However that was in 1400 BC, when such cleansings were the norm rather than the exception. The premeditated slaughter of Indians, Armenians by Muslims, and the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc by Christians has happened in much more recent times.

Also, the numbers involved in the genocide commited by the Jews (not that I'm sanctioning it) are no where the numbers commited by others who claim to share the same god. No numbers are actually known, but displacement was the prefered method, since fighting them to the death is a little counterproductive to starting a new nation in terms of keeping a viable population.

Re:Interesting

[uradu]

> Had they done the opposite, and behaved as the liberators from Russian oppression that
> there were first hailed as, the outcome could have been drastically different

Of course, but then there would have been some rational pragmatic basis to the entire campaign, and given that the entire war may very well not have taken place, since no rational person would take on the rest of the world and expect to win. The course of WWII was pretty much predicated on the irrational ideological fantasies of a few individuals, and cooperating with some eastern European sub-humans on an equal basis did not figure anywhere in those fantasies.

Re:Interesting

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

as well as socialists, communists & other political opponents.

Re:Interesting

[Himring]

Good points. I find ww2 an extremely fascinating period in history. The grand strategy sealed the deal. Whereas the germans had better tactical strategy -- how to win a specific battle -- they really lost it in the grand strategy. This is where roosevelt and churchill excelled. To me, the two pivotal moments in the war were: pearl harbor and barbarossa. Had japan not bombed pearl harbor, but poured all resources into assisting germany against russia, russia just *may* have capitulated. Or, if japan was going to bomb pearl harbor, had germany instead focused all resources in n. africa and then the oil-rich area of the middle east, things could have been different.

The best strategy, to me, for the axis would have been to forget about america and russia altogether and both go for india/the middle east, taking all holdings non-russian in asia (japan) and holdings, period, in n. africa, middle east (germany). Japan would stop at india and germany at the middle east. From there, they would have been well-poised to finish off russia together.

Ok /digress

Re:Interesting

[skiflyer]

And the gypsies, and the mentally ill, and I'm sure I'm missing one or two. I think what's important to teach is the whole story, and the facts behind it. The holocaust was awful, and is was awful for a lot of different groups including but not limited to the jews.

Re:Interesting

[NewWorldDan]

The Brits also teach the War of American Secession from a rather different perspective than we teach the American Revolution. When I lived in Virgina, I sometimes heard the Civil War referred to as The War of Northern Agression. I suppose there will always be a bit of a cultural bias in history lessons.

Re:Interesting

[thaig]

No, A.H. only got to power by taking tremendous risks and winning. He was an opportunist and to expect him to stop gambling is unreasonable - if he was the kind of person who stopped he might never have got anywhere.

He and N Bonaparte were inevitably bound to bring their countries to destruction eventually. The best thing that could have happened for the Axis would have been for the bomb to have killed him. They could have had a chance to do some kind of advantageous deal then.

Re:Interesting

[Himring]

I believe both hitler and bonaparte attacked russia in the same month and on the same day.... I think I heard this.... Someone google plz....

Re:Interesting

[binary paladin]

I'd mod you up if I had it.

I find the general teaching of the holocaust to be bullshit. Not because I don't think it happened, but because of the emphasis on Jews to the point it forgets all the other groups that were targeted. Communists, for example, were specifically targeted.

I also find the emphasis on the holocaust to be very racist in the sense that we talk about it as if nothing worse has EVER happened and that Hitler was the ultimate monster. Don't get me wrong, he was evil and he's responsible for the death of millions. But in the same century, you have Mao Zedong cleansing China which makes Hitler's death count look amateur. Of course, here in the west, we don't much give a shit because they're "just the Chinese." Darfur doesn't count because it's "just a bunch of Africans." Cambodia doesn't count because it's Cambodians. Etc. I mean, we hardly talk about atrocities of Japan toward the Chinese during their occupation of China during that era. Why?

The emphasis on Hitler specifically, when we have so many genocidal lunatics to choose from in this century, is in itself racist. Not only does the teaching generally ignore the other people Hitler butchered, but it also ignores the fact that genocidal maniacs are apparently not a once in a lifetime occurrence and people don't ask the most important question: How the hell do these psychos rise to power SO often? How do people who are clearly evil and insane gain so many followers?

Frankly, I find we have an overemphasis on WWII in general. I guess we love it so much in America because it's been so long since we'd done anything heroic that we have to keep looking back at it. (And then pat ourselves on the back for exercising "restraint" when developing nuclear weapons. Yep... melting thousands of civilians is something to be proud of.)

And one more thing, go back far enough in someone's ethnic history and you'll find that pretty much all of us were victims of terrible crimes by others at some point. If you were personally a victim, you're not some kind of fucking martyr. Get over it.

Re:Interesting

[Chris Burke]

The majority of victims were political opponents, and anyone fitting that description risked death. The distinction is just that Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies were being eliminated not just because they were considered enemies of Nazi Germany, but because they were seen as a class of sub-human people. It doesn't make any of the other murders any less evil, they just weren't part of the ethnic cleansing plan that Nazism is so famous for.

Re:Interesting

[uradu]

Well, even as a German myself, I'm glad none of the alternatives happened, because given the inherent instability and self-destructiveness of the regime any alternatives would eventually still have resulted in the Nazi demise and would have merely extended everyone's suffering that much longer. I know, what a boring thing to say from a war buff's point of view, but hey ;-)

Re:Interesting

[uradu]

Well, two different motivators for the same behavior--ideology vs. gambling. I'm not sure he or his cronies ever fully considered the risks of any particular action to the country as a whole, or even to their own persons. During his final days he got angry at Germany and its people for letting him down and never really giving him a chance to fulfill his grand vision, so I'm having a hard time seeing how risk aversion fits into this kind of sick thinking at all.

Re:Interesting

[Omestes]

I'm not going to get into this argument, but you are blatantly wrong on one point: Sartre was not a Jew. And Sartre was NOT living a normal public life, in fact he was part of the Resistance (in the form of a writer and journalist), meaning he very much was in hiding from the Nazis.

I'll see your anecdotal evidence, and raise you my own: my grandfather was among the first American troops to liberate Auschwitz, and saw what happened there first hand. Granted he was reluctant to speak of it, but so would most people.

Re:Interesting

[happyemoticon]

I misread that, then, and thank you for clarifying your point. I do wish you would've just said, "You're completely wrong," though, rather than letting it devolve into emotions, because that will increase the amount of time we have before we just start throwing mud at each other. I try have a pretty thick skin when I get into these discussions.

And as a aside, I comprehend the reason there's such a pressure to focus on the Jewish portion of the holocaust - anything else is seen as treading down the slippery slope towards allowing it to happen again, or giving traction to deniers.

By providing incomplete information, you lose the trust of your audience and, in fact, give way to deniers anyway. Some ovine people are going to start saying, "Well, they never talked about group y in detail. I wonder what else they're not talking about?" Also, by focusing exclusively on one group, you elide the fact that they were after everyone who didn't fit their ideal, and anyone who was politically inconvenient as well.

And of course it's not about the body count (If we were to talk about body count, we'd be teaching about the wrongness of the whole war and the evil nature of imperialistic wars for power driven by fervent nationalism. But that's another gripe!). However, you cannot include content in a discussion without excluding all non-included content. And by teaching the holocaust in a way that only includes Jews and Homosexuals because they were the most characteristic example of the dynamic, you are implicitly excluding everybody else who was victimized. And when you exclude something from teaching, a lot of people forget about it entirely.

Even the characterization of Jews and Homosexuals (I'll forgive you for not including the Romani, because as you said you're not a scholar) as the only groups who were targeted because of what they were is dangerous, because many people consider their religion as inseparable and fundamental from their being as sexuality or ethnicity. Furthermore physical or mental disability might be considered a more undeniable, corporeal fact than someone's sexual orientation. People of all orientations flex their boundaries more often than my cousin goes for a jog. You might say that people with different abilities do not have a culture per se, but I'm sure many deaf and autistic people would disagree with that assertion. And if it falls into a gray area, I really think that it should be taught.

Re:Interesting

[thaig]

Hi,

I am sure that AH hated Jews but I also think that dictators need an internal enemy to blame for things. I think that ideology was the tool that he used to influence people but I think that the cornerstone of his belief was to to with how great he himself was. I don't think he really cared about Germans or Germany at all - he used them and when they "failed him" he was angry. I think he was a typical power-seeker but in charge of a very powerful country.

He took chances all throughout his career and could have failed any number of times before he came to power and after. What I am saying about this is that he just carried on doing ambitious things until eventually he had to fail. His own generals were alarmed at his plans for Russia and they saw the writing on the wall long before he did.

I think that there are quite a lot of potential AH's in the world but thank goodness they have either failed in their gambles and chances or they are in control of countries whose potential to damage the world is not so great.

Re:Interesting

[manifoldronin]

As I said earlier, I mostly agree with you on this point itself. I think our difference is that I don't think the situation is as bad as you are describing it. Simply put, I believe you are overestimating the capability of the public school system in this country. 8-) You keep repeating the word "exclusively" as if that is the only information kids are allowed to receive or will ever receive during their entire education. High school kids, if they are interested, are capable of researching and learning a lot of things outside their classrooms. And they also will have an abundance of chances to learn more about this when they enter the college. If all the high school kids had grown up carrying all and only all of what they were taught in high school classrooms, we would not have had the problem called Intelligent Design, would we? 8-)

Please keep in mind that what we are talking about is in the context of high school education, rather than the much more broader context of history research or publication. If historians started publishing exclusively books about the Holocaust only, yes, I would absolutely agree with you that that's a very bad thing. For high school kids, as long as their teacher don't tell them "the Jews were the only ones killed by the Nazis," I don't see much point of contending for the percentage of time given to teaching the suffering of each group, because, like I said before, the more important message to pass on doesn't have to do with numbers.

Well

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I guess if your "beliefs" include Holocaust denial, then you're excactly the person who needs a history lesson.

Re:Well

[LS1 Brains]

Amen, the Muslims can deny anything they want, it doesn't change the truth. Kinda like how they say they're peace loving, and not a barbaric people. Last I checked, peace loving people weren't strapping bombs to themselves, women, and children and sending them into areas populated with civilians. *Note: This is a stereotype. I understand not *EVERY* Muslim is part of the problem. However, stereotypes exist because a large portion of the target population exhibits a certain quality, character, or characteristic. In other words, "if the shoe fits..." If you're Muslim and upset by my comments, it's time to introspect and reflect on WHY you're upset.

Re:Well

[Nerdfest]

A recent study in the US showed that 80% of Muslims were opposed to using suicide bombing as a tactic to defend Islam. I was shocked about the remaining 20%.

Re:Well

[anagama]

Because everyone is too afraid of suicide bombers. The methods and philosophies of the dark ages are apparently working.

Re:Well

[TheMeuge]

I believe it was Bill Maher who said a couple of years ago:

"Let us not become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance".

I think this is that kind of a scenario. And, as always, complacency will only lead further into oblivion. If this is what is happening, then it really is time for the UK to wake up. Really, that time has already come and gone, but if they finally do realize what is happening, we can forget that they're late to the party, and embrace the fact that they showed up at all.

However, the hard question is what is there to be done about this. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to see a solution to this crisis. As the percentage of the people who espouse these beliefs rises within the UK population, they are going to feel increasingly empowered, both by the virtue of their numbers, as well as due to the apparent utter impotence of the British in the face of their assault.

Re:Well

[antifoidulus]

What exactly does "defending" Islam mean? It's the worlds fastest growing religion, last time I checked something like that didn't exactly need "defending". However, somehow Muslims think that a person not being Muslim is an attack on Islam somehow. They love to play the victiim(much like everyone else in the world, it's the worlds most popular acting role)

Re:Well

[MMC Monster]

Doesn't have to be a large majority. Just a vocal minority that causes the problems. There are a lot of peace-loving muslims around the world.

(FWIW, I am not a muslim.)

Re:Well

[evil_aar0n]

Yes, every Muslim _is_ part of the problem. If they're not doing anything to stop their fellow Muslims from doing things like this, or "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation, or... then they're part of the problem. Something about, "No man is an island."

Re:Well

[Mateo_LeFou]

This kind of thing comes from the misguided view that tolerance means all beliefs have close to the same value. That is simply not true. Tolerance means leaving people alone as long as their beliefs are not hurting others. It's an essentially libertarian principle.

Ignoring the scientifically-confirmable, historical reality of the holocaust hurts others. Lots of others. I don't think it's going too far to say that a pedagogical approach like this is *catastrophic to any society that implements it. You could end up with an entire generation that doesn't know where fascism tends, and what the real human cost of demagoguery is.

Re:Well

[91degrees]

Considering Muslims are becoming a persecuted minority, and are the main target for the far right at the moment, it would probably be in their interests to pay attention to this aspect of history.

Re:Well

[UbuntuDupe]

Well, I think what uspets people is that they don't hear condemnation of this kind of thing *from Muslims*. If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

Re:Well

[Lord Bitman]

Well, technically it doesn't actually hurt anyone, it's just stupid.

Re:Well

[AndersOSU]

I agree with you, but why limit yourself to Muslims? Maybe every inhabitant of the middle east _is_ part of the problem, maybe every member of a Abrahamic religion _is_ part of the problem, or maybe every human being on the face of the earth _is_ part of the problem. After all, _no_ man is an island.

Re:Well

[interstellar_donkey]

"Let us not become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance".

I think that's a perfect statement here. To me, this situation is unbelievable.

"The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'."

By that logic, schools in the US shouldn't teach about slavery, fearing a confrontation of an 'anti-black' sentiment among racist hicks.

I don't think any reasonable person could argue that the holocaust didn't happen. If there's a strong anti-Semitic view in the mosques of England, I suppose there's nothing we can do about that. But that doesn't erase the fact that the holocaust happened and school children should learn about it.

Re:Well

[cudiaco]

I come from Oman, which is a majority muslim country. The majority of these muslims form the Ibadhi sect, which is unheard of anywhere in the world except for Oman and some places in Africa.

I don't ever recall teachers and educators telling us that there was no holocaust. If there were some that denied it, chances are they were uneducated, or illiterate.

As a muslim, I would urge the schools in the UK to reconsider their decisions.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you teach the prophet then ? He's long dead, yet here's what he said :

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Obviously muslims teach this to children starting at 4-year-olds.

Don't forget ... this is slashdot ... this is to be buried deep with the ratings system, and whoever reports this is to be fanatically attacked for shaking up the "all-cultures-are-equal" idea. Even if it means killing the messenger.

After all there is nothing wrong with islamic ideology, right ? Well, except that they kill dozens of their own children in hopes of wounding a single Jew. Except that they beat everyone into submission, except their complete opposition to free speech, except ... all values that slashdot pretends to defend.

Maybe it's just that you don't know about repression (english translation of the arabic word "islam"). So here's a message in hopes of making this clear.

Obviously it won't stop at Jews. They are equally against Christians, just not as public, equally against cripples (because allah punished them for a reason you know), and, God forbid you'd ask what "allah" does to gays (they are to be buried alive on sight, even if some man were to be raped by a gay attacker, he is to be buried alive). That is what the prophet did. That is what every muslim is striving to do.

Illustrations
-> gaza/westbank
-> iraq
-> afghanistan
-> mecca (non-muslims are to be killed on sight in mecca in case you didn't know)
-> cartoon crises
-> ...

Re:Well

[Citizen of Earth]

If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

Well I can 100% guarantee that it won't be Jerry Falwell.

Re:Well

[endianx]

I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them. I bet you one million dollars he would not.

Re:Well

[interstellar_donkey]

Not true. It can hurt people.

A reason for teaching of history's atrocities is to show people what horrible things can happen. It's so we don't repeat our mistakes, and that the educated citizenry can identify trends that could lead to a repeat and (hopefully) do something about it.

Could something like the holocaust happen again? Sadly, yes. But the likelihood of it happening is diminished with education.

Re:Well

[Captain Splendid]

This WILL be a nuclear conflict

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously, the minute nukes showed up on the scene, our time here was put on a strict leash. Russians, Chinese, Muslims, doesn't make a difference.

Re:Well

[compro01]

However, stereotypes exist because a large portion of the target population exhibits a certain quality, character, or characteristic

or a very noticable minority of the target population. same case where lots of people think that all christians are assholes.

Re:Well

[Hoi Polloi]

Sorry, my mistake, it was only 30-40%. It was a survey by the Pentagon. Now I feel better.

Re:Well

[M. Baranczak]

Jerry is in no position to denounce shit right now. Haven't you been reading the news? And I think you're overestimating him. Yeah, he'd denounce the killings, but he'd also sneak in some little caveat about how it's all the fault of the homosexuals.

Re:Well

[MindStalker]

Gotta wonder though, on the crusades bit who is right? I'm assuming the Muslim teachings is that the Crusades were much worse than the rest of us say it was. Maybe they were right? So why should we be insisting that they learn about the Holocaust when we don't want to learn about the Crusades?

Re:Well

[dewke]

Could the holocaust happen again? It already has:

Cambodia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Rwanda: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm
Darfur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Re:Well

[pixelpusher220]

Yes we can

Re:Well

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, I think what uspets people is that they don't hear condemnation of this kind of thing *from Muslims*.

Do most people in the US talk to muslims? I hear condemnation of suicide bombings from muslims all the time.

If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

As I'm sure you're figured out by now, Falwell died last week. I think your argument is for more muslim televangelists. Sure, there are very vocal TV personalities who refer to themselves as christians and loudly proclaim all sorts of things. Sure televangelists would go on TV and and denounce people who set off bombs, but I bet they would not refer to them as "radical christian bombers" and neither would the papers. Did you hear anyone call the unibomber a "christian radical bomber?" What about the oklahoma bombers? Most of the suicide bombers are not acting for religious reasons so much as political reasons. It is just that religion and politics are as tied together there as they are in the US, but there they admit it.

Why don't you learn to speak arabic and get a satellite dish. Then start watching religious and political programs from the middle east and report back as to how many christians there are on said TV denouncing the actions of the US military in the middle east.

Re:Well

[miskatonic alumnus]

Much like the Christian majority defending against the "attack on Christianity" here in the States.

Re:Well

[Homr Zodyssey]

This article calls it closer to 40%.

Re:Well

[JasonKChapman]

Well, technically it doesn't actually hurt anyone, it's just stupid.

I think the case for harm is stronger than you think. It's a kind of fraud perpetrated by someone in a position of trust against those specifically put in a position to trust them. Leaving critical information out of someone's education can be very harmful, depending on how critical that information is.

Stoves are hot. Knives are sharp. Red lights mean stop. Don't talk to strangers. Yes, these are relatively silly examples, but they are examples nonetheless of critical bits knowledge that could cause harm if completely omitted from a child's education.

Re:Well

[Savage-Rabbit]

As the percentage of the people who espouse these beliefs rises within the UK population, they are going to feel increasingly empowered, both by the virtue of their numbers, as well as due to the apparent utter impotence of the British in the face of their assault. That could double as a pretty good description of the rise of Fascism in the 1930s.

Re:Well

[tsalaroth]

I don't remember the source of the poll myself, but IIRC, it was more like they approved of the threat of torture.

Re:Well

[ckaminski]

>> -> mecca (non-muslims are to be killed on sight in mecca in case you didn't know)

Troll... how are you supposed to tell a non-muslim by sight?

Re:Well

[king-manic]

Well, I think what uspets people is that they don't hear condemnation of this kind of thing *from Muslims*. If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

I can pretty much guarentee he won't.

Re:Well

[TheMeuge]

Yeah, god forbid an underpaid teacher decides to concentrate on education and makes a hard to swallow decision to promote a little equilibrium.

Equilibrium?!

This is called appeasement... or better yet - catering to the demands of terrorists. Yes, you heard me. If a teacher is afraid to teach the [i]history[/i] of the Holocaust (and let us not kid ourselves - it's not a P.C. kind of fear, but fear of disruptive behaviour and violence), then this is terrorism by definition.

Remember - "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Re:Well

[djasbestos]

Maybe US schools shouldn't teach evolution or methods of birth control, oh wait, that's the plan already.

Sunday school is for Sunday...no ethically conscionable teacher of history can allow such a heinous crime against humankind to be left untold, especially to the youth. Not to mention that it's a huge part of the most significant conflict in the 20th century.

Re:Well

[Johnny5000]

By that logic, schools in the US shouldn't teach about slavery, fearing a confrontation of an 'anti-black' sentiment among racist hicks.

Or not teach evolution, out of fear of offending fundamentalist Christians.

Re:Well

[xENoLocO]

Teaching about something that happened is education. You can't deny the holocaust. It happened. This is not up for debate. This is not religion. This is an actual thing that really happened. To ignore it is only to bow to ignorance and and anti-semitism.

As for the metal detectors comment, I can't say I'm either for or against them, but I'm betting theres a lot of dead high school kids who are for them. I'm not sure where you're from, but there are few places in this world with less security than the U.S. You don't really gather that until you travel to a place like indonesia.

And as for "go preach somewhere else", you should try not getting upset over things. I understand you're offended, but you don't have to talk like an asshole to get your point across, k?

Re:Well

[Homr Zodyssey]

Actually, revisionist history is often taught in US schools. I attended public schools in rural southern Georgia. We were taught that the American Civil War (a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression) was a struggle for "States Rights". We were told that the issue of slavery was just trotted out by the north as propaganda to make the southern states look bad.

Decades later, I realize that although there is probably some truth to that, continuing to teach it that way does nothing but foster racial and geographic resentments within the nation. (e.g. "Damned Yankees!")

Re:Well

[elrous0]

I think the insinuation is that students are not learning about the Crusades AT ALL. The schools, rather than deal with controversial subjects, or subjects which might offend religious students, are just ignoring them altogether--simply pretending that they never happened. Whether it's Bible-thumping students objecting to evolution, Koran-thumping students objecting to the Holocaust, or Talmud-thumping students objecting to criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians; everywhere you look teachers are ducking for cover.

Here's an idea, how about we just teach the material as honestly as we can--and tell little Johnny Christian, little Omar Mohammad, and little Abraham Silverberg to leave their fucking religion AT HOME, WHERE IT BELONGS!

Re:Well

[pluther]

Yeah, god forbid an underpaid teacher decides to concentrate on education and makes a hard to swallow decision to promote a little equilibrium.

How exactly do you consider NOT teaching a subject specifically because a teacher is afraid of offending the ignorant to be concentrating on education?

"Equilibrium"? What? Giving equal time to the uninformed? That's the role of TV news and radio talk shows, not of a teacher.

This is just like the whole nonsense with creationism in the U.S. So, 40% of people in the United States think that creationism is just as valid a scientific theory as evolution by natural selection. The answer to that is not to pander to them, but to educate them.

Re:Well

[UbuntuDupe]

Do most people in the US talk to muslims? I hear condemnation of suicide bombings from muslims all the time.

Do you agree that there's a difference between privately admitting something to friends, and publicly proclaiming it to everyone?

I think your argument is for more muslim televangelists. ...

It doesn't have to be televangelists. I would just as much expect Sean Hannity -- as much as I might otherwise disagree with him -- to cleverly mock their claim to being Christian.

Did you hear anyone call the unibomber a "christian radical bomber?" What about the oklahoma bombers?

No, because they didn't make their Christianity a defining part of their justification for violence. Now, I'd agree there's some asymmetry in the use of "radical Christian" vs. "radical Muslim", but that wasn't my point. My point was that Christians would be more vocal about getting across the idea that those people aren't following Christianity if it were widely believed otherwise.

Re:Well

[EastCoastSurfer]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Well

[Hoi Polloi]

I do hear it condemmed by my Muslim friend in CA, my old coworker from Turkey, my coworker from Somalia, etc. The only problem is that the media seems to prefer to broadcast ONLY the extremists. You see, interviewing reasonable people doesn't make for exciting news.

Re:Well

[linzeal]

Hence, Islamo-fascism. Islam as a religion is not the issue, the issue at hand with Islam is the way adherents of particular orders within it have been conscripted to fight in reality economic and political wars under the guise of Jihad. The Taleban is far more wealthy than the average Afghani citizen because they deal with so many illegal activities, including slavery, assassination and opium. The leaders lived in opulence when the US invaded Afghanistan and pry are not doing too shabby now either.

The same type of mentality can be seen in the US with some evangelical groups where they may not be as desperate to commit violent acts in the name of god are equally willing to turn over their life savings for "the cause". These sort of easily deluded people have always existed in poverty and war stricken areas and they are not going to noticeably go away until many generations have passed.

Re:Well

[dewke]

Yeah, god forbid an underpaid teacher decides to concentrate on education and makes a hard to swallow decision to promote a little equilibrium.

Isn't education teaching? How is avoiding the Holocaust and the Crusades educating students? I guess we should all avoid difficult topics for equilibrium.

No, but you have installed lots of metal detectors. Go preach somewhere else.

And how is this relevant. Yes, there is a problem with students and violence in the US. At least we haven't dropped subjects to avoid "offending" students who are being taught hate and intolerance at home and in their places of worship.

Re:Well

[mrpeebles]

Yes, but according to this article, 24% of US citizens believe bombing aimed at civilians are justified "often" or "sometimes" and another 27% think it is justified rarely. So yes, that poll is disturbing, but not necessarily more than such a poll of any other group of people would be.

Re:Well

[tenchiken]

As someone who studied History, I can assure you that the debate on who was a more evil bastard: Hitler or Stalin occurs all the time. The Khymer Rouge and the Cambodian massacres are difficult, because the PC elements of the Vietnam war really taint the discussion.

The thing about the Holocaust that has really made it a issue, is that it occurred in Western Europe. The racism that led to the Holocaust wasn't a Germany only thing. The leaders in Vichy France were more then enthusiastic about helping the Germans, the same for the Poles etc. Germany got the short end of the stick because the started the whole thing, but it was endemic of the racism in Europe.

And the Holocaust was efficient beyond belief. It took Stalin 20 years to do what Hitler did in three.

So yes, other genocides, including what the Japanese did in WWII, what the Communists did in Vietnam, what the Arabs did to the Kurds, are important, but there is nothing so immediate as the Holocaust.

Re:Well

[bytesex]

The crusades were a horrible part of Christian history and Bernard de Clairveaux should be desacrated (and added to the likes of Calvin and Savonarola) for instigating it. I know it's hyperbolic, but if it weren't for him, the plague may have been spared us, the renaissance may have come sooner (and more gradual) and that whole inquisition thing might not have happened. And Abelard would have (maybe) kept his gonads, or at least died a happy man. O, how you can *hate* some people, even when they're long dead.

Re:Well

[spun]

Really? So all major Christian pundits denounce abortion clinic bombings? That's news to me. You know why you don't hear Muslims denouncing suicide bombing? Because our news media doesn't think that's a story that will sell. 80% of Muslims denounce suicide bombings, your news sources just don't care if you know that or not.

Re:Well

[redtux1]

A little bit different - not used as a method of control

Re:Well

[linzeal]

Well didn't Christianity go through these stages as well? I mean lest we forget the Witch burnings in the middle ages that bred fanaticism against not only Jews, Gays and females but saw the schism of the Catholic church turn into a 400 year long war of fantastic barbaric and unspeakable acts against civilians. It was not uncommon for whole towns being raised, fields salted and every last person killed within a mile of it during Phillip II's reign.

Isn't this what Islam is going through now?

Re:Well

[prelelat]

No, but you have installed lots of metal detectors. Go preach somewhere else. I'm not sure who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but I'll ask them to refrain in the future.

The point is that even if people want to deny something happend in history you shouldn't erase it from the history books. The holocaust is a huge part of WWII, if you don't believe it you should at least know about it. Thats like going to school and having someone tell you that someone has landed on the moon. You don't have to believe it but you should still be taught it, it is still a part of human history.

Not sure where metal detectors in a school has to do with that. He can preach all he wants, you never know he might have gone to university and have a degree in history.

I can understand the UK wanting to be tolerant to muslim beliefs. They are large group. But because they don't believe something doesn't mean that you should be intolerant to the Jewish people either. Or the people that died for that belief. Or the hundreds of millions of others that do believe it did happen. To ignore something so pivital in history is not only foolish but short sited.

'Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.'

If your a teacher I don't care if your underpaid your underpaid to teach. If you no longer do that your no longer a teacher. I think that makes perfect sense. If you want equilibrium go home school.

I'm not trying to preach I just wouldn't want my child to miss something so important because a group(no matter how big or small) doesn't believe it happend(or in any other case did). I would want them to know about everything, you could always have a section saying that there are people that do not believe this happend and give both sides to it, even if I disagree I would be open minded towards teaching it and equally proposing both sides. I just disagree about removing it.

Re:Well

[K'Lyre]

Yeah, but those people's skin is too dark for anyone to care.

No, I don't think that way, but that seems to be the only difference.

Mod me down if you must.

Re:Well

[MrNaz]

I think you'll find that Muslims are far more tolerant that you'd think, and that the stereotype of them being otherwise is the result of Fox and other right wing sycophants supporting the need for a bad guy to keep people scared. It never ceases to amaze me that nobody wonders what Muslims were doing through the decades when the Commies where the bad guys of the day.

Anyways, if you think that Muslims hate Jews "Just Coz", then you may want to consider the fact that the best time in Jewish history (according to most Jewish historians) was actually when Jews lived in a Muslim state. Here's a titbit from the pages of history that also gets skipped in history classes:

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/jewish/jew-history.ht ml

Even under Israel, the vast majority of Jews do not have the ideological freedom they used to. If you are willing to have pre-conceived ideas challenged, perhaps you'll find the following interesting:

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=5006&aid= 19
http://www.notinmyname.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/index.cf m
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jews_against_zio nism.html
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zion ism.htm
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7887&aid= 19

DISCLAIMER: I am a Muslim. I have Jewish friends. Lots of them. Jews and Muslims have lived together for centuries, it is just not true that Muslims and Jews hate each other out of some culturally ingrained ideological perception. It is the nationalist incarnation of the Jewish identity in the militant form known as "Zionism" that Muslims and indeed most Jews oppose. Unfortunately, Zionism seems to have the support of the political right in western countries, which is why it *appears* that Muslims oppose the west. We do not. We oppose the occupation being carried out by Israel, in the same say that we oppose any injustice caused by anybody, including other Muslims.

Another titbit that you won't hear mentioned in school: No real Muslim supports the governments of Saudi Arabia or the other monarchical crackpots currently referred to as "the leaders of the Muslim world". These tinpot dictators were put in power at the end of WWI by the allied powers to secure their interests over middle eastern assets such as the Suez Canal and this new stuff called "oil". This policy of putting puppet regimes is so commonplace I don't understand how people can think that fucktards like the king of Saudi Arabia even remotely represent the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims when they have such an incestuous relationship with with the western neo-nobles like the Bush family.

Holy crap, I really intended for that to be a short post.

Re:Well

[halivar]

Somehow, I don't think 20% of evangelicals consider suicide bombing a valid way to proselytize.

Re:Well

[untaken_name]

Here's something to think about. This is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln himself.

The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Don't forget that the North was almost totally dependant upon the South for food and raw materials to process. Teaching that it was all, or primarily, about slavery is teaching revisionist history. Sorry.

Re:Well

[TheMeuge]

Exactly.

Islam itself is not the problem. Yes, the Quran is violent and intolerant, but same is the case for the Bible, so the other two religions of the "holy trinity" are not exempt from the same judgment.

However, you know what they say - it's not what's in your holy book, it's how you use it.

Re:Well

[the_arrow]

Don't forget all the wars in former Yugoslavia.

Re:Well

[Lockejaw]

Do you agree that there's a difference between privately admitting something to friends, and publicly proclaiming it to everyone?

Yes, one of them requires media attention. I don't know any Muslims in position to have their attention, and I don't know too many media outlets that would think it worth their air time or print space.

Re:Well

[Brian Stretch]

And the Armenian Genocide. Of course, that was the Religion of Peace exterminating Christians so don't expect the government education monopoly to mention it.

And it predates the Holocaust. Actually, Hitler likely viewed it as a successful proof-of-concept.

Re:Well

[Lockejaw]

Also only done to males.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's only the "suicide" part they have a problem with.

Re:Well

[UbuntuDupe]

I don't know any Muslims in position to have their attention,

CAIR? Louis Farrakhan? Muhammad Ali? Cat Stephens?

Re:Well

[IPFreely]

How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)?

The history has been toned down A LOT in most US schools, to the extent that if it is mentioned at all, it's just Custer's last stand.

Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of americans are uncomfortable with the idea that America has just as bad a history as all those evil-doers out there. And because of that discomfort, the subject is dropped or sevearly watered down.

The cut has already been made. The only question is was this appeasement or terrorism?

Re:Well

[Threni]

> as well as due to the apparent utter impotence of the British in the face of their assault.

It's an assault? Don't take the Daily Mail so seriously - it's for small minded idiots.

Re:Well

[toddhisattva]

report back as to how many christians there are on said TV denouncing the actions of the US military in the middle east.

I can remember one. The Prototype. The man who wrote the template which is still in use by all media Oriental and Occidental:

Tariq Aziz aka "Baghdad Bob."

(I would look in Lebanon for more but they seem to have a clue these last few days. Go Phoenicians!)

Re:Well

[Rycross]

At the risk of sounding cold, but couldn't it simply be because we are not as closely tied to those parts of Africa and Asia as we are to the rest of Europe? It could just be because its not as culturally relevant to us. It *should* be, but I'm hesitant to whip out the race card at the drop of a hat.

Re:Well

[gustafsd]

No, but 100% will feel OK with the number of civilian casualties in Iraq... http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

The premise that Holocaust denial is a part of the muslim faith is utter rubbish. As someone here already noted, the Qur'an was revealed around 1400 years ago! The muslim faith is entirely based on that the Qur'an and the life example of the Prophet Muhammed.

So how on earth can holocaust denial be part of it? I sense a bit of media sensationalism to hop on the anti-islam fervour going around. Things being banned because they 'offend muslims' is a sure-fire way of getting LOTS of attention.

Holocause denial is not part of the muslim faith. I can't stand it how media love to pick up the words of extremists and generalise 1.1 billion people by it.

Re:Well

[TheMeuge]

How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages?

We don't just teach it, we have films about it. And while some may say that it's not taught enough or in enough detail, I am not aware of any circumstances under which it was sidelined. If anything like that did happen, it would be equally as wrong. But unlike you, I do not believe that "prior art" for doing something wrong entitles you to continue doing it.

Re:Well

[lebow]

And while they are at it, why not leave them selves at home. I mean there is no room for religion in secular schools ( not being sarcastic ). I maybe ignorant but aren't there Muslim schools for these Muslims to go to ? Most religious people have no place in the secularist educational system. Secularism is its own religion, with there own morals, and beliefs. I mean you wouldn't expect a muslim to get an education in line with his beliefs in a catholic school, why would he get a better education at a secularist school... If you want to force people to go to a school where they have to leave their religion at home, then your not a supporter of freedom of religion ( rather freedom from religion ), and thats ok, there are religious countries, where Muslims are free to practice there religion, and get a state sponsored education of their (inaccurate) history that they want. ( there are also no shortage of christian countries, and one Jewish country)

Re:Well

[Koookiemonster]

Don't forget Iraq. Or is it just "collateral damage?" This states the estimate of 655,000 casualties, around the same as Rwanda and much more than Darfur. The sad thing is, some of you will probably think "Is this a troll or not?" while accepting the other ones without question.

Re:Well

[TheMeuge]

I saw a BBC interview with a British cleric. According to the introduction he was one of the most powerful and influential ones.
At one point he was asked a question as to whether he envisions that there could be long-standing peace between the secular Britain and the Muslims.

He answered (I am quoting as well as I can remember):

"There will be peace when the flag of Islam will be raised above the Buckingham palace".

Yes, it is an assault.

Re:Well

[teh_chrizzle]

couldn't it simply be because we are not as closely tied to those parts of Africa and Asia as we are to the rest of Europe?

why isn't the west as closely tied to those parts of africa and asia? is it because of race? is it because of culture?

if it is culture and not race, isn't race still a significant factor in culture?

Re:Well

[Mattintosh]

Speaking as one who attended a US school and learned US history there, they place most of the blame for wiping out the indians on the railroad companies. Yes, the US government helped. But at the request of the railroads, which were the equivalent of today's greedy telecoms. The US government has always grabbed its ankles for its corporate masters.

Re:Well

[AGMW]

Or not teach evolution, out of fear of offending fundamentalist Christians.

It's like some game of pissemoff Poker ...

I see your Holocaust deniers, and raise you Evolution!

Re:Well

[Lockejaw]

Silly me, I though we were talking about people I knew....

Re:Well

[lfreedling]

but see you can offend christians all you like just not muslims

Re:Well

[Rycross]

why isn't the west as closely tied to those parts of africa and asia? is it because of race? is it because of culture? if it is culture and not race, isn't race still a significant factor in culture?

I'm not knowledgeable enough in history to answer that question, but it could be many things, ranging from racism to lack of easily exploitable resources. Because of my ignorance in this area, I'm not ready to start accusing people of racism. Any people familiar with the history in this area willing to step in and educate me?

Re:Well

[pianophile]

Actually, Hitler likely viewed it as a successful proof-of-concept.

Indeed, apparently he did.

Re:Well

[donnell_lewis]

In a number of rural areas it is a term applied to a snob coming from wealth, usually a Southerner, -I can handle that, better than being called a "prick".

Re:Well

[Reziac]

I learned my Indian history from an old Indian (born in the late 1800s), who was a noted tribal leader and historian. He contended that the majority of Indian deaths were due not to slaughter by whites, but rather, to tribes practicing genocide on one another:

The Iroquois were slavers, and had a policy of killing anyone they regarded as surplus. Most of what we think of as "plains Indians" were originally refugees from Iroquois slaughter, dating from shortly before whites made a significant push past the Appalachians. My friend's grandmother (born about 1810) told him tales about the westward migration and its causes, as told to her by *her* grandmother, who was one of the refugees who fled the Iroquois.

Re:Well

[Hoi Polloi]

Link? What is this "recent study"?

Re:Well

[AGMW]

It's a bit like all the discussions over the years about whether the UK should take the Euro. It keeps cropping up, and eventually it will happen. Once it has happened, will there then be discussions about whether we should move back to Pounds Sterling?

Re:Well

[MindStalker]

Interesting idea, unfortunately here in the US the government won't pay for a K-12 school that even has a hint if Christianity, strangely though they have no problem with paying for Christian colleges though..

Re:Well

[Captain Splendid]

I'm not sure who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, but I'll ask them to refrain in the future.

LOL thanks, about time somebody used that line on me for a change.

The point is that even if people want to deny something happend in history you shouldn't erase it from the history books.

And I read, understood, and agree wholeheartedly with that point. I was't disagreeing with or refuting it. The point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that all these people raging against the teachers should just STFU. If it was an institutional thing, have at it. But if it's a few persons doing it because they don't get paid enough to deal with that shit, then just lay off them. It's easy to rag on them, but you walk home alone from work one night after pissing off your neighbourhood's idiots.

If your a teacher I don't care if your underpaid your underpaid to teach.

That's just asinine. It's not like it's a hermetic group composed of only teachers and students. There's administrators, local and national school bodies, ministers, politicians, and most importantly, parents all involved in this little thing we call education, and you're going to single out a few teachers? Do you think they get support from their bosses or parents with unruly children? You know the answer to that one.

Re:Well

[Reziac]

I think you are correct. I had no real concept of what was going on in Africa til I followed the grandparent post's link, and looked at the map... damn, that's like a quarter of Africa involved. This thing is HUGE. But what little I'd heard about it sounded like Yet Another Tribal Spat affecting only southern Sudan.

And I don't think through deliberate downplaying, either (after all, news media likes to inflate such stories because they're good eyeball draws) but rather because MOST non-Africans don't really have any perspective on Africa. Just as I wouldn't expect a native African to have much perspective on, say, Siberia. They didn't come from Siberia, so it's just not part of their historical worldview -- any more than the Sahara is part of the average American's historical worldview.

Re:Well

[cduffy]

How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)?

Mine covered all of that. Covered the use of Smallpox-infested blankets, covered the Japanese internment camps during WW2, covered the Spanish slaughtering the Aztec, and a great deal more besides.

I attended high school in California, and the US history coverage was quite solid. Not complete -- I grew up associating Woodrow Wilson with the League of Nations, having no idea of all his [substantially effective] efforts to set back racial equality -- but very good. Indeed, I thought that most public school educations in the US were on par, and was rather surprised to find out that my wife managed to grow up without reading The Jungle, or Heart of Darkness, or Brave New World (which required parental consent... actually, I think Heart of Darkness did too), or much else of the literature that's influenced the Western world.

Re:Well

[Reziac]

Nonsense. According to Jerry Falwell, he'll be back to denounce 'em. Just you wait and see! ;)

Re:Well

[Toonol]

I have one son in High School and one in Middle School.

In any subject where time can be spent dwelling on America's failings, believe me, the teachers take advantage of it. Mistreatment of American Indians? Probably spent more time on that than on the Civil War. I feel like I need to remind my kids every so often that the United States has so very wonderful, important, and revolutionary ideas incorporated into it's origin and structure.

Whitewashing history would be just as bad... why is the middle ground so hard to travel?

Re:Well

[benjcurry]

I think granddaddy meant that he'll be looking down from above, sitting at his seat of honor at the right hand of our Lord.

Re:Well

[Reziac]

Someone once pointed out that the real problem is that Islam is still relatively young. It's at the same stage of maturity that Christianity was between the Crusades and the Inquisition. The average medieval Christian was as decent a fellow as the average Muslim of today, but medieval Christian leadership and radical sects were all gung-ho to kill the infidels and heretics. Islam is experiencing the same sort of growing pains, with the accompanying need to Assert Itself.

BTW -- when I was a kid, it was spelled "Moslem". When did "Muslim" become the dominant spelling?

Re:Well

[JohnnyRnR]

Well said. Too many people, including the Turkish Government, still deny that the Armenian Genocide ever occured. Even mentioning it in print (in Turkey) is enough to be sent to prison for "anti-Turkishness."

And journalists that push the issue seem to wind up dead fairly quickly.

Re:Well

[baboonlogic]

I think this is the survey (pdf) the parent was talking about. The second table on Page 5 is relevant here.

Basically, what it says is that 26% of Muslims aged 18 to 29 in the United States said that suicide bombing of civilian targets could be rarely (11%) or often/sometimes (15%) justified.

Frankly, I don't see whats wrong with that. I would like to see a similar study on other groups. I think it is reasonable to assume that a similar percentage of all youth in the 18 to 29 age group would have a similar response.

Re:Well

[Adambomb]

This is something that infuriated my history professor no end when I was taking AP US history back in highschool. I spent my junior and senior year in an american highschool after spending most of my previous schooling here in Canada.

I was amazed at how such subjects as the Trail of Tears involving the Cherokee and the treatment of apache and sioux nations were barely mentioned, if at all. Subjects such as manifest destiny would come up, but when attempting to discuss such things as the "54 40 or fight" issue or the border conflicts in northern maine, or the burning of a portion of the soon to be whitehouse, our teacher would get frustrated with the fact that they were even brought up.

Such things were never involved in the testing or assignments, which would obviously mean such details would not imprint as forcefully in our minds, and thus is not truely taught.

I found this especially sad and alarming, but wrote most of it off to the fact that our history teacher was a mccarthyist freakjob, but it sounds a lot more standard that i would have liked to think.

Re:Well

[Overly Critical Guy]

There really is an attack on Christianity here in the States. I'm an agnostic, and even I acknowledge it. Christianity is an openly mocked religion, the butt of countless punchlines on late night TV. However, Islam and other religions are protected and their critics are vilified as bigots. There are universities in this country where you're actually not allowed to display a Christmas tree, but a menorah is allowed.

Re:Well

[roman_mir]

You are shocked by the 20%, I am shocked by the flawed study. It's more like 75%.

Re:Well

[elrous0]

Freedom OF religion, by its nature necessitates freedom FROM religion, otherwise it would be meaningless. If another religion could be forced on you, then it wouldn't leave you the freedom to practice an alternative (especially if the two differed in any fundamental way). "Sure, you can be a Christian, Little Johnny--just as soon as you say your school prayer affirming that Muhammad is the prophet of God" isn't really freedom at all, is it?

Re:Well

[d34thm0nk3y]

Well, I think what uspets people is that they don't hear condemnation of this kind of thing *from Muslims*. If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

Others have pointed out that Falwell is dead, but this is what he said about Sept 11. Hardly a denouncement.

On Sept. 11: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' "

Re:Well

[neomunk]

Look, now you've gone so far as to get a registered to Democrat tell you to get of your big D high horse.

"Off the table" Pelosi and the rest of her DLC following Dempublicans are playing political patty-cake while this travesty of a revenge act against the completely wrong party goes on full swing. The big media-hogging "mainstream" (*snicker*) Democrats are doing they're best to do nothing as furiously and noisily as possible to end this... End this what? War? No. Police Action? Maybe. Disarmament? Heh. Regime Change? Oops, that didn't work out so well... Well, whatever the hell it is, it's failed (by any sane measure) and the Pelosi crew are to busy milking it politically to stop it.

If you really want to support democratic ideals, you're going to have to look a bit deeper into the party to find them. Kucinich is probably the most well known example.

Oh, and here is how mainstream Pelosi is in her thought process...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Off the table.

Re:Well

[prelelat]

That's just asinine. It's not like it's a hermetic group composed of only teachers and students. There's administrators, local and national school bodies, ministers, politicians, and most importantly, parents all involved in this little thing we call education, and you're going to single out a few teachers? Do you think they get support from their bosses or parents with unruly children? You know the answer to that one.

Yes I do, and your right. It may have nothing to do with the parents and everything to do with politics on the school administration level or political level. That is probably more likely.

Re:Well

[ravenshrike]

Last time I checked, it's still pretty fucking easy for me to orgasm. Not so much with FGM.

Re:Well

[jedidiah]

100% will certainly not.

You would probably have a hard time getting 100% to agree to the sky being blue.

Most will probably think that your casualty estimates are being inflated to suit your particular political agenda or are as Twain would put "statistics".

Re:Well

[jedidiah]

Not really. All you have to do is bring the Lebanese or Nazi Germans into the discussion.

Both like(d) to locate military targets near civilians as if to use the civilians as human shields.

Re:Well

[ravenshrike]

They teach it. Mind you, what they don't teach is that George Washington ordered various iroquois villages burned to the ground and inhabitants slaughtered to teach them not to interfere in the war. Tactically a sound decision.

Re:Well

[Deliveranc3]

Good point, but doesn't it seem that we occasionally overshoot? Not being allowed to discuss certain things or think certain things. Is the holocaust more likely to happen again if we discuss it? Surely.

However as an earlier poster pointed out the concept of Holocaust is so strongly associated with Jews that the real mentality behind it and any discussion of the reasons for its horrors has been lost. People are still trying to genocidally attack jews in the middle east (Though this seems to be mainly a land issue not a religious one) and genocides are taking place everywhere, partially because the Holocaust is not taught as a real lesson with "if you start here you'll feel like crap when you get to here" but as "people are monsters who hate Jews, if you don't hate Jews you won't be a monster."

We're nerds and a documentary on the subject has been directed at us, check out "Mr.Death" by Errol Morris (The best documentarian I've ever seen, his film "Fog of War" conflicted strongly with my liberalism and pacifism but was very enlightening).

Re:Well

[Shatrat]

How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Mine did, hell I can even spell cavalry.
Nice try though. Actually no, pretty limp really.

Re:Well

[evil_aar0n]

You make some good points, and I don't disagree with you. But much like a full-house beats three of a kind, perception beats reality. What the rest of the world sees is a collection of border-line lunatics waving rifles, throwing rocks, stoning people to death, showing bloody hands as a symbol of an "accomplishment," dragging dead bodies through the streets, etc. Maybe the mainstream Muslims _are_ tolerant, but you'd never know it from what we typically see. And I'm curious: if the majority are peaceful, tolerant, etc., why don't they do something about the minority that are casting _all_ of them in a bad light? Like here in the States, when the KKK holds a rally - rarer and rarer, thankfully - you typically see a collection of people who counter their message, to show them for the "haters" they really are. In the numerous clippings we see of the Middle East, you never see the "good" Muslims shouting down the "radical" Muslims.

Re:Well

[Serious Callers Only]

A recent study in the US showed that 80% of Muslims were opposed to using suicide bombing as a tactic to defend Islam. I was shocked about the remaining 20%.

Are suicide bombs qualitatively different from routine torture of suspects, carpet bombing of towns like Fallujah, and cluster bombs dropped on civilian areas? If so how?

The end result of all these tactics are lots of dead civilians and widespread fear in the civilian population.

Re:Well

[ahodgson]

Well, yes, the reason the North fought was to preserve the Union.

The reasons the Southern states seceded in the first place, however, were mostly about slavery, in response to many perceived provocations over several decades, including the extension (or not) of slavery into new territories, the rights of slaveholders to recover slaves that escaped into free states, and finally, the election of Lincoln himself, who was opposed to slavery and whose very election was considered an assault on the institution.

Re:Well

[antibryce]

The color of their skin isn't the only common factor:

Cambodia: Directly related to Vietnam, which was a problem created mostly by the French.

Rwanda: Former French colony. The French government provided funds and weapons to the French-speaking perpetrators of the genocide.

Darfur: France has significant oil interests with the government of Sudan. Coincidently they adamantly oppose sanctions against the Sudanese government even while that same Sudanese government supports and trains the militias slaughting thousands.

Re:Well

[tsmithnj]

you forgot the George W Bush presidency

Re:Well

[Elbows]

The actual situation is a lot more complex than your quote would suggest.

First of all, while there were broader tensions between north and south, it was the issue of slavery (mostly whether to allow slavery in new territories/states) the drove the South to secede. People often say "the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery", but it's more accurate to say that the Civil War wasn't fought for the purpose of emancipating the slaves. It was fought to keep the South in the Union, but the South never would have left if not for slavery.

As for Lincoln's own views, he was staunchly, if not radically, anti-slavery throughout his political career. He believed that the Founding Fathers intended slavery to die out over time, so he opposed the addition of new slave states. But he didn't support wholesale abolition until fairly late in the war.

On top of that, his speeches and policy throughout his presidency involved a lot of what we might call "triangulation" -- he was always weighing what he believed was right against what was possible, and what the people and the Congress would support. So while he believed that slavery was wrong, he avoided advocating emancipation because he knew it would be politically costly, and wouldn't accomplish anything.

Re:Well

[ahodgson]

You could end up with an entire generation that doesn't know where fascism tends, and what the real human cost of demagoguery is.

Yeah ... such people could setup CCTV monitoring of their whole country, confiscate guns en masse, and continually enact more and more restrictive laws in the name of anti-terrorism.

Oh, wait ...

Re:Well

[teh_chrizzle]

my point isn't to accuse anyone of racism, least of all yourself. i don't know anything about you or where you are on the subject. my point is that while most people have evolved their thinking past skin color, it may not necessarily have evolved past culture. that's all.

here's an example: if i were to say something like "i don't care what color your skin is, as long as you are cool we will get along just fine". that sounds fairly tolerant and i'll bet that many people would say that they treat people the same way.

and if i had a problem with someone of a different race, i would say "i don't have a problem because of his race, i have a problem with the fact that he's not cool." again, sounds very tolerant and many people would say the same thing.

the thing to consider is that what i think is cool (and is not cool) is influenced significantly by the culture that i come from. race is a significant factor in that culture, so while my difficulties with another person are clearly not related to the amount of melanin in a person's epidermis, race is still a factor due to the effect that race has on our respective cultures.

Re:Well

[lebow]

Freedom of religion, does not mean every one must be free from religion, but it does mean the freedom to be free from religion. Catch that.

I remember reading an article a while back about how jewish boys and muslim girls were being forbidden to wear their traditional head coverings in French schools. ( It doesn't matter if that is true or not) that is an example of imposed freedom from religion, everyone must be religion-less..

My whole point that in a secular school system there is no real 100% freedom of religion, because there always has to be freedom from religion, I'm sure the Jewish, and Muslim kids in secular US schools, don't feel so free about their religion when they are being taught X-mas songs, or when the school is closed for easter break, but they have to miss a week of school if they want to celebrate passover correctly ( sorry for my ignorance, I don't know much about Muslim holidays) .

Education is such a central part of serious religions, that the whole idea of a devout religious kid going to a secular school is nonsensical.

Re:Well

[Vicissidude]

It is interesting that Europeans also attempted colonizing Africa, Australia, and Asia. Outside of the Americas, they were really only successful in Australia. The native populations of every place was able to fight back except for the Americas and Australia. There is a reason for that.

The fact is that most of the Indian deaths were from disease and infection. There were a whole host of diseases brought from Europe with which the native Americans had no resistance due to geographic isolation. Without a land connection to tropical locations in Africa and Asia where disease breeds even today, those diseases were unable to travel to locations in Australia and especially the Americas. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the Americas was a relatively disease-free paradise. However, the native Americans ended up paying once the Europeans did arrive.

Every single European expedition that went through resulted in mass deaths of natives in that area. That's why when British colonists landed in North America there were large areas already cleared and ready for farming. The native people had recently lived there, but had died from mass disease.

And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later. The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.

Re:Well

[halivar]

I don't recall hearing any sermons on the virtues of the Iraq war... well... ever. It's a political war, with tangential economic ramifications. What do Christians have to do with it? It seems rather convenient that you (liberals at large) can so easily switch between blaming right-wing religious nuts for the Iraq war and blaming greedy corporate capitalists (two mostly mutually exclusive groups).

Re:Well

[Rick17JJ]

I have never read The Jungle or the Heart of Darkness either, although I did read Brave new world. Would they be would be worthwhile for me to read sometime to fill in a few gaps in my education? I see that both books are available as free downloads from Gutenberg.org.

• The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
• Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

I went to school back in the 1960's in California. I was not very interested in history at the time and did not study very much. It wasn't until I was an adult that I become more interested in history and wanted to fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge of history. Some of the programs on PBS and the history channel have been a start for me. I don't remember exactly how well history was taught when I was in school. If we skip or gloss over everything that is controversial or which might offend someone's religious, political or economic beliefs, then we would loose many of the most important lessons of history. Would history still be of any value then? In a democracy, we need well educated voters not a bunch of ignoramuses.

Since we are talking about teachers and history, here is something I remember from when I was in grade school in about the 4th or 5th grade. I remember being lined getting ready up for our morning flag salute and pledge of allegiance. It must of been when Martin Luther King had just been killed (I am not sure if the flag was at half-mast or not). As we stood there, I remember our teacher just telling us that Martin Luther King was just a criminal who had been arrested. Another teacher standing nearby quickly became angry and got in an argument with her and said "is that what you teach your students?" At the time I didn't hardly know what they were talking about.

Re:Well

[Johnny5000]

but see you can offend christians all you like just not muslims

Let me know when Muslim fundamentalists start trying to teach their creation myth as science in American public schools, because I'd be very interested in telling them to shut the fuck up as well.

Re:Well

[Citizen of Earth]

If next month Christian suicide bombers in ten separate incidents killed a lot of non-Christians, I can 100% guarantee you Jerry Falwell would be denouncing them.

To clarify, are you saying that Rev. Falwell would be denouncing the bombers or the non-Christians?

Re:Well

[untaken_name]

Disclaimer: I DO NOT condone the tradition or practice of slavery. I am against slavery, both that of the past (worldwide), and that of the present (mostly 'wage-slavery' in the U.S. and elsewhere)

First of all, while there were broader tensions between north and south, it was the issue of slavery (mostly whether to allow slavery in new territories/states) the drove the South to secede.

Well, since we're digging deeper, it would be better to say that slavery was the issue which forced the discussion of state's rights over which the South seceded. The South seceded because they felt the Union was a loose collection of several mostly independant states, while the Northern states believed the Union superceded the states which were in it. The fact that there was a war to FORCE states to remain in the Union proves that the South's concerns were valid. Of course, this IN NO WAY means that they were correct for supporting slavery.

It was fought to keep the South in the Union, but the South never would have left if not for slavery.

I believe you're wrong here. The South was already upset about many things, not the least of which was the tax burden placed upon the South by the North and the fact that although most things were refined/processed in the North, most (much? I don't know exactly but it was more than 'some' and less than 'all') raw materials (cotton, tobacco, corn, metal ore, etc) came from the South. Then, refined goods were sold in the South at enormous profit. Basically, many things MAY have lead to secession eventually, however slavery was the flashpoint.

As for Lincoln's own views, he was staunchly, if not radically, anti-slavery throughout his political career.

Perhaps, but what I was attempting to illustrate with his quote was that regardless of his personal views on slavery he would have been willing to let it continue if it preserved the union. Just pointing out that preservation of the Union (and the Southern tax revenue and raw material base) easily and continually trumped his abolitionist views. He wasn't the Devil, but he wasn't obsessed with abolition, either.

My basic point is this: if the Union was voluntarily formed (it was), why could not the member states leave whenever they wanted? It would be like being forced at gunpoint to continue a trading relationship with, say, OPEC, even though you have written an out into your contract and have met the conditions to excercise it. Basically, we have a long history of fighting unpopular wars for monetary reasons. I am just against the movement to categorize the war of northern aggression as 'the war to free the slaves'.

Re:Well

[untaken_name]

Not to repeat myself too much, but the reason the Southron states seceded was because they were not being allowed to excercise the right to self-government that they were accorded when they joined the union, among many other economic and political reasons. When anyone tries to tell me that state's rights still exist, the war of northern aggression proved once and for all that federal > state...which wasn't how the Union was originally sold. Slavery was the flashpoint, but it could have been any one of a number of other issues.

Re:Well

[Citizen of Earth]

Now, I'd agree there's some asymmetry in the use of "radical Christian" vs. "radical Muslim"

The term "radical" means that you and your group are in the practice of killing people who don't follow your beliefs. The only "radical Christians" that I can think of are abortion-doctor murders. There hasn't been a whole lot of this; they target individuals; and they don't target random people in the general public. OTOH, radical Muslims murder about 50,000 people a year and are actively pursuing nuclear weapons. Radical Christians are common criminals, whereas radical Muslims are a significant threat to civilization.

I'd say there's quite an asymmetry the dangers these groups present.

Re:Well

[Lars T.]

Actually, "only" abouta third. "Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."

Re:Well

[Slashdot Parent]

condemmed by my Muslim friend in CA, my old coworker from Turkey, my coworker from Somalia

Ahh, but what do they say in private while not among "mixed company"?

For instance, when the US drops bombs in Iraq to kill terrorists and innocent people are killed, and your Muslim friends ask you how you think about it, what do you say? You probably condemn it.

But when al-Zarqawi was killed by a bomb and 6 others, including women and children, were killed along with him, did you really shed a tear for them? Really?

Well, I'll admit my only reaction was, "Nice shot!" and I could truly give a hoot about the collateral damage. But I wouldn't say that do a bunch of Muslims.

Re:Well

[goon_coder]

"America has just as bad a history as all those evil-doers out there" Thank you for proving my point....modern day muslim culture and society is on par with society from centuries past of other cultures and societies. Well put!

Re:Well

[Lars T.]

http://www.stripes.com/07/may07/MHAT_IV_Report_17N OV06.pdf

Re:Well

[Citizen of Earth]

80% of Muslims denounce suicide bombings, your news sources just don't care if you know that or not.

It seems to me that this would be a sensational headline, especially if these are Western Muslims:

20% OF WESTERN MUSLIMS CONDONE SUICIDE BOMBING!

What are the numbers when you point out that the overwhelming majority of those killed by suicide bombers are Muslim civilians?

Re:Well

[jez9999]

No, it's not quite that big. It's a relatively large area of Sudan, yes, but not a quarter of Africa. However, much of the rest of Africa is having all sorts of other problems. Look up Zimbabwe sometime...

Re:Well

[Rick17JJ]

I am add something else to my own post (as if anyone really cares anyway). I just wanted to add that there are also free HTML versions of all three of those books available from ArthursClassicNovels.com.

• Joseph Conrad's novels
• Upton Sinclair Novels
• Brave New World and other books

Re:Well

[Lars T.]

Yes, every Muslim _is_ part of the problem. If they're not doing anything to stop their fellow Muslims from doing things like this, or "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation, or... then they're part of the problem. Something about, "No man is an island." And you as a Christian are a problem because you pretend that "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation are specific to Muslims and not also common among Christians in the same regions.

Re:Well

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I would, personally, bomb civilians were the US to be invaded by an occupying force. Of course there are some scenarios in which suicide bombing of civilians is warranted, if you can't think of any it means you're not imaginative enough.

I also think the bombing of Hiroshima was warranted, having read lots of opposing opinions about it. Guess what? There were civilians there. And I guarantee that if the US had lost that war, the US would be regarded as the worst terrorists of all time.

Re:Well

[Johnny5000]

(a.k.a. The War of Northern Aggression)

Maybe a southerner's definition of "aggression" differs from mine, but I seem to recall the Confederacy attacking Union forts as being the start of the war.

Re:Well

[PixelScuba]

The same Jerry Falwell who said of the Metropolitan Community Church, "...this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven."

Looking at that quote sends chills up my spine. Add in '72 virgins' and the comment is a carbon copy statement from any Extremist Muslim.

Re:Well

[Nimey]

I suspect it's because the majority of .us citizens have ancestors from Europe, and

1) there's naturally an interest in how things are in "the old country", and
2) parts of the culture get passed down, and so European culture is broadly more similar to ours than Africa's, and that includes cultural values, mores, and so on. And religion as well, though Europe is now much more secular than we are, so I read, but it's still easier to understand a country with a Christian near-past than e.g. one with a Muslim or animist past.

Re:Well

[cduffy]

The Jungle is a worthwhile read -- but there's historical context to it, as well. It followed the lives of immigrants in the meatpacking industry, and was intended to promote socialism -- but, as Mr. Sinclair put it, "I aimed at the public's heart and by accident hit its stomach". By publicizing the massive health violations rampant within the industry at the time, it sparked massive public outrage (and, consequently, government regulation) over the meatpacking industry and food production in general -- but not much of the sympathy for the laborers which had been the book's intent.

Re:Well

[Nimey]

However, yes, I'm certain plays more or less of a role, depending on who you're talking about.

We have some racist rednecks out this way who look down on anyone who's not a white Christian, for example.

Re:Well

[MightyMartian]

In this case, I don't know if it's so much revisionism as it is oversimplification. Certainly state's rights played a large part in the Civil War, as did slavery and the simple matter of competing economic systems. The problem in schools is that there are certain events that can't be neatly summed up with "Event x was caused by y". Take the example of the Crusades. The oversimplified version is that Christians went to whack Muslims. The real answer is a good deal more complex, and plays into a lot of other things that were going on in Medieval Christendom.

Re:Well

[mrpeebles]

The question was talking about bombing "intentionally aimed" at civilians. My interpretation of this would be that intending to bomb nazi military target but knowing that civilian targets would also be destroyed would not be be bombing "intentionally aimed at civilians." However, the wording is ambiguous. This is, I think, why it seems to be difficult to interpret the results of polls like this too strongly. We are not just polling the answer to the question- we are also polling the meaning of the question.

Re:Well

[PixelScuba]

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. -- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5

I certainly don't think your comment should be hidden, and it provides a great comment. However, it's not like the Christian Bible is any better. Here, anyone who believes in anyone but god is to be stoned to death.

Re:Well

[miskatonic alumnus]

So, mocking is now considered an attack?

Re:Well

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Don't forget: Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv

Re:Well

[jez9999]

Would we have approved of / tolerated Christianity doing that stuff if we'd been living then?

Re:Well

[Poppa]

What's wrong with bombing civilians? How do you think we won WW2?

It wasn't the atom bombs that caused the Japanese to surrender, it was our napalming their cities.

In Germany, we would bomb the cities, and then send another wave as the ambulances and fire crews were mobilized.

You can't win a war without demoralizing the enemy and removing their support.

Same thing as our conflict in Iraq. We aren't being beaten militarily. They have won the public relations war and convinced the mass media and the Democrats in power to surrender. That's the only way they can beat us.

Re:Well

[skiflyer]

Plenty of muslims condemn things like suicide bombing, including those in positions of power. If you read the right papers you'll read all about it... not surprisingly it doesn't play well in the American media, so they just don't play it.

Re:Well

[SRA8]

LS1 Brains -- I am a Muslim, and I am upset by your comments. Mostly because it seems to be an epic denial on your part. I would argue that Muslims are far less extreme than other religions. There have been how many criminals amongst Muslims -- 10k? 20k? Out of 1.5Billion. Not consider Christianity and its crimes (often denied or apologized for by Christians) - Crusades - Native American Holocaust - African Holocaust (35 Million People!) - Nazi holocaust - Hiroshima - Nagasaki - Vietnam - Iraq I - Iraq II Who is more violent? How many Christians do you know who would still support Hiroshima and Nagasaki if it happened today, I know dozens of Christians who open support this monumental terrorist event. So if you are going to make wildly biased statements, atleast distort facts rather than your own sense of denial.

Re:Well

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes they are. First off, "torture" - which has yet to be shown - is extremely targeted and specific. Suicide bombs are nice and random.

Carpet bombing of Fallujah never happened - a bit of hyperbole you've thrown in. Suicide bombs happen daily.

Cluster bombs aren't dropped randomly on active markets and business districts; IF they are used, they're used on locations with heavy fighting already going on, where the civilian population is pretty minimal.

Suicide bombs are DIRECTLY AIMED at civilians - non-combatants; the US and its allies have gone to extraordinary lengths to AVOID deaths of civilians.

If you can't see the difference, I'd suggest your political leaning is heavily shading reality.

Re:Well

[spun]

Ah, the other 20% don't condone suicide bombings. I believe the question was along the lines of, "are suicide bombings ever justified?" and some of that 20% said yes, sometimes they are.

Re:Well

[SRA8]

"Radical Christians are common criminals, whereas radical Muslims are a significant threat to civilization." Please explain whether these individuals were Muslims or Christians - Christopher Columbus / Europe - Extermination of Native Americans - Christopher Columbus / Europe - Death of 35 Million Africans - Hitler - Extermination of Jews/Gays/Gypsies/etc - Multiple US Admins - Hiroshima/Nagasaki - Multiple US Admins - Extermination of Vietnam - Iraq 1/2 - 1Million civilians killed, 500,000 kids - by US/UK sanctions Lets not kid ourselves...

Re:Well

[Farmer Tim]

Certainly Christianity is the butt of jokes, but the practical result of that is to limit the excesses of the fundamentalists. However, considering events like Kansas public schools attempting to teach creationism, I'd argue that it's more an ongoing battle than a one-sided attack.

Re:Well

[Lord Bitman]

"Knives are Sharp" is a life lesson.
"Caesar was stabbed" is trivia.

Not saying it's unimportant or shouldn't be taught, but I don't see it as being harmful to not know. People who know about the holocaust kill people all the time. They still are. We, who know about the holocaust, are standing by doing nothing about it. (apologies if my assumption that you do not work for the CIA is incorrect). We've already reduced "The Holocaust Happened" to a fact. Omitting it does less harm than denying it. Perhaps we should all be marched through the towns where hundreds or thousands are slaughtered even today. Remember the reference? The first real holocaust deniers weren't actively denying it: They were in denial.

Re:Well

[mrpeebles]

If your position is that it is OK to intentionally bomb civilians to win a war, and if you believe that wars are waged to achieve political goals, then it would seem to me you are claiming it is OK to intentionally kill mass numbers of civilians to achieve political goals. I think, then, that the only way you can consistently claim that, eg, the 9/11 bombings were immoral is to claim that no moral political ends can come of it. This is not a position I want to be in. In any case, as I understand it, the way that we justified bombing the japanese (or the germans) to ourselves during WWII was to "intend" to bomb the factories that were necessary to the Japanese war machine (which we could never hit accurately enough to avoid civilians.) Of course, the terror this inspired must have helped the war effort as well.

In any case, even if what you are saying is true- that bombing civilians as a result of an intent to bomb them is sometimes morally necessary- I still claim that is disturbing as hell.

Re:Well

[Citizen of Earth]

condone (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

-verb (used with object), -doned, -doning.

1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
4. to cause the condonation of.
5. Law. to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

Re:Well

[N3WBI3]

When was this? back in the day I went through HS (early 90's) We had two weeks talking about the fact the evil white man came and killed the native Americans who knew not disease hunger or war.

It sounds like you had a very bd teacher and that is not indicative of what gets covered in American HS history. We spent a whole quarter of American History split between slavery and native Americans.

Re:Well

[Blakey Rat]

The last third of "The Jungle" is a basically a pointless Socialist rant. But the first two-thirds should be read, as it pretty accurately portrays an immigrant engaging in "The American Dream", and because of its impact on the public opinion. (Instead of promoting Socialism, it actually ended up promoting food safety more than anything... the FDA owes its existence to The Jungle.)

I'd also recommend "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buck.

Re:Well

[Threni]

Sounds like an extremist to me, although you've not given his name so it's impossible to take this conversation any further. Most UK Muslims are moderates, though.

You might want to look at Operation Northwoods, as detailed in Bamford's `Body Of Secrets` before getting too excited about evil people being prepared to perform evil deeds in their mission to take over the world.

Re:Well

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

There's a bunch of asshats in this country, at both extremes of the left-right spectrum, who think that Tolerance = Acceptance (on the left, because it should all be a big hippie love-fest, and on the right because they still want to be as xenophobic as they can).
But it doesnt.
Tolerance means being tolerant. I.e. 'You're entitled to your beliefs, but you're a fucking ignorant asshat. Read a fucking book and stop fucking up our country' it technically a tolerant thing to say.
"You're a fucking ignorant asshat, read The Book and stop fucking our country up, or you're going to hell because you disagree with me" is not a tolerant statement.
"I disagree with your beliefs, but in the grand scheme of things all our beliefs have value, and i encourage your differences to wax free of restraint." is a statement of acceptance.
the middle statement has no place whatsoever in an egalitarian society.
The latter is appropriate where the beliefs in question dont affect anyone else but the belief-holder. The former is for when they do.

I dont believe in God, but my friend who does isnt fucking with my chi. The asshats who do believe in God and want to structure the laws of the land around their beliefs in god are fucking with my chi, and therefore are not deserving of acceptance, but tolerance. there's a big fucking difference.

Re:Well

[Elbows]

It seems we're mostly in agreement on the facts, but differ in our interpretations. Personally, I don't think the South would have seceded without the extremely divisive issue of slavery to push them over the edge -- but I'm a programmer, not a historian, and I don't really have the evidence to back that opinion up. :)

In general I'm in favor of stronger states rights, but I don't think I'd go so far as to support the right to secession. It seems like it would lead to chaos, with states seceding left and right whenever they don't get their way. Plus it leads to sticky questions, like what happens to federally-owned property (military bases, etc), in the seceding states? I think that founding of a nation is somewhat more binding than a trade agreement (and AFAIK there's no "out" written into the Constitution).

I'm also not sure it's entirely accurate to characterize the north/south conflict entirely in terms of federal power vs. states' rights. Consider the fugitive slave laws which, while probably legal under the interstate commerce clause, certainly allowed the federal government to override the will of the states.

Re:Well

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The term "radical" means that you and your group are in the practice of killing people who don't follow your beliefs.

A man is upset by something a powerful government is doing. Eventually he feels so strongly about the politics and international ramifications of it, that he straps a bomb to himself and walks into a crowd of the people he feels is responsible.

Now, would you call that man a "radical christian?" Would you call him a "radical muslim?" Does the person's religion have a lot bearing on the matter if the politics are not directly related to religion, only to ethical/moral beliefs and political opinions?

The important point I think is that in the US if the person happened to be muslim, would be branded a "radical muslim" whereas if they happened to be a christian they would not be branded a "radical christian" in the media. I'm sure the opposite holds true, to some degree, in areas where christians are a minority and muslims or jews a majority. It isn't that a person is more likely to be violent in expressing their beliefs because they are of a given religion. Just look at the numbers.

The only "radical Christians" that I can think of are abortion-doctor murders.

The KKK calls themselves a Christian organization. The fundamentalists running the US government who ordered the bombing of Iraq and who have killed a lot more innocent women and children than Iraqi retaliation, also call themselves christians. Why are you not apply the "radical christian" label to them? Most of the people in Iraq who blow themselves up aren't doing it because they hate christianity. They're doing it because they hate the fact that their country has been occupied by a foreign army who has killed a great many of their friends and family and looted their country for resources, selling all the local industry to foreign investors and emptying the national treasury, while building dozens of permanent military bases. If roles were reversed, they'd probably be watching news about how some radical christians were murdering their troops stationed in the northern US, because I'd be shooting the invaders. And ignorant people would assume, based upon that reporting, it is because I'm one of those radical christians (even though I'm more of an agnostic/zen buddhist in reality).

Re:Well

[mnmn]

I'm glad someone agrees with the fact that there were other massacres, some with higher body counts.

The Stalin massacre is estimated to be over 20 million, the Mongol massacre of the Chinese almost a millennium ago, almost 40 million!!! It's certainly not immediate as it happened so long ago, and to the Chinese in the far east, by Mongols who were the devils anyway compared to the humanized (and close) Europe. But the scale of it blows one's mind... comparing the Mongol massacre to the Holocaust is like comparing the Holocaust with Kosovo. It took them longer, but the Mongols did indeed wipe out entire cities and with alarming efficiency.

The Holocaust gets a great deal of press, but the press it gets compared to every other man made disaster is disproportional. It gives the impression that the Germans were exceptionally evil and destructive, rather than the fact that violence is innate in humans and has happened to everyone everywhere. There are also political reasons to focus on the Holocaust... sympathy for Israel is among them. So is the justification by the 'allied powers' for winning the war.

So if the Holocaust is dropped from a curriculum because the teachers tried to cram in other disasters and didn't have the space, I would not consider that Holocaust denial. Of course this story was a joke, but it reflects the strong bias to tell certain historic stories over others. The Mongol empire was bigger than the Roman or Greek empires. Which one gets better coverage?

Re:Well

[Farmer Tim]

But cultural relevance is a direct result of the majority being descended from Europeans, so looking at it that way race ultimately plays a part. That's not to say this is intentional racism, more likely it's a result of our tribal history and a tendency to look after "our own people" (family, community, state, country, cultural relations, in that order) first. Thoughtlessness rather than malice.

That said, the regions mentioned in dewke's post lack economically significant natural resources, but that doesn't make us look any better...

Re:Well

[untaken_name]

There's no expressly written 'out' in the Constitution. The 'out' is implied, in that the Union had to be ratified by the 'sovereign' states, and a state that can't choose to leave the union it chose to join is certainly not 'sovereign'. That's pretty much the argument that the Supreme Court used against my home state, Texas, declaring that the union is 'indestructable' and Texas did not have the power to leave. Again, though, the Constitution does not anywhere expressly state that states may NOT leave the union, and considering that the rest of the tone of the document is, 'unless it's specifically prohibited, it's allowed' certainly doesn't support the 'indestructable union' theory. The reality is that federal trumps state even though the 'union' was designed the other way 'round. I'm not arguing that it ISN'T that way. I'm just saying it SHOULDN'T be that way.

Re:Well

[nicolastheadept]

It's not that he's one of the most powerful, he just shouts the loudest.

Re:Well

[Elbows]

States' rights are a tough issue... the US system has always been somewhere in between complete state sovereignty and complete federal control. I wholeheartedly agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the latter direction.

Maybe, as you seem to think, the right of secession is ultimately necessary to safeguard the power of the states. Otherwise they're ultimately powerless against the federal government, and it seems the power does tend to concentrate when possible. I hadn't thought of it in that light before.

Wow... I seem to be having a civil, intelligent discussion on Slashdot, *and* I've reconsidered my position in light of a well-reasoned argument. Who'd have expected that to happen? ;-)

Re:Well

[Chris Burke]

It is interesting that Europeans also attempted colonizing Africa, Australia, and Asia. Outside of the Americas, they were really only successful in Australia. The native populations of every place was able to fight back except for the Americas and Australia. There is a reason for that.

And it works both ways, too. Disease is the reason why Europeans were able to colonize the Americas and Australia, and disease was the reason why they were not able to colonize Africa and Asia. The only succesful colonies in Africa were on the coasts, because as soon as the Europeans went inland they were struck down by malaria and other tropical diseases which they had no resistance to.

Re:Well

[Unicorn Giggles]

Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)?

yes. They also generally talk about the Cherokee Trail of Tears, the promises by American founders that they would keep their land "as long as the mountains stood" and the plethora of diseases brought from Europe that nearly wiped out many tribes. And the reservations were not concentration camps, they did not systematically murder all the inhabitants, the reservations were closer to open range prisons in terrible land.

also cavalry is with an "a" not an "i"

Re:Well

[tenchiken]

The Mongol empire and the Greek empires collapsed much more quickly, and long term had much less affect then the Roman empire. As far as the Holocaust goes, Hitler was a bit different. Stalin killed millions of political opponents, and more through mismanagement. Hitler on the other hand had the goal of wiping out another people, and had several other groups in mind for after the Jews.

There are good reasons to focus on the holocaust.

Re:Well

[JM78]

Frankly, I am hard-pressed to see a solution to this crisis.

From my perspective the solution is quite simple. Ignore those who teach hate and publicly proclaim their denial as racial intolerance. IMHO you're correct in your opinion that 'they are going to feel increasingly empowered' if this is tolerated in any way. Tolerance is shown when there is no complaint to the contrary. It should never be left up to those who preach doctrine to cherry-pick history simply because it fits with what they want it to be. Schools are not there to teach belief - that's what religion is for, go to church - they are there to teach facts. If people don't like the facts they're free to take their children elsewhere and teach them nothing but doctrine for all I care; just don't force the rest of us living in reality to abide by personal belief.

I just don't have any sympathy left for those who continue to push doctrine on others. Let's evolve a bit more quickly people (pun intended).

Re:Well

[T.E.D.]

By that logic, schools in the US shouldn't teach about slavery, fearing a confrontation of an 'anti-black' sentiment among racist hicks.

Um...do you have direct evidence that this isn't indeed the case? I'd like to believe it, but the above seems a pretty good description of my grade-school history books back in the 70's. The only mention slavery ever really gets is in the runup to the Civil War, like it didn't exist before 1850.

Given that most people today seem to think the US Constitution was a divinely inspired tome spelling out the best of all possible governments, when in fact it has at least 3 clauses put in it purposely to support slavery, I doubt things have improved that much.

Re:Well

[SRA8]

Dear LS1_Brains, I'm Muslim and I denounce 9/11, Darfur, and any killings instigated by Palestineans. Ask any Muslims (if you know any) and see what they feel about these events? By and large, they will condemn the events as they should.
Now I turn the question around to you, are you and other Christians and Jews and others you know willing to condemn these following acts:
The Holocaust via sanctions of 1,000,000 civilians in Iraq 1990-2000
The murder via war of 75,000 civilians in Iraq 2003-2007
The 55-year slow genocide of the Palestineans via malnutrition (sanctions/water cutoff/destruction of civilian infrastructure)
The massacre of civilians in Sabra and Shatilla
The massacre of civilians in Qana
VA Tech shooter - a suicidal christian terrorist, who likened himself to Jesus Christ and expressed his hatred of the wealthy -- killing dozens in punishment
Since you have conveniently decided to focus just on the past decades, i'll exclude Vietnam, Hitler, Africa, Native Amreicans, and the Crusades.

So what is it? Are you
1. Willing to admit these massacres happened or are you a Holocaust denier?
2. Willing to condemn these massacres?

Please take a survey in your office. I just took one in my office. 50% of the people supported the current strategy of civilian eradication in Iraq and 75% supproted Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

So I turn this question to you in front of Slashdot. For the record, are you willing to admit and condemn these holocausts?
As for being offended. Just as you and I are offended about people denying the Holocaust, I am offended by your denial of the decade-long Iraqi holocaust. Finally, the reason Ntive Americans and Africans conflicts with the western world have flared out is not because Western nations are inherently peaceful. Rather it is because the Native Amricans were NEARLY COMPLETELY ERADICATED. Africa remains in a similar state.

Re:Well

[kir]

Even Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) identified this in his April 18, 2005 homily.

http://tinyurl.com/7nlhk

Moral relativism. If we're not careful, it'll be the end of The West. There IS right and wrong in this world, now matter how often we're told to ignore it.

Re:Well

[meringuoid]

And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later. The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.

We caught on pretty damn quick, though. Hey, guys, let's end this war. Here, have some blankets as a peace offering. No, no, we didn't get them from a smallpox hospital...

Re:Well

[Vicissidude]

We caught on pretty damn quick, though.

You're talking about events that first happened in the late 1700's, hundreds of years after colonists first arrived in the Americas and hundreds of years after the first mass deaths. I wouldn't label that "pretty damn quick".

Re:Well

[kalaf]

Personally, I think all wars should be fought with suicide bombs. If it's not worth strapping a bomb to your son and sending him off to certain death, then maybe it isn't worth killing the other side over either...

Re:Well

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later.

Are you telling me that giving native americans blankets infested with smallpox was an accident? Or that catapulting plague victims over siege walls was just a way to get rid of the bodies? Europeans had been practicing biological warfare for a long time before arriving in the New World.

Re:Well

[MrNaz]

I like *everyone* so long as they behave like civilized people.

Re:Well

[Vicissidude]

Me: And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later.
You: Are you telling me that giving native americans blankets infested with smallpox was an accident?

The smallpox blankets occurred in the late 1700s, long after Europeans had first entered the Americas and long after the first mass deaths of native Americans.

You looked at the first sentence of the paragraph, while conveniently ignoring the second sentence of the same paragraph, which was the entire point:

The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.

Re:Well

[Reziac]

According to the map at wikipedia (per the ancestral post's link), there are destroyed villages all the way across Chad and even into northern Nigeria. I was quite amazed by the span represented.

Re:Well

[Copid]

There are universities in this country where you're actually not allowed to display a Christmas tree, but a menorah is allowed.

Challenge!

Where?

Re:Well

[niXcamiC]

His point isn't that Muslims do stuff generally considered not nice, but that Mohammed told them to. Jesus as a general rule didn't tell people to kill each other, all though you will find plenty of that stuff in the old testament, although the new testament is supposed to supersede that.

Re:Well

[BobSutan]

"Let us not become so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance". That really is a great quote. Plus its versatile. For example, you could easily invoke it to challenge Creationists and disingenuous thinkers such as those who performed this science fair: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Horra_Another_Chr istian_Science_Fair_embarrasses_itself

Re:Well

[BobSutan]

A nice cousin to Maher's quote earlier:

"Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out."

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_app eal_to_b.html

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

Another titbit that you won't hear mentioned in school: No real Muslim supports the governments of Saudi Arabia or the other monarchical crackpots currently referred to as "the leaders of the Muslim world". These tinpot dictators were put in power at the end of WWI by the allied powers to secure their interests over middle eastern assets such as the Suez Canal and this new stuff called "oil". This policy of putting puppet regimes is so commonplace I don't understand how people can think that fucktards like the king of Saudi Arabia even remotely represent the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims when they have such an incestuous relationship with with the western neo-nobles like the Bush family.

What existing governments, then, turly represent the attitudes and beliefs of Muslims? Does Iran do that? Does Pakistan? Does Turkey?

The problem is that, out of the countries with majority Muslim population, the only one with non-crackpot laws (from Western standpoint) is probably Turkey. By that I mean things such as actively enforced blasphemy and apostasy laws, severe criminal punishment for homosexuality (this exists not only in Muslim countries, but the latter seem to be consistent in having it), corporal punishment etc. This correlation certainly doesn't give Islam more credibility in the eyes of the Westerners.

Re:Well

[nkv]

And the Armenian Genocide. Of course, that was the Religion of Peace exterminating Christians so don't expect the government education monopoly to mention it.
Not exactly. The Armenian genocide was committed by the secular "young turks" who seized power from the caliphate. They stood for all the fancy things like liberalism, dissent, separation of church from religion and had the idea that science should replace religion in the country (a sort of ultra-secularism if you will). It wasn't a religiously motivated event but a political one.

Re:Well

[shutdown -p now]

DISCLAIMER: I am a Muslim. I have Jewish friends. Lots of them. Jews and Muslims have lived together for centuries, it is just not true that Muslims and Jews hate each other out of some culturally ingrained ideological perception. It is the nationalist incarnation of the Jewish identity in the militant form known as "Zionism" that Muslims and indeed most Jews oppose.

One more thing. I wonder if publishing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", advertizing that book as genuine, and teaching it in schools as such, would constitute opposition to Zionism, or rather to Jews, in your opinion? FYI, here's the list of countries, taken from Wikipedia, which do that sort of thing:

• Syria
• Egypt
• Iran
• Saudi Arabia
• Lebanon (Hezbollah & Hamas)
• Palestine (parts under Palestinian National Authority control)

Note how the "freedom-loving" Palestinians ended up in the list.

Re:Well

[MrNaz]

No governments represent Muslims or Islam at all. None. As in not a single one. The law in those countries is reflective of the desires of those governments to retain power, not improve life.

If you want to see what an Islamic state would look like, look into proper sources of history on the Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by WWI. Since the allied powers took over colonial rule in the middle east, no country in that region has been representative of Islam. They have all, one way or another, been placed in power by outside states. For a comprehensive history, I recommend this book.

Re:Well

[Kirth Gersen]

The only "radical Christians" that I can think of are abortion-doctor murders.

President Bush is a radical Christian. According to the British Medical Association his aggressive war in Iraq has cost the lives of at least 100,000 Iraqis. And he has weapons of mass destruction RIGHT NOW.

Re:Well

[Kirth Gersen]

And the Armenian Genocide. ... Actually, Hitler likely viewed it as a successful proof-of-concept.

Indeed he did. In fact one of his most famous quotes was in response to a question about someone who worried that massacring the Jews might cause the Nazis to be criticized; Hitler said after a while nobody would remember it because "who remembers the Armenians?"

Re:Well

[NewGhanaCedis]

Funny enough you can find similar hateful arcane living rules for Christians.

One of the better illustrations (humour) of this can be found here http://www.mg.co.za/zapiro/imagePage.aspx?YearId=2 006%7CMonthId=11%7CDayId=23, where Zapiro ask a biblical authority (Rev. Kenneth Meshoe) for clarification to some of the rules laid out too long ago to have any meaning.

Looks pretty much like the citations used to frame Islam and the Muslims, only from the bible (Leviticus and Exodus).

Among the issues are the legal sale of daughters, keeping of slaves from neighbouring countries, death penalty for working on the Sabbath, cutting your hair and wearing cloth made from more than one type of material. All serious issues!

I do not think that any religion has much to say over any other when it comes to finding embarrassing and discriminating statements. What matters most is who and how it is practised today, and in this respect stupidity can be found everywhere.

Re:Well

[Weedlekin]

"The term "radical" means that you and your group are in the practice of killing people who don't follow your beliefs."

I suggest you check any reputable dictionary for an actual definition of "radical" before posting balderdash like this. The rest of what you have written, which is based on not knowing what the term means, is therefore utter tripe.

Re:Well

[MrNaz]

I'm going to come right out with it and say that I think you are lying.

Re:Well

[TheoMurpse]

I certainly don't think your comment should be hidden, and it provides a great comment. However, it's not like the Christian Bible is any better. Here, anyone who believes in anyone but god is to be stoned to death.

That's a bit unfair. There's a shitload of stuff in the Pentateuch which is overridden by the new covenant in Christ that we find in the New Testament. For example, near Deuteronomy, you'll find many laws in Leviticus, including laws which forbid people from eating certain foods and from shaving (!!!).

Of course, Christians do not follow these laws because they were nullified through Christ. Beyond that, the old laws were part of a covenant made with the Children of Israel, a group to which I do not belong. So, at best, you could criticize Jews for this practice, but not Christians, since Christians are not compelled to obey the laws of the old covenant.

Of course, there are many people on /. who are more educated about religion than me, so I defer to them. Someone else mentioned that the older parts of the Koran call for peace, while the newer parts call for jihad. If this is true, then Christian and Muslim beliefs are moving in opposite directions.

Re:Well

[lfreedling]

you can't offend muslims because they will threaten to kill people and the government will take away your freedom of speech.

Re:Well

[Reziac]

Later than that. Even as late as the Civil War (1860 for our foreign friends) most surgeons REFUSED to wash their hands between patients. Which is why soldiers were far more likely to die of hospital septicemia than of battlefield wounds. In fact up until about 1900, when sterilizing equipment and isolating contagious patients started making serious headway in medicine, going into hospital was effectively a death sentence. That's why most people born all the way up thru the 1930s or so strenuously resisted being hospitalized for any reason whatsoever.

Recycling dead folks' clothes and blankets was routine, even when a lethal plague was involved. There just wasn't a good understanding of disease vectors, despite that *corpses* had been used as a contaminant for millennia. To the pre-modern-medical mind, a corpse is an emitter of evil humours, not a source of disease in itself.

In dentistry, equipment was not routinely FULLY sterilized until AIDS forced the issue, in the late 1980s. Yeah, the small stuff was autoclaved. The drill head was NOT, even tho it accumulates blood and tissue from each patient's mouth.

urgh

[Anonymous Coward]

Disgusting if true, but the Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent of Fox News...

Re:urgh

[ronadams]

Prefer their equivalent of CNN then? http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2 048161,00.html Or, if you like: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2339118 8-details/Teachers+drop+the+Holocaust+to+avoid+off ending+Muslims/article.do But really, let's cut straight to the point: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp

Re:urgh

[aslate]

I believe when i last saw this pop up it was a single school somewhere, and i believe it was a single Muslim school.

I came out of education a few years ago and we got plenty of education about the Holocaust, GCSE level History was two years mostly spent on the German history between WWI and WWII. Infact, i remember hearing that the German ambassador (or somesuch) was unhappy about how much our history lessons centred on this.

I clicked the link and laughed as soon as i saw the URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk./ They make no references to the number of schools or anything else.

Re:urgh

[Oxygen99]

And just in case you're wondering about the depths the Mail is prepared to stoop to bash the popular demon of political correctness, have a look at the following brief selection of lies they perpetrated just before Christmas. The Mail and its readers are scum.

Re:urgh

[iainl]

Thanks for the link, which rather proves the point. Unlike the Daily Hate, the Guardian story shows that the real news here is that the Government's Department for Education and Skills have found that teachers have been avoiding this particular optional component of the History Curriculum, on account of it being challenging when you've got children arguing with it.

So it's being made compulsory:

A DfES spokesman said: "It's up to schools to make a judgment on non-compulsory parts of the national curriculum. It is a broad framework and there is scope for schools to make their own decisions."

Teaching of the Holocaust is expected to become compulsory under the new national curriculum from next year.

Re:urgh

[corbettw]

Disgusting if true, but the Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent of Fox News...

So what, is this holocaust-denial denial? Let me guess, you're just "asking questions", right?

Re:urgh

[UbuntuDupe]

The point I'm getting out of all of this is:

What *if* all UK schools dropped the Holocaust for this reason? What would you do about it? Where do you draw the line in accomodating people's "sensitivity" and why?

Re:urgh

[ronadams]

Thanks for expounding on what I was too lazy to :P

I can't understand how FUD like this made it to /., of all places...

Please submit your "are you new here?" obligatory responses promptly.

Re:urgh

[djasbestos]

Good...people should know about it. It's absurd to deny what is probably THE most well known genocide (but not the largest) of the 20th century. Guess what: "Deutsche Schuld" didn't just come out of nowhere...

Being fearful of offending a child who believes in something so ludicrous as the illegitimacy of an entire race of people is...beyond words. You go to school to get educated, and the historian trumps the imam or the preacher or the rabbi as far as "how it all went down". Holy men have books, but we have pictures (sickeningly many) of people being executed, the executioners, the killing chambers, walking skeletons with a thin layer of skin...and bold faced scum like Göring admitting to it, but refusing, like everyone else, to call it "crimes against humanity."

Coretta Scott King said: "Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated." Hence the holocaust memorials in Germany and the expression "never again". So for the sake of the millions of victims and for the sake of the perpetrators who said "my God, what have we done?", it's imperative that it be mandatory education.

Re:urgh

[iainl]

All I can imagine is that the editors just don't know who the Daily Mail are - because a collegue gets it free here at work, I constantly find myself being amazed that they run with headlines about how disgusting it is that the Government isn't doing anything about X, when every other paper has a story about the Government's latest attempts to do something about the same.

But then, on previous occasions they've falsely accused me of being a drug addict, and my aunt of being the Dutchess of Gloucester, so it's hardly surprising I have a low opinion of their journalistic abilities.

Re:urgh

[iainl]

I absolutely agree. But it's still worth noting that, despite the Mail's failure to mention it, this was one individual school, rather than standard practice.

Mail readers can't get out of bed in the morning without something, anything to be righteously indignant about. Even if it's by reading a paper that was busy denying the Holocaust itself at first, on account of being too busy ranting about the flood of horrid Jewish immigrants coming from Eastern Europe who should be sent back to where they came from.

Re:urgh

[Bogtha]

I came out of education a few years ago and we got plenty of education about the Holocaust, GCSE level History was two years mostly spent on the German history between WWI and WWII.

Ditto. At my school, we not only learned all about the Holocaust, but we went on a school trip to visit Auschwitz. There were plenty of Muslim students in my class, and none of them complained, they got on with the work like everybody else, because if they didn't, they'd get Fs.

I clicked the link and laughed as soon as i saw the URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk./ They make no references to the number of schools or anything else.

For non-Brits: The Daily Mail is the UK equivalent to Fox News. So right-wing it used to be nicknamed "the Daily Heil". Their current bogeymen are political correctness and immigration, so the idea that the nation's schools are pandering to Muslims is right up their street, even though it's not a widespread practice and it's being eliminated next year.

Re:urgh

[redtux1]

the thisis websites and associated papers are owned by thesame group as the Daily Mail

Re:urgh

[M. Baranczak]

on previous occasions they've falsely accused me of being a drug addict, and my aunt of being the Duchess of Gloucester OK, that sounds intriguing. Got any more on this subject?

Re:urgh

[iainl]

Sadly, the whole stories (the former being vindictive slurs against some lefty students because they don't like one of Associated's pet Conservatives, the latter mistaken identity) are rather more dull. So I like to just leave those statements hanging...

Re:urgh

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, it probably works better that way, especially with the wording where your aunt is accused of being a Duchess. :)

Re:urgh

[ronadams]

Yes, I discovered that after research. My bad for the redundant source. The Snopes article was really the meat, though.

Re:urgh

[iainl]

Since said Duchess is seven years older, she certainly took it that way...

Re:UK Schools?!!?

[serialdogma]

You don't know just how correct that statement is.

Denying holocaust?

[rzei]

Could someone please explain to the uninformed why does teaching about what happened in the 20th century bother some religious people, in this case holocaust and muslims?

Re:Denying holocaust?

[zappepcs]

Holocaust denial is generally an antisemitic point of view. The Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same deity... apparently, but that doesn't stop them from hating one another. Other famous holocaust deniers are good friends of the KKK.

It is AFAIK a religious belief. There are many arguments for or against it, but the simple fact that it happened is the strongest argument for it. There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen. Genocide is one of humankind's hobbies... if you will. There was Pol Pot, Husein, Chechin?, and other examples like what the Europeans in general did to the new world. The Japanese have their history, as do many other countries on this planet. There are several really good examples in the South American continent.

In fact, I think if you read the book, the Jews may have been promises the 'promised land' but they committed genocide in the process of claiming it.

Not to get on a rant, but genocide does seem to be rather common. There is no reason to think that the Germans weren't trying a bit of it on their own.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Anonymous Coward]

One's religious beliefs give one a sense of security, as well as justification for how they live their lives. When you present to such a person ideas that contradict their religious beliefs (and especially if you have any evidence to back them up) this challenges the integrity of their belief system, and hence makes them feel insecure and possibly unjustified.

Of course, no one likes to feel that way. The brain will often prevent one from having to feel that way by engaging in various defense mechanisms, the simplest of which is outright denial "nope, you have it all wrong." Though that usually doesn't come by itself, anger usually comes up too, with some yelling and other sorts of anger-based behavior. This engages parts of the brain which process emotions, and dis-engages parts of the brain which process logic, and as such the person can babble utter nonsence in defense of his beliefs without even realizing how irrational his arguments are.

Such emotionally-charged behavior can become dangerous, so I can see why some teachers might want to avoid it. It is a shame though...non-religious education should not have to cater to the teachings of a religion.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Sobrique]

Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it

But broadly, I agree. If your 'religious viewpoint' includes trying to portray someone else in a bad light, you might end up being not exactly truthful about what happened. At which point, if you're the kind of manipulative weasel who wants to instill hate of someone else (in this case, Jews) getting exposed as a lying manipulative weasel will offend you.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[tenchiken]

It's more of a political thing then a religious thing. Strangely, with one or two famous exceptions, you don't get Holocaust denial from the Germans.

Instead you get it from anyone who has anything to benefit from Holocaust Denial. You get it from other states that were complicit in the Holocaust, but were never fully exposed outside of the historical community (there is a reason why some French Historians are really touchy about Vichy France), the Middle Eastern countries (which were for the most part allied with the Axis powers) and the White Supremacists (who parrot the Nazi's Social Darwinist beliefs).

The Muslim's have particular reason not to be fond of the Holocaust. There was a large population of Jews in Jerusalem before the war that ballooned as the Nazi's let Jews leave for Israel before WWII started. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, most of the remaining Jews from the Ghettos and the concentration camps, the few that made it out of eastern Europe before either Hitler arrested them or Stalin jackbooted in, and many Jews from France (which had cooperated with the Nazi's) left for either America or Israel.

The logic after the war was that the Jewish people would not be safe unless they had a state to safe guard them. The UN came up with a partition plan to allow for a new Jewish state, but leave most of Palestine (which had never been a separate state) in Arab hands. The newly independent Arab powers rejected it, and started a war to push the surviving Jews into the sea and surprisingly lost.

They still refer to this as the Naqba (Catastrophe). All of the arab regimes therefore started to attack the underpinning of logic that led to the events in 1948. Namely that the Holocaust proved that the Jews needed a state to be free of persecution. Politically the Holocaust is something that Arab states have denied because it gives them a perceived political advantage.

It's much the same for the crusades. Muslim students aren't going to like it when someone points out that the crusades were a response to 300 years of un-ending warfare and expansion by the Muslim states; that the Muslims had pushed all the way out to what remained of the Roman Empire and was threatening to take out Constantinople.

Much like Elizabeth's Protestant Wind, the historical rememberence has been couched in religous terms to mask a political and historical reality. The crusades were initially about saving constantinople and Jerusalam and stopping the Islamic "hordes" fro reaching Europe, with religous fervor added in to appeal to the masses. The Spanish Invasion of England was about trying to end England as a independent power of Span, which was then put in religious terms to glorify it and the Virgin Queen. The crusades have also been touched up with this appeal from a Islamic point of view - since Religious leaders were also military leaders - something never generaly true about European leaders, the religious language became "if you are holy, you will win wars."

Therefore a factual based telling of the Holocaust and the Crusades might not be a good thing from a Arab point of view.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Hoi Polloi]

20th century!? Hell, you can't even get many religious people to believe in 4 billion years of evolution never mind recent history. If we can't get people to understand that the earth is more than 14000 years old then what hope is there to convince an anti-semite of the holocaust?

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. To make it even more interesting, the Christian Yahwe is not the same Yahwe as the Jewish one, having been retrofitted by the Catholic church to effectively be Jupiter in all but name. And then there is the concept of the the Trinity, which is so central to a large part of Christian belief that it doesn't make much sense to say they belief in the same god the Jews believe in.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I think if you read the book, the Jews may have been promises the 'promised land' but they committed genocide in the process of claiming it.

Really? Could you show us all the extermination camps? Where the victims were tossed into ovens, or babies tossed into the air and impaled upon bayonettes, or the poison gas showers?

Reading your post, that line came straight out of the arab narrative. They love to claim genocide, holocaust, war crimes, and so forth. In the process, they denigrate those terms, the real victims of those actions, and impede progress at a resolution. This also presumes the objective truth of the arab narrative, which, history has not been kind to. It appears that numerous fictions were invented purely to continue and prolong this conflict. One of those fictions are the `palestinian' people. They were invented in the 1964 time line. Not in 1948.

What happened in 1948 was the founding of one country and the immediate launching of a war to eradicate said country by angry arabs that didn't get their way. The arabs were given over 80% of the region that was supposed be divided, Jordan or Trans-Jordan was part of what the Balfour declaration had provided as part of the Jewish national homeland. Churchill wanted to provide a place for his hashemite buddies to hole up after being kicked out of the arabian peninsula by the wahabbis, who we know as the `modern' house of Saud. So Churchill sliced off everything west of the Jordan river and created Jordan. The Jews were supposed to live with the rest. All during this time, from 1900 onwards, well, 1880 if you read other histories, the arabs behaved there about the same as they behave today. Killings, bombings, kidnappings, property destruction. You should note that in 1948 a new arab state was proposed, along side of, and slightly larger than Israel. Israelis accepted this. The arabs didn't. The arabs had demanded that arabs in Israel leave right before the 48 war started, this is well documented, and only revisionists for whom this is an inconvenient reality complain otherwise. After Israel was founded and survived, jews in the arab states were expelled forcefully, without possessions, compensation, usually at the point of a gun. A population transfer, not unlike the pakistan india transfer occurred. But the arabs could never accept this. So the UNRWA was formed to perpetuate the crisis (this is what they have done, they have solved nothing). Compare this to *every* other conflict mediated by the UN where the high commissioner for refugees handles this. The other conflicts get settled within about a decade. UNRWA has been perpetuating this conflict for about 6 decades.

Most of what existed prior to 1967 was a construction entirely of the arabs own making. Jordan annexed the west bank, and no one apart from the UK acknowledged and accepted this. Egypt annexed Gaza. Both Jordan and Egypt avoided all out war, but largely failed to comply with terms of the armistice. In 67, with Pan-Arabist Nassar in charge in Egypt, things were brought to a head again. Straights of Tiran and other cassus belli against Israel. Left it with no choice. After the smoke cleared, Israel had gaza and the west bank.

Notice how there are no execution camps in this story. None existed in Israel.

There has not been a genocide against the arabs. The arabs have launched or at least tried to launch genocides against the jews, many times. In Hebron in 1929, every jew who lived there (several thousand, with a multi-thousand year history there) was killed by arab mobs after friday prayers. Now why would that be? There were no "occupied territories"? In 1936-1939 the arabs rioted thoughout the area, killing jews left and right. Again why was this? In WWII the arabs mufti in Israel was directly and overtly allied with Hitler (yeah, invoke Godwin's law).

The jews did not line up the arabs against walls and machine gun them. They did not gas them. They did not spear them, experiment on th

Re:Denying holocaust?

[alexhs]

It's not informative, it's just plain wrong.

I found a rebuttal of that theory in one of the first google links for "allah moon god"

Last paragraph :

Finally, Jesus Christ and many of his disciples spoke Aramaic. In the Aramaic language the word for the Almighty God is 'Allaha' and the name of Jesus is 'Iessa'. There are records of Jesus praying in Aramaic to his God 'Allaha". Also I would add that Allah means God in arab (like Dieu means God in French), and it isn't the name of God. See Yahweh, 99 names of God.

The God is the same as you can find in the Islam article :

[Muslims] do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Judaism and Christianity distorted the messages of these prophets over time either in interpretation, in text, or both.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[interstellar_donkey]

Which is exactly why we need education.

In my experience, most Christians (educated Christians, at least), don't contest the scientific reading of the origin of our species. Instead of putting their head in the sand and sticking their fingers in their ears, they make an attempt to translate the scientific reality into a religious context. As such, we've come to a comfortable state where evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

The more educated a person becomes, the more he or she is able to put fact into the context of their religious beliefs. Educating Muslims on the reality of the holocaust carries the promise of having those Muslims develop a more tolerant perspective towards the Jews. It won't happen for everyone, and it won't happen overnight, but it does make the possibility of that happening all the more possible.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Eli Gottlieb]

So do you ACs have any sources for this moon god stuff? Because the Wikipedia page for "Allah" says nothing about it.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[KTheorem]

The book he was talking about was the Bible numbnuts.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[kabocox]

There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen. Genocide is one of humankind's hobbies... if you will. There was Pol Pot, Husein, Chechin?, and other examples like what the Europeans in general did to the new world. The Japanese have their history, as do many other countries on this planet. There are several really good examples in the South American continent.

Not to get on a rant, but genocide does seem to be rather common. There is no reason to think that the Germans weren't trying a bit of it on their own.

I'm kinda neutral. I wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of a genocide, but I have no believe that it's more wrong that war generally is. I can actually understand genocide, one group of people want that group's land/resources so they fight and kill each other over it. The winners then kill off, enslave, or work to death the losers. I don't see why anyone would deny this process has been going on for ages. A part of that is winners get to write the history and recorded history supports the winners viewpoint. Currently we are in a "genocide is wrong" phase. If the US and our culture seriously lost a war/conflict, that meme could vanish far faster than anyone here can imagine. (If we managed to lose a major war or if the jihad was successful, we'd be on the wrong end of a genecide and part of it is burning the books/culture of the defeated to wipe them from the face of the Earth. We'd nuke our enemies to the bedrock before we allowed ourselves to be on the wrong end of a genocide.)

Re:Denying holocaust?

[qengho]

it's their right to believe what they choose

Apparently it's not. (The study was done on the U.S. population but I have no doubt it can be generalized for all humanity.)

Re:Denying holocaust?

[lebow]

"The Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same deity... apparently"

No we don't. The Jews and the Muslims believe in One G-D (Yishtabach Shmo). The Christians believe in some sort of half god half man, that impregnates women and can be killed by hanging on a cross. Naturally enough they'll deny that left, right and center, but like the holocaust, there are some thing which are indisputable.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[zappepcs]

I think you misread my intent.
"From Joshua 6:17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent."

This was only part of the wars the Jews fought to claim the promised land, in which every breathing living thing was put to death, except for notable exceptions of those who aided them at times. What happened in the 20th century is a different matter altogether.

Genocide, as defined by Merriam-Websters: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Note that it does not say complete destruction, as in totally eliminating them. So, technically, as I've said, the Jews are also guilty of genocide, or attempting it.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[mario_grgic]

Actually Jews and Christians do not believe in the same God, since Christians by definition believe in Christ and the Trinity. Jews do not. From Christian point of view Jews only know of one person of God, but do not acknowledge the other two.

Also, from studying Koran, the character and nature (persona if you will) of Muslim God seems to be quite different than either Christian or Jewish God, and opposite to in character than Christ in particular (e.g kill vs love your enemies).

Re:Denying holocaust?

[zappepcs]

My statement was almost apologetic in that I said they 'apparently' believe in the same 'god of Abraham'

Whether they actually have the same faith, doctrine, or indeed deity histories is another matter. What is important is that the very same Abraham is where any forking happened, or slightly thereafter. Yes, we all know that there is more to it than that, but that is how the popular information reads today.

At one point or more in history, these three 'religions' decided that they hated each other, as often as not because of the other's genocidal tendencies, the the claim thereof.

In summary: All talk of genocide or rather lack thereof by any religious group is IMO nothing more than political posturing, something that the god of Abraham was not above doing/supporting. Ergo, it fits well with the followers of the god of Abraham that genocide and arguments about genocide are part and parcel of the business of religion.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[Trillian_1138]

This is probably getting posted too late to be noticed, but I wanted to chime in with a few responses. Getting all possible disclaimers out of the way: I live in the US, identify as culturally but not religiously Jewish, and would consider myself a anti-Zionist but not particularly emphatic about it (which still probably makes me a 'bad' Jew). Finally, I was born after Israel was established.

One of those fictions are the `palestinian' people. They were invented in the 1964 time line. Not in 1948.

Well, Palestine was used as a geographic name for what's now Israel (and some of the surrounding area) for most of the 20th Century prior to Israel's creation. I would agree that its use as a cultural or ethnic title is rather new, but people living in the area under the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948 had some legitimate cause to call themselves Palestinians and to be less than thrilled that all these Jews were coming to the area following WWII. Note I'm not defending how many decided to express their displeasure (violence) just saying I can understand why they didn't want this population influx. (This is ignoring any antisemitism on top of that, an attitude I would obviously disagree with.)

You should note that in 1948 a new arab state was proposed, along side of, and slightly larger than Israel. Israelis accepted this. The arabs didn't. The arabs had demanded that arabs in Israel leave right before the 48 war started,

I also want to point out that the original UN partition plan split both the Jewish the Arab states into two parts (almost three). See the map and more info on the partion plan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Pla n

While I completely agree that sitting back down at the negotiating table would have been the better choice than launching a war, and it's entirely possible the Arab nations would have launched a war no matter what, Arabs did have good cause to be unhappy with the UN's decision. With the exception of keeping Jerusalem as a UN-controlled city, which I think would have been a fantastic decision, the original UN plan seems rather shortsighted in its devision of territory.

Some day, in the distant future, when the arabs finally understand that all israel wants is peace, they may sit down and finally do what they should have done 60 years ago.

There is something to that which I think we can both agree on. However, I would argue that Israel hasn't been completely without wrongdoing - I think nothing will get accomplished until A) the Arabs concede Israel does want peace (as you said) and B) the Israel concedes that Palestinians do have legitimate issues with how the creation of Israel was handled 60 years ago and how it has conducted itself since (which it sounds like you might disagree with).

I am not trying to say which side is 'worse' or excuse the suicide bombing (or any violent act). All I'm saying is that each side, from their point of view has solid reasons for saying the other side "started it first" and that neither of those points of view are completely without merit.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
-Trillian

Re:Denying holocaust?

[TerranFury]

What happened in 1948 was the founding of one country and the immediate launching of a war to eradicate said country by angry arabs that didn't get their way

"What happened in 1675 was the founding of one country and the immediate launching of a war to eradicate said country by angry native americans that didn't get their way."

(That was King Philip's War.)

The Arabs see Israel as a country set up in their back yard without their permission: Some guy builds a house on your lawn, and then insists he just wants everybody to be friends. The Pilgrims said they came in peace too, and we see how that worked out for the Native Americans.

However, history cannot be reversed. Israel is not leaving the Middle East any more than the United States is leaving North America. I agree it's time the Arabs accepted that.

However, Israel has no moral high ground.

Killings, bombings, kidnappings, property destruction.

The cafe bomb was employed in the early days also by those agitating for an Israeli state.

So what I'm saying is this: It is easy to kill people if you are sure that you are right and they are wrong. So don't buy the nationalist fairytale. Evil (and good) permeate all sides of all conflicts.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[niXcamiC]

The Muslims, Jews, and Christians all believe in the same deity...

I really don't understand that statement at all, as they all believe different things about him and call him different names. The only way I can partialy reason this, is that Christians claim to have the same God as the Jews, although many Jews would probably deny this.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[node159]

babies tossed into the air and impaled upon bayonettes

I'm curious where your reference came from, could you please clarify as I am unable to find any reference to it in any Holocaust matterial.

Re:Denying holocaust?

[node159]

Its interesting too observes what people will spout under guise of anonymity. Having actually researched the areas of your claims, your ignorance and intolerance highlights your contribution to the issues at hand.

I commend you on your faith but ask you too be aware of its consequences. I'm sure *your* sacred text will have a relevant quote.

Old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have schools ignoring real science to avoid offending radical Christians.

Re:Old news.

[$RANDOMLUSER]

We already have schools ignoring real science to avoid offending radical Christians.

This is an excellent point. In the U.S., we allow Christian radicals to bully our school systems both positively (forcing "Intelligent Design" into science classrooms) and/or negatively (removing evolution from the curriculum).

Re:Old news.

[dasimms]

True. And now when I argue with ID'ers/Creationists, I can no longer use the good old "you don't see people clamoring to hear both sides of the Holocaust". Drat!

Re:Old news.

[goldspider]

I don't think presenting creationism as an alternative theory to evolution is morally equivalent to denying the well-documented extermination of 6 million people.

Not saying creationism is valid science by any stretch, but the ethcical comparison simply does not exist.

Re:Old news.

[grub]

I say teach it all, including intelligent design and holocaust history and let the student sort it out.

That's the standard cop-out from the Creationists and other nuts. They hammer the kids with their cults at home, force them to their churches/synagogues/mosques on their holy days, and threaten them with eternal damnation from the day the kids are born. Reality doesn't have much chance against that type of abusive brainwashing.

Re:Old news.

[ednopantz]

Voters let Christian Right move against evolution because they didn't know what they stood for. The same voters threw the creationists out in the next election.

Re:Old news.

[king-manic]

If you think introducing ID into the classroom is a positive thing then I am certain you are part of the problem.

Re:Old news.

[fotbr]

I think he was using "positive" to mean something was added, and "negative" to mean something was removed.

Not "positive = good" and "negative = bad"

Re:Old news.

[misanthrope101]

Yes, we do have a rather strong strain of fundamentalist Christianity in the USA. Straight-out young-earth Creationism is fairly common.

You're partially right, in that no one really believes in intelligent design. ID exists only because it was designed to get around the Supreme Court's rejection of teaching Creationism in classrooms. In the Dover case, and others I've read about, the people who tried to push ID into the classroom were doing it for purely religious reasons. It's just rebranded Creationism.

Re:Old news.

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Indeed that is exactly what I meant. GP's parser needs work.

Re:Old news.

[RexRhino]

Yes, but at least in the case of Creationism, there doesn't seem to be any racist intent (unless I am very misinformed about what Creationism is all about). If I have a choice between plain stupidity, and racist hateful stupidity, isn't the first option less harmful?

Re:Old news.

[king-manic]

That's a bit ambigious. Positive/negative have connotations other then what you meant. You might be better off with "added"/"subtracted".

Re:Old news.

[Rycross]

Young-earth creationism does exist in America. My father, for one, believes it, and I've known others. Now, it really depends on the type of church you go to and the people you associate with. For example, when I was still fairly religious, I went to a Baptist church on a University campus, and the consensus with the church-goers there was that evolution was fact.

However, the reason this came up in my church was because a creationist apologist came to campus and attempted to debate some scientists (although those in my church that had actually attended felt that the scientists did an exceedingly poor job, and were disappointed). So there's no doubt there is a movement trying to give it legitimacy.

But in terms of it sharing space, or replacing, evolution in the classroom, thats fairly overblown.

Theres a lot of panic about it on Slashdot, but the fact of the matter is its not really that widespread in America. I was taught evolution, not creationism, in two separate high schools. Ditto for pretty much all my friends. I don't know a single person who was not taught evolution. I know anecdote isn't data, but lets also look at the facts that caused all the publicity.

The problem came from one school district in Kansas. It was smacked down by the Supreme Court. The board that supported creationism was voted out, and replaced with one that supported evolution. It was, in every way, a complete loss for the creationism crowd. Thats not to say that they're not dangerous, but they've completely failed to make any serious inroads into our educational system.

So, yes, it does exist, and there is a serious movement by a Christian minority to push intelligent design. So far they're not making very much progress, but we still have to keep our guard up.

Re:Old news.

[ak3ldama]

Indeed that is exactly what I meant. GP's parser needs work.
Have you written a compiler lately? (cue music to the tune ...but no one wants to drive a ford.)

Re:Old news.

[Rycross]

Really? How many schools today in America are teaching creationism? Do you know for a fact that the teaching of such is really widespread in America? Sure there was one highly publicized case, where the perpetrators were basically smacked down, removed from power, and all the damage was reversed.

I was taught evolution, with no hint of creationism. Ditto for my friends. Catholic schools even teach evolution. Is there really evidence that evolution is being questioned in schools systematically, rather than highly publicized isolated incidents? If so, please produce proof.

Re:Old news.

[Viking Coder]

BRILLIANT post.

(Score: 117, Insightful)

Re:Old news.

[ak3ldama]

Yes, but at least in the case of Creationism, there doesn't seem to be any racist intent (unless I am very misinformed about what Creationism is all about).
Actually, in the case of Judeo/Christian (and I think Muslim too) Creationism, all humans come from one man and one woman. So basically there can and should be absolutely no racist intent at all.

Also: as a Christian, I do not believe that this perception of Christianity in the US being balls out for removing Evolution from the schools is correct. I think that most Christians in the US have no problem with Evolution. As a scientific theory it is very valid, and extremely useful. (BTW: I called it a theory because that is what it is; I realize this type of thing is very hard to prove/disprove so do not take offense.) There _are_ those that do not want to believe in Evolution, and regrettably they are a vocal minority. All that aside, I agree with others in that saying the Holocaust didn't happen is not at all similar to being a proponent of ID/Creationism.

If I have a choice between plain stupidity, and racist hateful stupidity, isn't the first option less harmful?
Not always, but plain stupidity can so easily lead to so much more.

Re:Old news.

[Fallingcow]

You can't throw a rock here in Kansas without hitting a young-Earther, even on a college campus. I'm still surprised that the ID board got voted out.

(yes, I'm getting the hell out as soon as I can)

Re:Old news.

[Rycross]

Interesting. Was creationism actually taught in your schools?

I used to live in Texas, but I was at the age where real biology wasn't taught in classes. I live in Illinois now, so I could be wrong about this if its just confined to southern states.

Re:Old news.

[ispeters]

My first reaction was to agree with you, and after consideration I still do, but I had a flickering "What If?" moment. So, playing Devil's Advocate here, consider this: what are the follow-on consequences of presenting pseudoscience as a valid alternative to real science in a classroom? It's quite obvious that ruining a child's education is not nearly as terrible as killing that child (and, if my education was any good, the Nazis figured out how to make murder especially terrible). But consider that the Nazi's murdered a finite number of people. Instituting statewide support of pseudoscience could, in the long term,

Re:Old news.

[Fallingcow]

I only went to elementary school here; I went to high school in Missouri, near Kansas City. Back for college now, 'cuz it's cheap.

So, I'm not sure for Kansas, but in Missouri our HS biology teacher was a devout Catholic who made it clear that he did not think that evolution was correct, but taught it anyway. I didn't actually take any bio (did two years of Chem and a year of physics instead; cutting up frogs and memorizing a few dozen species of birds isn't my thing) but from what I heard, he didn't criticize it too much when teaching it.

I do know that the Lutheran church that I attended here in Kansas during my elementary school days promoted young-Earthism and ID. I'm also fairly sure that you'd find a significant majority of people here supporting the "I didn't come from no monkey!" view over evolution, which is why I'm surprised that the vote went against the pro-ID board.

Re:Old news.

[ak3ldama]

You lose all credibility by being an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps you should look beyond the modern organized church and read the Gospel of Mark.

Re:Old news.

[Rycross]

Yeah, certainly a lot of American's believe in some form of creationism (about 40% iirc), however I'm not sure what the breakdown of schools is between "teaches evolution," "teaches creationism," "teaches both," "teaches neither." In my experience its a whole heap of the former with a dash of the latter three, while most people seem to hysterically claim its mostly the second.

Re:Old news.

[Fallingcow]

Oh, I'd say that the official teaching of Creationism in public schools is a rare thing.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of "wink wink, nudge nudge" in the way that many teachers handle topics dealing with the age of the earth and evolution. That may be a regional thing, and it's not overwhelmingly bad or anything, but it's there.

You are correct in that there's not any immediate threat of all of the schools in the country going anti-science. Hell, the IDers couldn't even gain a foothold here in Kansas, as it turns out.

Accomodating religion

[MECC]

Why does accommodating religion nearly always harm society?

Re:Accomodating religion

[grub]

Why does accommodating religion nearly always harm society?

Because most (all?) religions are intransigent in their core beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. Society pays the price for bending over backwards to appease fairy tales.

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

This is a particularly ironic (read: sadly mis-informed) comment, given that the Nazi's were social Darwinists rather then religious. And it's the secular schools that are de-emphasizing the Holocaust and the Crusades.

Re:Accomodating religion

[beldraen]

Because when religion is allowed to overshadow history, inevitably religion is used to harm. Every single Luxembourg law was a propel edict. Every single thing that the Nazis did to Jews were decreed by a Pope as the appropriate thing to do. It was Christians who designed using a star and argued Jews should be tagged. It was Christians who said Jews should be eradicated. This is why Christians were so silent in the war: the Nazis were doing exactly what was said to be correct about the history of the Jews.

No, the right to believe what he or she wants to believe is anyone's choice. There is no right to cause others to accept ignorance just because it does not fit within your world view. In fact, history has shown that when history is ignored (ironic, isn't it?) that which is at first a denial is then used as a reason to subjugate.

Christianity has finally had to deal with this issue. That is why the Pope has been calling for the right anyone to trade faiths and not be punished. It is time militant members of Islam grow up.

Re:Accomodating religion

[CmdrGravy]

I thought Hitler and the Nazis were devout christians ( fair enough they may not have justified their actions in terms of religion ) and that it was a Muslim school which has decided to take these teaching options.

Re:Accomodating religion

[UncleTogie]

Why does accommodating religious fanatics nearly always harm society?
Fixed with a reminder: Allowing someone to practice their beliefs is good. Insisting everyone switch to yours is not.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Sobrique]

Disagree. Religion has it's strengths for improving society. There's worse ways to live than following the 10 commandments. And 'because God said so, now do it' is, in the right 'social climate' a more powerful motivator than just because, or 'because you'll go to jail if you don't.

Religion itself, spirituality, belief? These I consider positive things, in many ways. However the problem with organised religion is that the people involved are ... well people. And just as susceptible to bias, corruption, or just plain failing to forsee consequences. (I mean, telling people to not eat pig is good health advice in a hot country, but it becomes irrelevant in this day and age)

Re:Accomodating religion

[parkrrrr]

Protestantism and antisemitism have been associated with each other for a few centuries longer than anything Darwin might have written. Justifying hate and genocide with religion is about as old as religion itself.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Indeed. As I argued here not so long ago, I do not believe in “freedom of religion”. As soon as you introduce the word “religion”, you introduce all kinds of unhelpful ambiguity into what should be fairly simple principles, and things very worthy of protection become entangled with things that are anything but.

Quote of the day:

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Re:Accomodating religion

[symbolic]

I don't know that Hitler was a "devout" Christian, but I do seem to remember that he used "God's will," at least at some level, to justify his actions against the Jews. This is one of the inherent dangers of religion - it can be (and has been) used to justify anything, no matter how heinous.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Uzbek]

Because religions are based on false facts and principles from which they cannot separate themselves. As Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". To shed millennium-old superstitions and irrational dogma, one must base his philosophy on principles of science and humanism.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Frozen Void]

Religion and science dont mix.
its reason versus faith.Its probably feels good to believe in some God/s and have hopes for afterlife but this can be harmful if it overrides logic and reason.Its better to stop it at start.

If you bring scientific argument s to justify the point evolution never happened,you are not acting from investigative worldview("what happened?") but ("this is what happened and i have the proof in your terms").

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

Sorry. You are very much wrong. Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life. (Strangly enough, he once mentioned that it would be better for Germany if they had Muslim faith, as it was more appropriate for their race). Hitler in fact ordered both the disolution of the party that represented the Catholic faith in Germany (the Centre party) as well as the persecution of the protestant Church. Hitler attacked the basic premise of Christianity - grace and charity to the down trodden - as being essentially week. In this way he very much parroted Nietzsche's arguments against Christianity.

With one exception, none of the other leaders of Germany at the time said anything about Christian belief. They used the language in speeches now and then, but they overwhelmingly fell into one of three categories: A cult-ish series of beliefs around the divinity of nature (strangely not all that different from more modern new age beliefs), or "German Christian" basically Christianity with Christ replaced with German figures including Hitler himself or in science and in particular, Social Darwinism.

Re:Accomodating religion

[ktappe]

Because most (all?) religions are intransigent in their core beliefs

It was uncalled for to mod this "Flamebait". No matter how devout you are and of what religion, you are being untruthful if you claim your religion is accepting of change. To most Christians, the Bible is "THE BOOK" and cannot be questioned. "It's in the Bible" is the most common Christian's reply to morality issues. Ditto for Muslims and the Koran. This is not flamebait. In fact, it's a matter of pride of most devout followers--they spend years and years memorizing their holy books. To memorize something is to set it in mental stone; it cannot change. That is the very defintion of the term "intransigent" in the parent post. If you modded the parent (or this post) "Flamebait", then you are abusing your mods and it would be only fair for your karma (both digital and literal) to suffer.

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

And you sir appear to be too stupid to understand the difference betwen Social Darwinism and Evolution, and too blinded by hatred to actually do your homework.

From Wikipedia:

The Holocaust

        Main article: Holocaust

One of the foundations of Hitler's and the NSDAP's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, eugenics, and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were crippled and retarded children on an order signed by Hitler. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued. This deadly program was called T-4 and many of its killers soon moved to death camps.

Re:Accomodating religion

[brian0918]

The existence of good believers validates the existence of bad believers. Religion is the source of the problem and the only cure is irreligion. You can worship a book full of hatred and murder and be stunned when someone else worships the same book and is filled with murderous hate. Your willingness to accept and "spread the Word" paves the way for religious intolerance, hatred, and holy wars.

Re:Accomodating religion

[bigdavex]

Why does accommodating religion nearly always harm society?

It's news only when it does.

Religious group wants to feed the needy? Distribute their literature? That's not news.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Eli Gottlieb]

First of all, bullshit. Put down the Sam Harris books and go outside for a while. You might find that the large majority of your perfectly-tolerant neighbors and fellow citizens believe in a religion. Unless, of course, you live in a fundamentalist area, in which case you are simply reacting to your environment.

Next, not all religions demand that believers "Spread the Word". Examples of those that don't: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the Ancient Greek Religion. In fact, I do believe that Islam and Christianity are the only two evangelistic religions. Woops, there goes your argument.

Re:Accomodating religion

[master_p]

But religions contain absolute truths, dogmas etc making it easier for people to insist on everyone switching.

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

Will people please please please do some research before they start posting crap like this. The pope never decreed anything about the Holocaust, and documentary evidence exists that they were worried about it, not applauding it. On top of that large portions of the Catholic and Protestent churches went to concentration camps for opposing Hitler. Please go look up the Confessing Church.

It was not Christians who came up with the star, Christians were not silent in the war, and the Nazis were not doing what was said to be correct about the History of the Jews.

Might I suggest Richard Evan's books on Nazi Germany?

You sound like Junior High Schooler insisting that BASIC is a better language for C, and that all operating systems are written in Assembly.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Red Flayer]

Every single thing that the Nazis did to Jews were decreed by a Pope as the appropriate thing to do.

I think you misunderstand what a Papal Decree is.

Pious XII did not decree that the actions of the Nazi state were appropriate; he chose to not interfere, which is different. Even if implicitly assenting, there was no explicit or tacit approval of Nazi efforts to exterminate Jews.

Every single Luxembourg law was a propel edict

Papal edict, you mean? Please support this, then, because I could find nothing to corroborate your claim.

The Catholic Church was far from innocent with respect to the Holocaust; however, its sins were of the ommission kind; they failed to stand up to the Nazis. They allowed the Nazis to use outdated Church material as justification for the Holocaust. It would be wise to note, however, that most Protestant Churches declared themselves in support of the Nazis far before the Catholic Church acquiesced.

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

Never ask religion for how. Never ask science for why. Neither have the tools to address the other question. Neither needs to.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Khomar]

Because when religion is allowed to overshadow history, inevitably religion is used to harm. Every single Luxembourg law was a propel edict. Every single thing that the Nazis did to Jews were decreed by a Pope as the appropriate thing to do. It was Christians who designed using a star and argued Jews should be tagged. It was Christians who said Jews should be eradicated. This is why Christians were so silent in the war: the Nazis were doing exactly what was said to be correct about the history of the Jews.

This is completely untrue. Maybe you should recheck your facts. While the Pope was wrong in not condemning the atrocities, there is a big difference between not speaking out against and decreeing them "as the appropriate thing to do". The problem that paralyzed the world is that no one could believe that the Germans could really do such a thing. Europeans were supposed to be above all that atrocity stuff, right? They forgot that we are all human and therefore all capable of great evil no matter what our skin color is or where we have come from. No one culture has a monopoly on doing evil.

Antisemitism in so-called Christians comes from an ignorance of both religion and history. Any Christian who knows anything about the Bible realizes that all of the apostles were Jewish as was Jesus Christ himself. Paul, in Romans, speaks of how he would give up his own salvation if it meant that his people (the Jews) could be saved. The Bible, if anything, supports a wholehearted support and love for the Jewish people. People who believe that the Jews should be killed have no place to call themselves Christians. And you have no place to categorically blame Christians for the holocaust. After all, Stalin (an atheist) killed 20 million people in the Soviet Union, but you can't blame all atheists for his actions.

Re:Accomodating religion

[RexRhino]

I thought Hitler and the Nazis were devout christians ( fair enough they may not have justified their actions in terms of religion ) and that it was a Muslim school which has decided to take these teaching options. No, the Nazis were not devout Christians... This is another example of rewriting history in order to give the Nazis characterists of modern day political enemies.

The biggest repeated myths about the Nazis are that they were Christian (which is entirely false, while they borrowed a mish-mash of religious iconography from european paganism, christianity, hinduism, etc., they didn't have any specific religious beliefs)... or that they supported capitalism (the Nazi party was the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", and supported a nationalized centrally planned economy closer to modern day Cuba or North Korea than anything else).

Since the Nazis are pretty much the archetype of evil in our society, people who are anti-Christian or anti-capitalism or anti-anything-else want to paint the Nazis as being Christian or capitalist or whatever it is that they don't like (Godwins law in effect).

Re:Accomodating religion

[Rycross]

Religion is the source of the problem and the only cure is irreligion.

No sorry, but thats wrong. Religion is a symptom of the problem, not the source. Eliminate religion tomorrow and something will raise up in its place. That something can be stuff such as nationalism, racism, sexuality, and whether Sally is stylish enough.

Humans are social animals, and our natural instinct is to form groups and try to expand the influence of our group. Its evolved into us. Recognizing this is the first step to fixing the problem. Scapegoating will only delay solving the problem.

That you blame religion and fail to recognize the pattern means you have not given this enough thought, and are likely just regurgitating stuff told to you. Think!

Re:Accomodating religion

[lordmage]

My science is better than your science.
My religion is better than your religion.
My car is better than your car.

Please figure out that greed and the things that Religion tries to suppress are the reasons for your "Harm". Sex = Troy = Helen = the face that launched a thousand ships and killed thousands... simple things cause issues so I would state your statement is inherently too broad and problematic.

oh and "All generalizations are false, including this one" applies to your post as well as mine.

Re:Accomodating religion

[RexRhino]

Just because they had the word Socialist in their name didn't make them anti-capitalist in their actions. If capitalism is defined as a "free market economy" (which is typically what people mean when they say "capitalist"), then the Nazis were as anti-capitalist as you can possibly get.

They believed that all industry and agriculture should be nationalized, and that the state should set prices and wages, and the economy should be centrally planned for what they percieved as the "public good". In terms of its position on economic planning, Nazism is very similiar to Castro's Cuba.

If, like many socialists, you define capitalism to mean "bad mean poo poo heads", yeah fine... but it is a useless definition if you want to have any understanding of the situation. Nazism and Fascism believes in a planned economy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy ). Planned economies are inherently anti free market (by definition), and to argue otherwise is just playing word games.

Of course they did have tight control of the economy during the war, it was WWII after all. A tightly controlled state-run economy was a fundamental part of their ideology.

Companies like Krupp, IG Farben, and Rheinmetall did very well. So does Havana Club and Citgo/PDVSA. Are you saying that Castro and Hugo Chavez are pro-capitalism?

Re:Accomodating religion

[brian0918]

Well, of course there are multiple problems with the world. Religion is definitely in the top 3. This has nothing to do with social grouping, but with blindly accepting claims without evidence; this practice is very dangerous and naturally leads to fundamentalist lunacy. If everyone questioned what they are taught to believe blindly, we wouldn't have this issue. The existence of good people who blindly accept what they are taught makes it easier for others to blindly accept the corruption they are taught.

Re:Accomodating religion

[brian0918]

If everyone questioned the evidence for the beliefs they are taught, it would be damn near impossible for groups of people to emerge who blindly accept beliefs without so much as asking for evidence. The existence of believers who blindly accept religious claims (even if they're nice to thine neighbors) makes it easier for nutjobs to justify their blind acceptance. Your freely-professed blind faith is excusable and detrimental to society. As for Sam Harris, I can't say I've ever read any books by him.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Rycross]

Well, of course there are multiple problems with the world. Religion is definitely in the top 3. This has nothing to do with social grouping, but with blindly accepting claims without evidence; this practice is very dangerous and naturally leads to fundamentalist lunacy. If everyone questioned what they are taught to believe blindly, we wouldn't have this issue. The existence of good people who blindly accept what they are taught makes it easier for others to blindly accept the corruption they are taught.

My argument is that these multiple problems stem from the same source. Blindly accepting claims without evidence is a pretty human trait, and you can see this occur in the other problems (nationalism, racism, politics) as well. I've found that the average person mostly accepts just what they're told, and that the people who actually question are rare exceptions who have trained themselves not to do so. Heck even then, they'll probably just accept some things, as long as it doesn't run too contrary to what they believe. And don't believe for instance that I'm holding myself up as some golden standard... I'm just as bad as the rest of them.

Ok, for instance, why do you believe religion is the cause of these problems? Why is religion the cause and not the excuse? Could it be that the people doing these things have their own interests at heart, or are simply following what the alpha-leader puts forth, as is human tendency?

You're claiming: Religious people do bad things + Religious people tend to just accept things + religious people use religion as an excuse = religion is bad.
I'm claiming: People do bad things + People just accept things + People use a variety of excuses to justify what they did = There are certain evolutionary traits that tend to cause problems.

My position is that blaming religion for problems is akin to blaming violent video games when a video gamer goes out and shoots people; there may be a correlation, but its far more likely that the person's violent tendencies led him to play violent video games, rather than violent video games led the person to have violent tendencies.

It doesn't help that I find that most people that claim religion as a cause don't seem to think it through. Every time I bring this up, I just get a bunch of regurgitated facts about how religious people have done bad things, which doesn't even begin to address my points.

Do you see my point?

Re:Accomodating religion

[Darby]

I thought Hitler and the Nazis were devout christians ( fair enough they may not have justified their actions in terms of religion )

It's arguable as to whether Hitler himself was "actually" a Christian, but the Nazi ideology was explicitly, militantly, and absolutely Christian.

The holocaust followed step by step the plan laid out by Martin Luther, father of protestantism, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies". Hell, Kristallnacht was on his birthday.
Hitler was absolutely a huge promoter of Christianity since he was absolutely opposed to the "godless commies".

So, yeah, the OP is either completely ignorant of the entire history of anti-semitism in Christianity or just a liar.

Christians are quite eager to deny the role their religion played in a couple thousand years of slow roasting jews alive, which the holocaust was merely the culmination of. In that respect they're even worse than the holocaust deniers.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Darby]

Sorry. You are very much wrong.

Sorry, but you are an ignorant fool or a liar.

Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life.

That's an idiotic, bullshit *lie* and nothing besides.

Here are a selection of quotes from Hitler proving you to be a liar:

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system. We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good example.

"And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.

I would ask whether the economic policy of this now superseded system was a Christian policy. Was the inflation an undertaking for which Christians could answer, or has the destruction of German life, of the German peasant as well as of the middles classes, been Christian?"

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I

Re:Accomodating religion

[walter_f]

Hitler was raised a Catholic, but expressed nothing but contempt for Christianity later in life.

Formally, Hitler never left the Roman Catholic church. Hitler never stopped to pay his due fees to the church (called "Kirchensteuer", "church tax" in Germany and Austria). He is said to have been a regular attendant at church services.

On the other hand, Hitler never has been excommunicated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, either.

An interesting read: "Der Glaube des Adolf Hitler - Anatomie einer politischen Religiosität" (The Faith of Adolf Hitler. Anatomy of a political religiosity), by historian Friedrich Heer.

One of theses of this book is that Hitler's anti-semitic views have been continuously derived from those held by major Roman Catholic leaders and institutions during Hitler's youth in Austria.

From N. Ravitch's review of the book
"It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush", by Joe Conason:

"Those who find fascistic tendencies abundantly present in religious bodies are often thrown the example of Hitler's alleged opposition to religion in general and Christianity in particular. This ignores much scholarship (by such historians as Richard Steigmann-Gall in THE HOLY REICH, AND Friedrich Heer in DAS GLAUBEN DES ADOLF HITLERS (The Faith of Adolf Hitler) which demonstrates how fully prepared German Protestants and later German Catholics were to accept Nazi policies and doctrines. It was because both religious Christians and Nazis shared a hatred of modernity, progress, rationalism, social change, and Jews."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A10EW5 N83RTO27/102-9716125-4187365?ie=UTF8&display=publi c&sort_by=MostRecentReview&page=1

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination


You are aware that "Positive Christianity" was a code word for German Christian yes? And you do know what exactly the German Christians believed yes? If the answers to either of those questions was no, you need to go do some more homework. If the answers to the two questions were yes, you clearly have no interest in factual discussion just a misguided sense of personal hatred and vitriol that apparently supersedes your knowledge of Historical fact.

And again, your post fails to address some points that were raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.

You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point. I can dig up a lifetime of animosity towards the Church, Hitler putting to death it's leaders, and his statement that he would destroy the Protestent Church because it would not support him.

For anyone else interested in honest research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Mysticism

Private statements

Hitler's private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]

Re:Accomodating religion

[Farmer Tim]

A worthy quote, but Jefferson didn't live to see the 20th century. History provides no example of a priest-free people maintaining a free civil government either (in fact, being priest-free usually seems to be the result of the loss of free government and descent into totalitarianism).

I'm not defending religion, I'm saying that the problem is people in general. Unfortunately my doomsday machine isn't quite ready yet...

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

You honestly don't expect me to take a review of a book entitled "It can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush" as some sort of historical reference right?

The reality is that Hitler didn't even succeed in rallying the Church around him any more or less then the rest of the German population. The earliest documentation of Hitler's anti-semeticism came in the post war years, where the Jews were blamed for the sudden inconceivable loss of World War I. You can speculate on earlier sources (and let's face it, all of Europe was Anti-semitic going into World War II) but the only place you can prove it is post war. If the UK had lost World War I, and the political leaders blamed the Jews just as the Germans did, the Holocaust could have occurred there just as easily.

As far as scholarship goes, leaving pulp political fiction out, and reviews from a guy who wrote:

n the West Jesus is held up as a model. But his teachings can be used only in a period just before the end of the world; he expected the end to come soon. You cannot practice his teachings in a world that will last; they are not practical. Mohammed, unlike Jesus, was a normal man; he had normal feelings, not the sado-masochistic feelings of Jesus which he got from the whole Judaic messianic complex. Mohammed is someone who can admire, can emulate, can respect.

I am not a Muslim but I think Ramadan has shown Mohammed to be a better guide than Jesus. I would suggest that you look at real scholarship that is occurring now. In particular, I would suggest works by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Evans.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Darby]

raised. Namely that Hitler forced the Church to allow him to directly appoint bishops, ended the political party that was affiliated with the church, tried to destroy the confessing church, and threw in jail the leadership of both the catholic and the protest church. Moreover they forced as many churches as possible into the German Church movement (which created the confessing church in the first place), forced a pact onto Rome, etc.


Which is unChristian how exactly? You should look into the history of your religion before defending it.
That's *how* religions have always spread, that's how they've always evolved.

You can dig up a single speech, and completely miss the context of it to make your point.

Again with not only a lie, but a ridiculously idiotic one.
Those were excerpts from speech after speech after speech rallying the German *Christians* together for his holy cause.
So, no "single speech". It was a well established pattern perfectly in keeping with the history of religion as a whole and that one in particular.

Of course, you don't like that fact so you'll spout the most stupid and easily falsified lies in order to avoid being honest with yourself.


Private statements

Don't matter one bit.
Nobody cares what Hitler's actual religious beliefs were. What he *used* was Christianity. The people who went along with his plan *were* Christians.

Deal with the facts, quit trying to throw out red herrings to avoid honesty.

Re:Accomodating religion

[UncleTogie]

Well said. I'd like to touch on something you said:

Every time I bring this up, I just get a bunch of regurgitated facts about how religious people have done bad things, which doesn't even begin to address my points.

Exactly. As you pointed out earlier, you could insert almost ANY subset of the human race in lieu of "religious people". I believe the problem lies here: Humans are so busy concentrating on, excessively focusing on, and mistakenly acting upon our various personal/social/dogmatic/life-choice differences, we've stopped looking at our far-more-numerous and important similarities.

My personal policy is simple, and simply paraphrases the "your right to throw a punch ends at my nose" meme. I'm no more threatened by an athiest or their beliefs than I would be by a Muslim, Hindu, or Mormon. I think Kevin Smith {through Serendipity} said it nicely in Dogma: "It doesn't matter WHAT you have faith in, just as long as you HAVE faith..."

One thing I can guarantee you as a military brat: All over the world, even right now, someone's going to wake up and go about their day trying to live as they best can, just like where you live. Whether they want to wear a burka, a yarmulke, or a tu-tu, swim fins, and a snorkel is irrelevant. What their intentions are for themselves and those around them is not. Folks, if humanity wants to survive, we've got to stop arguing over petty differences to be able to save us from us.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Eli Gottlieb]

And if you had read the bible (or even looked at what goes on on the arabian peninsula), you'd know that the Jews also have quite a tendency to get murderous though they do it to get the land promised to them by a voice in their head, not to "spread their word": And if you had known a damned thing about the Jewish religion, you would know that Jews follow the Talmud and its interpretive guidance rather than the simple word of the Torah. You would also have known that the Talmud states that the Jews must wait until God gives them back their land by sending the Messiah rather than retaking by forceful means. Finally, you would have known that due to the aforementioned Talmudic rulings, Zionism is and always has been an almost entirely secular movement on the part of ethnic Jews, including atheists who wouldn't be caught dead in a synagogue.

Religion is a method of dividing humanity in US vs them (pun intended). From this never anything good has come. Wrong and wrong. Humanity always divides into ingroups and outgroups, regardless of the presence or absence of religion. In Soviet Russia, people had an "us vs. them" mentality not only with respect to the Cold War but with respect to getting one's own family the last loaf of bread. This division comes from human nature, and humans evolved it so that their family groups could survive. I would call human evolution that a Good Thing(TM), even if it does leave over a few traits we, in our Intelligent Redesign of humanity, might wish to remove.

Or do you not believe in survival? Excellent, I'll have great fun out-evolving you.

That's the exact same argument by which many Christians claim every western scientific success between about 800 and 1800 CE for themselves: After all, they were all religious. I have never heard Christians claim any such thing, so I honestly could not say.

You completely ignore that even in the so "enlightened" West, not being religious still carries severe sanctions - being by far the worst in the US, where you can't run for office unless you declare allegiance at least to some god. Apparently, you have never even heard of continental Western Europe, where atheism competes neck-and-neck with Christianity and Islam for Largest Religious Opinion. And of course, in the United States you can run for any office while atheist. And of course, the voters have the right to despise you for any reason they wish.

You have done nothing but argue from the postulates that religion is uniformly barbaric, violent, and illogical while atheism is the very definition of enlightenment. You have shown nothing to prove your assertions or postulates except your own ignorance of others' religions and your definite anti-Semitism.

Game over. Play again? Y/N

Re:Accomodating religion

[Eli Gottlieb]

It doesn't matter whether you consider them to be "real Jews" or not, my point is that they use religion as justification and that it being a different one than "spread the faith" doesn't mean that it isn't used as a justification.

You deliberately fail to understand. Zionism does not justify itself in religious terms. It is a secular movement by ethnic Jews who desire a homeland more than they desire to keep to religious orthodoxy. It is a nationalist movement, not a religious one. Hence, your attempt to point about a No True Scotsman fallacy fails. Whether the Zionists are "real Jews" or not doesn't matter, because they don't profess to be "real Jews".

I didn't say anything otherwise. My point is that while there are many dividing lines between ingroups and outgroups, religion is one of the most prominent, right after generic fear of foreigners (including patriotism and nationalism as specific forms).

So why does religion deserve elimination any more than nationalism? Or do you think that doing away with all officially-stated separations between groups will make people sit down and sing "Kumbaya" or "Od Yavo Shalom Aleinu" with one another?

Evolution doesn't work that way. Also, it is not me who is religious, thus holding a deathwish (especially Christianity and Islam are effectively death cults due to their promise of heaven, making them much more agressive than any other religion).

Also, if something is selected by evolution, this doesn't mean that it was good, only that it wasn't the worst: Evolution just means avoiding to die before you reproduce, not improving to any actual measure.

And I guarantee you that a religiously moderate Jew (me) will most likely have more children than a fundamentalist atheist (you). So yes, evolution does work that way and I will out-evolve you. Why? Because I believe in separating my group from everybody else, so I don't believe that the rest of the world deserves my/our stuff. I will therefore have more than you and have an easier time attracting a mate and producing children.

If you want proof, just look at your continent's birthrates among white, Christian or atheist native Europeans. Then compare to the birthrates for "brown" Muslim immigrants. Of course, it might have something to do with your economic policies, but I think statistical evidence will show that religion and ingroup-ism leads to more children. Hence, evolution selects for those traits. Baruch ha'Shem.

Also, I have miswritten, I meant "running for office doesn't make any sense", but I think that was obvious.

By your logic, voters would also be right to vote to reinstate slavery, decide to murder some minority etc., i.e. good and evil are only determined by public opinion.

Good and evil are absolute, but I don't define religion as evil by a postulate. I personally think that religiosity has no relevance to a candidates performance as a public servant. In addition, our Constitution enshrines the freedom of *and* from religion. So the voters have every right, morally and legally, to choose a religious or non-religious candidate at their preference. You just seem to be bigoted against religious people.

People always don't vote (which is something different from "not always vote") for those who are good for the job but only for those who make them believe that they are the same as them.

"Always don't vote" == "never vote"... But I digress. Why do you hate democracy? I ask because it sounds a lot like you want to take away the right of voters to vote for whomever they please, which certainly includes the right to vote for batshit-insane nut-cases of any stripe. Don't like what such candidates do? Enforce a Constitution (like our courts refuse to) guaranteeing everyone's fundamental rights!

Ah, nothing like a cup of ad personam in the morning.

Contrary to your delusional presumption that you can read my mind, I don

Re:Accomodating religion

[Eli Gottlieb]

Thank you for correcting me, and good luck getting those Muslims to contribute to society. Funny thing, because the Muslims over here (USA) seem to assimilate just as well as everyone else.

Re:Accomodating religion

[Uzbek]

Why sky is blue? Why people in Africa are dark-skinned and people in Mongolia have bended legs?

Re:Accomodating religion

[walter_f]

The reality is that Hitler didn't even succeed in rallying the Church around him any more or less then the rest of the German population. The earliest documentation of Hitler's anti-semeticism came in the post war years, where the Jews were blamed for the sudden inconceivable loss of World War I. You can speculate on earlier sources

Starting in second half of the 19th century, a new form of anti-semitism, a political one, arose in addition to the traditional anti-semitism of the Roman Catholic institutions (which is sometimes called "anti-judaism", in order to distinguish it from the newer ones) in Austria which was one of the leading powers on the continent these days.

Towards the end of the 19th century, The Alldeutsche Partei (Pan-German Party), a right-wing populistic party lead by Georg von Schoenerer was one of the the major players in the Reichsrat, the parliament of the "Austrian" half of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. This party was mainly based on (german-oriented) nationalism and an already fierce form of anti-semitism, politically as well as racially oriented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ritter_von_Sch% C3%B6nerer

In 1914, before World War I broke out, the Austrian Reichsrat was dominated by the Christlich-Soziale Partei, until 1910 under the leadership of Dr. Karl Lueger who was an outspoken and fierce anti-semite of the christian (Roman Catholic) variant, and so was his whole party.

http://bob.swe.uni-linz.ac.at/Ebensee/Betrifft/58/ Schubert58.php

So in the first decades of the 20th century, in the years of his youth, sadly, Adolf Hitler even had a choice of well-established sources to pick anti-semitic ideas from and later to build on them.

Re:Accomodating religion

[tenchiken]

All of your points here are true, but they are also speculation. Documentation wise, we can document the first strong anti-semitic comments from Hitler after World War I. Bearing in mind that Hitler was never a member of the Christian Socialist party, and also bearing in mind that the post-war program that Hitler was involved in, and also ended up teaching had a indoctrinated component of anti-semitic, it's pretty easy to see a link between World War I and Hitler's personal beliefs. The other documented source of Hitler's point of view comes not from the Church, but instead from the various Volk moments, and Wagner in particular. To dismiss this claim is to throw out the most solid information we have on Hitler's early intellectual exposures.

That's not to say that All of Europe (broadly speaking) was massively anti-semitic going into World War II. That's also not to say that the Grand Mufti in the Palestinian Mandate had started programs to wipe out the Jews even before the NSDAP existed. It's not even to say that there were not massive racist tendencies in America to turn a blind eye to the problem of the Jews. Or to that that not only the Church but most of the politicians, etc viewed the Jews as a problem.

But the bulk of the Historical evidence falls down in the Military indoctrination.

I would compare it, as a mater of fact, to what has been going on in the Middle East for the last 50 years. The military and political leaders there have consistently blamed the Jews for lost wars (even ones that didn't include Israel) heavy handed tactics by secret police, etc. They have made this ideology one of the cornerstones of their society.

Re:Accomodating religion

[N3WBI3]

Christians are quite eager to deny the role their religion played in a couple thousand years of slow roasting jews alive, which the holocaust was merely the culmination of. In that respect they're even worse than the holocaust deniers.

Just as eager as secular humanist, atheist, and socialist are to deny the role of their belief system in the murder of millions of non desirables in the soviet union and china in the name of cleansing the state of religion.

Why is this a problem?

[Hognoxious]

some teachers are reluctant to teach history lessons on the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

Britian has several airports from where it is possible to book [one way] flights to countries where these students might find their surroundings more in harmony with their delusions.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[TheMeuge]

I don't know why parent was modded Funny, when Insightful would've been a much more appropriate label.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[bgarcia]

Britian has several airports from where it is possible to book [one way] flights to countries where these students might find their surroundings more in harmony with their delusions.

So basically what you're saying is "Britain - love it or leave it"?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[EricTheGreen]

Rather, I think he's saying: "verifiable history -- accept it or find someplace your delusions are acceptable".

Re:Why is this a problem?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Sounds good to me. In fact, let's amend that

X: love it or leave it, for any nation X.

Re:Why is this a problem?

[nametaken]

You really want that sort of person on a commercial airplane?

Re:Why is this a problem?

[kemapa]

LOL

Look at the source...

[saintm]

The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Fox.

Sample headline:
DO THE UNEMPLOYED INFECT ENGLAND WITH AIDS?
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Re:Look at the source...

[nickco3]

Not to mention their famous front-page article from July 1934 "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".

http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1 .php#hurrah

Re:Look at the source...

[91degrees]

Coem on. They're a nasty right wing rag alright, but you still can't really hold an article against them if it was written at a time when Fascism was respectable, and the owners, editor, every single writer and pretty much every one of their readers were differenty people.

Re:Look at the source...

[Rob the Bold]

Not to mention their famous front-page article from July 1934 "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".

Eat your heart out, Fox News!

Re:Look at the source...

[mvdwege]

I suggest you go, nay run, to the nearest bookseller, and buy yourself a copy of the collected essays and journalism by George Orwell.

Especially the first volume makes it abundantly clear that by 1934 Fascism was only respectable to those that wanted to turn a blind eye to its many failings. Failings which George Orwell abundantly documents in his writings from the late nineteen-twenties onward.

Mart

Re:Look at the source...

[91degrees]

Goerge Orwell was a smart guy and pretty left wing. He saw the problems way before anyone else. You're probably right. It was probably quite clear that Fascism wasn't the way forward by that time but a lot of people were sufficiently committed that it really required a war for them to see the error of their ways. It takes a lot to change some people's minds.

You have *got* to be sh!tt!ng me.

[TripMaster Monkey]

And I thought American schools were bad for "teaching the controversy" of Intelligent Design.

What happened to "lest we forget"???

You know, there's verifiable evidence of the Holocaust. Photos. Movies. Graveyards. Camps. Survivors.

This is a dark day for the human race.

Re:You have *got* to be sh!tt!ng me.

[bri2000]

They're the sort of people to whom evidence doesn't matter. They don't want to believe it and therefore they won't believe it no matter what evidence is presented (and, yes, the same applies to fundamentalist Christians in connection with evolution). On a side note I've always found it odd that the sort of people who deny the holocaust (neo-nazis, Islamic chauvenists etc) are the kind of evil scumbags who you'd expect to approve.

I find it particularly ironic that Muslims should be trying to suppress study of the Holocaust as, if there is ever another genocide in Europe (and, while I sincerely hope there isn't, I am geniunely worried that the way things are going there will be at some point in the next 30 to 40 years - maybe after a big environmental or economic disaster) the Muslims, as the most visible minority group in Europe, are going to be the victims.

Re:You have *got* to be sh!tt!ng me.

[Mattintosh]

Wait, wait... Now there's a Jewluminati? Next thing you know we'll see a movie called Knishinal Treasure.

Re:You have *got* to be sh!tt!ng me.

[barzok]

You know, there's verifiable evidence of the Holocaust. Photos. Movies. Graveyards. Camps. Survivors.

There's verifiable evidence of the moon landings too. Doesn't stop people from claiming that's a hoax.

Re:You have *got* to be sh!tt!ng me.

[bryan1945]

Sounds like a good man. My grandfather flew in bombers over Germany in WWII. All good men.

The source....

[ben0207]

...is the Daily Mail. The most hate-filled right-wing rag we have here (it's referred to locally as the Daily Hatemail).

This is the sort of "journalism*" wiling to blame paedophilia for rising house prices, and frankly I would never believe a single thing they say, nor anything their readers say unless it was backed up by at least 3 independent sources.

And even then, I'd still take it with a metric ton of salt

*Any good editor would call it an opinion piece, and any good editor would bin it and sack the writer responsible.

Re:The source....

[ControversialMatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6517359.stm BBC Article on the same topic, on the same date. Good call there skippy.

Re:The source....

[maxume]

The gem from that article:

A Department of Education and Skills spokesman said there was scope for schools to make their own decision on what to teach within the national curriculum

But he added: "Teaching of the Holocaust is already compulsory in schools at Key Stage 3 [age 11-14].

"It will remain so in the new Key Stage 3 curriculum from September 2008.

"As Alan Johnson made clear in January there are certain subjects which will be protected in the new curriculum and that includes the Holocaust."

Re:The source....

[1u3hr]

And from that BBC story:

The report gave the example of a history department in a northern city which decided not to teach the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework.

ONE history department in ONE school. (Possibly one teacher in one class.) The Daily Mail, and Slashdot, say "Some Schools", and imply it's a widespread trend of political correctness.

So what about the Jewish people?

[svendsen]

So we don't want to talk about the killing for 6 million (mainly Jews but of course we have gypsies, POWs, political prisoners, etc) because we will offend some radical Muslims. So by NOT talking about it we have offended the Jewish people, the Jewish faith, and anyone who thinks not talking about the mass murder is a bad idea.

I am sure I can see the reasoning though (being serious now): If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.

The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Pojut]

I agree with your point, but you are forgetting something...it wasn't six million people killed, it was six million JEWS...

However, jews were HARDLY the only ones killed in the holocust...they just made up the bulk of it and as such get the most attention (understandably)

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Lehk228]

it was 6 million Jews and 5-6 million non-Jews.(I don't have the ethnic breakdown jfgi if you want)

so, despite being a small minority in europe they made up over half those killed in Hitler's death camps.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Rachel Lucid]

Hey, Jews riot too.

Difference being, you have to push the Jews a whole lot further before they'll riot, but when they do, they'll annex London as New Israel.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[kabocox]

I am sure I can see the reasoning though (being serious now): If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.

The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.

Recorded history has always been about not pissing off those with power to hurt the historians or the historians families. The problem isn't that some one will be offended. The problem is that this offended party/group has the power to hurt/kill the historians/teachers/professors. It's when it becomes normal that offended parties can run around and beat the crap out of people bad mouthing them without worrying about any legal recourse that we'd be screwed. Histroy/society has always been like this. You piss of the wrong entity, and you got to run for cover. The US, EU, Russia and China are all like that. The subjects and groups within each that'll beat the crap out of you are different, but the principle is the same: becareful who you piss off and if they can find you.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Anonymous Coward]

notice that (generally) Christians are prety good at not killing people

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a pretty high correlation between conservative Christianity and supporting the war in Iraq.

Shit's the same on both sides, insurgents are striking back in Iraq because the US is attacking them, the US is attacking them because they've been attacked by terrorists and they think it helps them avoid that, they were attacked by terrorists because some people in the middle east feel that the US pushed its way into their business and cause unnecessary violence, etc. etc. -- It goes on like that, back and forth throughout history. Both sides have some people that are doing things wrong.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Eli Gottlieb]

You know why they don't get complaints from Jews? Because in the past century, the Jewish population of Europe (including England) shrank by an order of magnitude. You know why? Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

They don't get complaints from Jews because there are barely any Jews left there to complain!

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Rocketship Underpant]

"The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed."

I agree fully.

So I wonder when the British school system will start teaching about other recent and historical genocides, like:
- The massacre of Dutch settlers in South African concentration camps by the British during the Boer War.
- The ethnic cleansing of Acadians in Nova Scotia by the British during the Great Upheaval.
- Numerous Indian massacres by the United States during its expansion.
- The massacre of Filipinos by the United States following the Spanish-American War
- Massacres and forced migration of aborigines by Australian settlers.

Or does anyone think the British government plans to be more selective and ignore the genocides perpetrated by them and their close allies?

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[jmv]

So we don't want to talk about the killing for 6 million (mainly Jews but of course we have gypsies, POWs, political prisoners, etc) because we will offend some radical Muslims.

If I were Muslim, I'd find that "...for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial" quote from the article insulting. I doubt any but the most fanatic Muslims deny the Holocaust -- even those most oppose what Israel's doing.

If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.

It actually depends on where you are. Do that in the US as a politician and you can bet your opponent at the next election will have millions in donations...

The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.

It's already happened. Christian extremists won't hear anything about evolution, the Pope pretty much denies the American (the continent) genocide, Turkey won't tolerate anyone talking about the Armenian genocide, Islamic radicals (and other crackheads) deny the WWII Jewish (+other) genocide, don't mention the Palestinian genocide in Israel or the US either, and so on...

In some sense, the Armenian genocide is "interesting" because Turkey will prosecute you for talking about it, while France will prosecute you for denying. Now, hope you're never interviews by both French and Turkish officials at the same time on the subject. (As far as I'm concerned, denying one of those genocides qualifies you as a hopeless idiot, but should not get you prosecuted)

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[shilly]

It's hardly just the genocides perpetrated by the British and their allies that are not taught in schools. Almost every genocide is not taught about, with the exception of the Holocaust, including those of Britain's enemies in the past, such as the Soviet and Maoist mass killings last century.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Reziac]

Someone once put it a lot more simply:

History is written by the victors.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Scudsucker]

Ya know, this is the kinda stuff that makes me doubt that the muslims are a religion of peace...just look at the facts: Denying the holocaust What happens every time someone ruffles their feathers?

Yawn. Do take what the western media says about Muslim leaders and the leaders of predominantly Muslim countries with a large grain of salt. Like when they willfully mistranslated Ahmadinejad as saying that Iran had the right to nuclear weapons when what he said was that Iran had the right to nuclear *energy*.

Yes, Ahmadinejad had a conference on the Holocaust, and yes, the first topic of discussion was whether or not the Holocaust happened. But the media completely ignored the second topic, which was: ok, if the Holocaust did happen, why does it entitle Israel to run roughshod over the Palestinians? The Nazis slaughtered the Gypsies just as enthusiastically as they did the Jews, but they didn't get a homeland of their own.

Re:So what about the Jewish people?

[Scudsucker]

they just made up the bulk of it and as such get the most attention (understandably)

Generally, they get ALL the attention. The Nazis killed Gypsies and Jews with equal enthusiasm, yet the Gypsies weren't given a homeland of their own.

Revisionism

[Ngarrang]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But, they must first be taught that history.

Re:Revisionism

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Alas, the only thing we learn from history is that the only thing we learn from history is that...

Re:Revisionism

[the_humeister]

Sometimes I wonder why we even bother teaching history. Since current events tend to parallel past events quite well, it's quite apparent that practically no one learns anything from history anymore.

Re:Revisionism

[Maltheus]

Exactly. I never want to hear that phrase again. WWII seems to be the only history we teach, so no one can claim ignorance, yet we still go on repeating the same fascist mistakes.

LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE

[ronanbear]

It was an April Fool's joke. And it was done in bad taste (what do you expect from the Mail).

It's a pretty notorious one. Cmon editors.

Re:LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE

[TripMaster Monkey]

ronanbear, I'm not seeing any corroboration that this was an April Fool's joke.

If you have evidence of this, could you please share it with the class?

Re:LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/65634 29.stm

Re:LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE ARTICLE

[anti-human 1]

Its his agenda for us to not find out about how UK schools are leaving out the Holocaust. He knows noone RTFA, so he's just trying to get people to stop reading the comments. ;) You'll see this kind of behavior from all kinds of bears, not just ronanbear. Nature's book-burners.

Offended?

[Non-CleverNickName]

They're leaving out Holocaust lessons to keep from offending Muslim students who believe in Holocaust denial?

What about offending Jewish students who are offended by the Muslim student's Holocaust denial, and may have even lost relatives in a camp?

You can't please everybody, so why ignore the truth?

Re:Offended?

[Eli Gottlieb]

What about offending Jewish students who are offended by the Muslim student's Holocaust denial, and may have even lost relatives in a camp? Thanks to the Holocaust and Europe's long history of anti-Semitism, there just aren't that many Jewish students.

Denial not part of "Religious beliefs"

[brewer13210]

As the earliest versions of the Koran date from 750AD, it clearly doesn't have anything to say about the Holocaust. There may be some who don't believe it happened, but there is no religious bases for that belief.

Nothing to see here...

[spungo]

TFA comes from the Daily Mail -- anyone who's from (or has been to) the UK will know what a filthy right-wing propagandist rag this so-called newspaper is. No over-hyped alarmist knee-jerk fabrication is too low for these people and their neo-nazi readership.

Re:Nothing to see here...

[nicolastheadept]

Newspaper.
For the Daily Mail only one half of the word is true.

BTW, any suicide bombers reading /. may want to first consider reading about the Hashshashin, a Muslim religious sect of assassins, in many ways the opposite of suicide bombers. Their targets were imperious and usurper leaders, and the leaders of the crusades on both sided. They preferred to kill using daggers rather than poisons or bows, and were extremely careful not to cause any additional casualties and would never commit suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin

Just terrible

[ControversialMatt]

Honestly, this is disgusting. If you sacrifice the truths of history just so some people wont be offended you have doomed your society, one more sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness. I very much hope that this never happens here in the United States, I'd like to think that we've got a bit more common sense then our friends across the ocean.

Re:Deny everything

[ArchdukeChocula]

Corollary to Godwin's Law: As political correctness increases the chances of ignoring the holocaust approach one.

1 + 1 = 2 is offensive to me, so I want it banned!

[roman_mir]

1 + 1 = 2 and only 2 defies the powers of the GOD, who can change it to anything, if GOD is willing 1 + 1 will be equal 3 or even 7.

--
This is what it amounts to. It must not be allowed for a public school system to cave-in to special interest groups and religions are such groups. Either we have the real story that is taught in schools or we do not, which case is preferable?

I'm not sure which I find more horrific

[yakumo.unr]

the (or any) historical tragedy, or that ANYONE would even CONSIDER that preaching denial of it was the thing to do.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Re:I'm not sure which I find more horrific

[Eli Gottlieb]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We fear exactly that.

I call BS on the summary!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a muslim, and no part of our beliefs denies Holocaust! The author of the summary is either mistaken, or deliberately being malicious. In both cases, he is plain wrong about muslims' beliefs including Holocaust denial.

Beliefs of a few people in a group are NOT representative of the entire group.

Re:I call BS on the summary!

[scsirob]

However, you chose to post as an Anonymous Coward. That wouldn't by any chance have anything to do with fear for your fellow believers, would it now??

Evolution?

[pr0xie]

Seriously, they do teach evolution in the UK schools right? What if they just put in a sidebar that some religions, despite all the evidence shown to the contrary, choose to be ignorant regardless of the topic?

Re:Evolution?

[nicolastheadept]

Of course we teach evolution in Britain. We also have separate lessons ABOUT religions.

Not true, according to the government

[BabyDave]

Not true. The example given is that allegedly one school didn't choose it as GCSE (Key Stage 4 - 14-16 year olds) coursework, for that reason. However it's still compulsory to teach the Holocaust in Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds).

Re:Not true, according to the government

[noldrin]

yup, this story has been long discredited by snopes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp

Re:Not true, according to the government

[sam_handelman]

The above link should be added to the article as an update.

  This rumor has been discredited repeatedly and is utterly sensationalist bollocks. Slashdot is doing an immense dis-service by spreading it (at least in the absence of the link posted in the response above.)

  And I'm Jewish, so don't even start.

Oh yeah?

[ltjr]

I have math denial. I don't believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Actually.. I believe 2 + 2 = 71. That's it! No more math in school!

Re:Oh yeah?

[Kierthos]

You couldn't be more wrong. 2+2=5, but you need to use sufficiently large values of 2.

Re:Oh yeah?

[thiagoyk]

As Orwell already said....Ignorance is Strength...

What I don't get

[Saint Mitchell]

Why is it perfectly ok to offend the people who the tragedy happened to, but not ok to offend people who deny it ever happened to begin with?

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

Sorry. History occurred one way. It's not a relative thing. You can argue the ifs and why, but at some point you have to look at the pure documented evidence and make a judgment. The mountain of evidence on the Holocaust can't not be washed away just because people think that people ought to decide for themselves if something occured or didn't. It did occur, and any belief otherwise can not be justified by the facts.

Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[Control Group]

I honestly don't know which is worse; teaching "Intelligent Design" as science, or ignoring the Holocaust as history.

On the one hand, you're denying the validity of the very scientific method itself, which can't possibly be a benefit to the future of your society. On the other, though, you're denying the atrocities societies are capable of, even in our "enlightened" era. If you don't know it happened and don't know it can happen, that has to make it more likely for it to happen again.

I suppose, upon further review, that if I had to choose, I'd rather skip the Holocaust than teach ID. The Holocaust could probably be replaced with the Khmer Rouge, Stalin's purges, and Darfur to accomplish the same goals of warning. You lose a bit of connection, since all those examples are "somewhere else" in a way that Germany in the early 20th century isn't, but they're still perfectly good examples of what can happen.

Moreover, ID is certainly more widespread in this country than Holocaust denial is in the UK, so it's certainly a more immediate threat.

Still and all, the fact that I even have to think about this is ridiculous.

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[ronadams]

I would like you to do something for me: find a Holocaust survivor, look into their aging eyes, full of more painful, horrific memories than you can ever imagine, and tell them that you believe the propagation of evolution and arguing of scientifically unprovable points is more important than countering the blatant lies of anyone that would deny the Holocaust.

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[grasshoppa]

I would like you to do something for me: find a Holocaust survivor, look into their aging eyes, full of more painful, horrific memories than you can ever imagine, and tell them that you believe the propagation of evolution and arguing of scientifically unprovable points is more important than countering the blatant lies of anyone that would deny the Holocaust.

Emotionally, on an individual level, no one would argue which is more important. However, for a society as a whole, teaching false-science as a science while mucking up the real stuff can have far reaching consquences to all.

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[t0rkm3]

I disagree. ID can be easily disproven and life goes on. The people that will embrace ID and completely disregard scientific method and evidence wouldn't necessarily be involved in the professions that would be responsible for the design and/or manufacture of a product.

However, the consequences of infringing on one's liberty can and should be taught and reinforced whenever possible, to enable acceptable mores and a healthy paranoia toward an overreaching gov't.

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[ronadams]

I embrace ID and am responsible for the design of a product, and assisting others in designing and manufacturing theirs. So that's not the real point. But you did hit on it, though: we can disagree about the scientific arguments around ID and still be decent human beings who positively impact society. When you start denying something for which their is indisputable first hand proof, and more, such a travesty of history, you become not only universally illogical but quite dangerous, for the reasons the Parent stated in his last paragraph.

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[Alsee]

One side of my family was wiped out in the Holocaust.

I agree with the other poster. Not covering the Holocaust... leaving students ignorant about such an important part of history... I agree that that is not quite as bad as actively mis-educating students and actively undermining their science education. Both are bad, but misinformation and miseducation is more harmful than not hearing about it at all.

From your other post: denying something for which their is indisputable first hand proof... you become not only universally illogical but quite dangerous

I have personally witnessed the first hand proof that the process of evolution works. That it can and does create information, that it can and does spontaneously create complexity. In fact the process of evolution is so powerful at creating information and useful complexity that more than half of all Fortune 500 companies digitally harness the evolution process somewhere or other in their business.

Aside from the indisputable first hand proof that the evolution process works, the proof of evolution being historically right is overwhelming far far FAR Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt.

A jury may not have "first hand proof" that person X raped and murdered person Y, but by examining the evidence that jury can determine Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt the un-witnessed historical fact that person X did rape and murder person Y. Just to cite a single piece of overwhelming evidence, DNA analysis can and does establish the evolutionary common decent family tree between species just as absolutely and just as irrefutably as DNA analysis can and does absolutely irrefutably establish a common decent family tree between people. Suggesting "you weren't there to see it, therefor you can't really know what happend"... that's like saying no jury can every convict anyone of any crime they didn't witness. That's silly. Bloody fingerprints and all sorts of other forensic evidence can easily provide iron clad proof.... Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt... of unwitnessed past events.

There is absolutely no genuine scientific dispute over the basic elements of evolution and the historical truth of evolution. It is virtually impossible to study and get any degree in biology without seeing and being convinced by the overwhelming evidence. Among degreed life and earth scientists, the "controversy" over evolution is approximately a 99.85% vs 0.15% split. The number of biologists who doubt or reject evolution is pretty well comparable to the number if astronomers who doubt or reject the "nuclear fusion powered sun" theory. (I still want to know why the hell Slashdot keeps running all those damn "science" stories from those electric-powered-sun Electric Universe crackpots.) Teaching Creationism (or ID or whatever else) as an "alternate theory to evolution" in biology class is like teaching the electric powered sun as an "alternate theory to stellar fusion" in astronomy class or teaching flat earth as an "alternate theory to the globe" in geography class.

-

Re:Questions you shouldn't have to ask.

[t0rkm3]

My apologies.

I was cranky yesterday and I did what I often criticize others for doing, impugning the decency and intelligence of those who believe in God.

I am sorry, your post clarifies the matter in a way that is much closer to my true feelings.

Thanks.

Re:teach both..

[anagama]

And shall we add some other attribute to the FSM, present it, and let the debate ensue? There is no need to teach silliness.

It's a faaaaake

[BHearsum]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/65634 29.stm

Re:It's a faaaaake

[Tester]

It's not fake.. if you RTFA, you'd notice that they say that what's false is that the government has banned it, but that the rumor originated exactly because some teacher decide not to teach it out of fear.. And that's untolerable. You (the Brits) have to crack down on your terrorist breeding mosques now before its too late.

Re:It's a faaaaake

[Hoi Polloi]

Don't worry, the UK is well on its way to becoming a camera riddled police state.

Re:It's a faaaaake

[Beetle B.]

Ideally, someone should update the front matter to reflect this.

Denying Holocaust is downright stupid.

As is castigating a whole religious group based on questionable "news".

Re:It's a faaaaake

[Reziac]

Fake or not, I think it's an important topic to discuss, to make ourselves more aware of the potential consequences of "selective ignorance" and of letting radicals pressure truth out of existence.

Don't change history for convenience

[Psmylie]

You shouldn't change what you teach because someone may be offended. You should only change it if it is wrong. I'm all for historical accuracy. Get the facts right, make sure you can prove it if challenged, and teach to that. If someone gets offended by that... well, they're idiots. Let them be angry, rant and rave. If they want to pull their kids out of class, then fine.

That said, I am always amazed when I watch the History channel and see how much was left out of or glossed over in the US history textbooks, especially regarding the Revolution. I'm sure that its to give kids the idea that America is great, noble, etc. etc. but I don't think that ignoring our own history (especially the mistakes we've made) does anyone any good.

Re:Don't change history for convenience

[iknownuttin]

You shouldn't change what you teach because someone may be offended.

It's funny that no one cares if I'm offended when knowledge is suppressed to save other's feelings.

Then again, I or others like me, don't riot in the streets when we're offended.

Re:Don't change history for convenience

[zenyu]

You shouldn't change what you teach because someone may be offended. You should only change it if it is wrong.

Of course, and actually teaching controversial subjects makes for a great learning environment. If you teach a kid something she already knows she yawns and goes back to sleep, if you teach her something she's heard a conflicting viewpoint on then she'll wake up and confront your viewpoint. This gives the teacher an opportunity to stress the importance of knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, and the value of differering interpretations of the facts as well as the relative value of arguing on the knowns first then coming up with plausible hypothesis for the known unknowns and turning up facts to back those up and the value of research to flesh out the important unknown unknowns and finally living with the ambiguity of unknowns. It's that last bit which separates children from adults.

I personally think a balanced view of the crusades in the UK curriculum is as likely as the UK having a balanced view of the Holocaust. I'll believe it when I see the UK schools teaching the importance of removing the heads from the Queen and the Lords & Ladies of their fair land.

Yes Fariq, my forefather went to your homeland and killed the children and ate them for dinner, but you have to understand they were quite hungry after all that killing, if they hadn't eaten babies they wouldn't have had the energy to move on to the next village for their next massacre so you see it was a little sad but quite understandable. Some of them even felt a little remorse, see this letter from John the Good, "Ay, after raping Mary and killing her and her family we sat down to dinner, the heathen were quite poor and had no meate so we were forced by God Almighty to eat heathen flesh. The parents' meate was quite stringy so we ate the babies mostly. But I tell ye, they eyes of the one of them infants reminded me o'little Johny. I had to cut off it's heade, feet and hands before I could eat any more. By the Wayse, tastes like pork."

Most likely, "balanced" means they dig up every letter from the Denis Kucinich of their day to the George W. Bush of their day pleading with him to end the inhumanity. Then they predent this was relevant to the overall murderous sentiment of the day.

LIes, damned lies and the Daily Mail

[Oxygen99]

I read something insightful on Slashdot recently that suggested whenever you read something so inflammatory that you just have to comment, then you're only hearing half the story. When you click the link in the summary, please bear in mind that the Daily Mail, or The Daily Heil as its often referred to, is the most rabid of Britain's unpleasant right wing press with a history of making up and exaggerating facts in order to appease the xenophobic, homophobic, narrow-minded, bigoted, evil little people that make up their core audience.

Plus the story is dated the 2nd of April so I'm not sure what the submitter was trying to achieve other than to provoke the flamefest that will inevitably ensue.

Politically correct garbage

[bubbasatan]

Really, is it so much to ask that the world stop putting up with this crap? Liberals in the United States cheered Ahmedinejad (sp?) when he held his little rah-rah last year to "study" whether the Holocaust occurred. "Let's celebrate the diversity of opinions." "Ooh, we shouldn't criticize the Muslims or they might get mad at us." And now it's, "Let's just pretend that their wrongly held little beliefs are sacrosanct and ignore the TRUTH." Come on people, wake up. If you tolerate this sort of politically correct hogwash, it will be repeated until it becomes truth.

Re:Politically correct garbage

[YrWrstNtmr]

The correct spelling is Ahmedinutjob.

Re:Politically correct garbage

[bhuga]

Who was cheering, exactly?

Re:Politically correct garbage

[Anonymous Meoward]

Liberals in the United States cheered Ahmedinejad (sp?) when he held his little rah-rah last year to "study" whether the Holocaust occurred.

Huh??

I know quite a few liberals, and all of them were appalled by this charade. And I don't know any who approve of that nitwit.

They see him as being as dangerous as Bush, Jerry Falwell, and that ilk -- Muslim or Christian, a nutjob is a nutjob is a nutjob. (They're wrong, actually, since Ahmedinajad's post doesn't have the power of that of Mr. Bush.)

Now, if you want to view this (or anything else for that matter) through the "libs vs. cons" lens, you're free to do so. But I think you're as much of a troll as anyone else who resorts to absolutes and scapegoating for prefabricated explanations.

Source

[StoatBringer]

This is from the Daily Mail, who have a habit of blowing things out of all proportion (IMMIGRANTS ARE OVERRUNNING THE COUNTRY!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!! IT'S TONY BLAIR'S FAULT!!!). Take the story with a pinch of salt.

George Orwell Could Not Be Happy About This

[rogerborn]

What would it be like, if you wrote about a distant Distopia, as he did in his "1984"
only to find out that it is happening already, just a generation after he wrote it?
I am glad George Orwell is not here to see this saddest chapter in the history of
a (formerly) great nation.

Rewriting history has to be one of the most sinful of crimes in this world. That,
and the attitude of capitulation which drives it. Islam has to be the new Fascism
in the world today, and will prove to be just as deadly as the one of the last
century.

Re:Deny everything

[Himring]

The single, best argument to the contrary I have ever heard is that not one defendant at the Nuremburg trials stated, in defense, that the holocaust never happened....

So, in other words

[duffbeer703]

The UK is essentially endorsing antisemitism and throwing out the study of facts to satisfy religious dogma.

It's too bad that western society has grown so tolerant and decadent that it is forsaking its identity. When do they start playing the call to prayer in Trafalgar Square?

good one kdawg

[CeramicNuts]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp

Someone should have checked snopes first!

[Vidar Leathershod]

I thought this was supposed to be a chain letter. Slashdot editors should do what I do: install the Snopes search extension in firefox. Anyway, it was apparently one school who was "uncomfortable" teaching kids in an appropriate fashion.

Of course, not many here would approve of my hard core tactics of firing any teacher unwilling to cram information about the disgusting things that happened down a kid's throat. In a way, this may be more of our comeuppance for de-balling teachers so that they answer to the students whims, rather than have any sort of control over their classroom.

Moslems should be given the right to deport themselves if they want to preach doctrine that clearly tries to repudiate well-documented modern history.

Re:The Holocaust Happened

[cosmocain]

in this case it's not "mod parent down", but "trod parent down"... :\

History or Religion?

[neiljt]

If we are teaching history, then we should leave bloody religion out of it. And while I'm in rant mode, religion should not be treated as fact in schools. As with politics, children should be given an appreciation of the diversity of religions. They should not be taught that One Religion is the absolute truth, as this is clearly a lie.

Re:History or Religion?

[Mr. Bad Example]

> If we are teaching history, then we should leave bloody religion out of it.

I hope you mean we should leave out proselytizing or favoring one religion over another, because I definitely agree with that.

However, I don't think religion can be left out entirely when teaching history--it doesn't make sense to try to understand (for instance) medieval Europe without some knowledge of the doctrines and political influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Religion's played a key role in a lot of history, and leaving it out when teaching history does a disservice to both history and its students.

Re:History or Religion?

[neiljt]

I hope you mean we should leave out proselytizing or favoring one religion over another

That is exactly what I meant, though I may not have been clear about that. Also agree with the remainder of your point.

The importance of the memory

[andreabondi]

I've recently been in Mauthausen , for an international meeting. The worst thing have been to see the castle of Harteim (where nazism made his experiments for the "selection of the specie") restructured as a Disney's castle. Nothing of what who lived and died there have seen has been maintained.

We can't forget what happened and the cruelty human can express. We must remember and study the story not to hate but to see what hate can do.

Well, of course the holacaust never happened...

[PHAEDRU5]

The Iranians want nukes so they can take out Israel in its entirety. Then the muslim world will have its first...first.

Oh, the pride.

As the proverb goes

[tygerstripes]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it... or just flunk.
Seriously though: non-news item. It's the Daily Mail.

Fact Checking, Anyone?

[Mephistophocles]

I'm highly inclined to doubt the credibility of this story. This would certainly not be the first time the "Daily Mail" has had problems in that department, and the story just doesn't have a whole lot of substance as far as sources go. Anyone out there who happens to have a copy of the cited study, or perhaps some corresponding stories from other news sources?

If not I think it's probably safe to write this one off as either patently untrue, a joke (in very bad taste), or badly hyped and overstated.

Involve police OR fire teachers.

[roman_mir]

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. - either there is a good reason for the teachers to be afraid to get some students upset and then it means the police must be called and these students must be investigated, OR if there is nothing really to be afraid of but the teachers still don't do their jobs, the teachers then must be fired.

Re:1 + 1 = 2 is offensive to me, so I want it bann

[pr0xie]

Well...

2 + 2 = 5 'for extremely large values of 2'. So is math a god? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_plus_two_makes_fi ve

Re:teach both..

[Timesprout]

History occurred one way. It's not a relative thing. You can argue the ifs and why, but at some point you have to look at the pure documented evidence

You are overlooking the fact that history is not actually awash with verifably pure documented evidence, said documentation was written by the victor and often 'altered' to suit later generations. A lot of history is open to interpretation and best guess scenarios.

Look at American Textbooks

[linzeal]

And see what kind of mention the the eradication of the Native American population gets, even if they mention the atrocities they almost never mention the culture of the Native Americans that was displaced. I did not learn that the Mayans were excellent Astronomers until college and only from new agey folk that talked about the Mayan calender. I can distinctly remember the Mayans being lumped in with the Aztecs as human sacrificing savages by my 7th grade world history teacher, who happened to be a deacon at his church.

Re:Look at American Textbooks

[Eli Gottlieb]

Actually, new American-history mention the cultures of the Native Americans in some detail and describe the extermination of Native Americans from their own land by European settlers.

Re:Look at American Textbooks

[Glothar]

How long ago did you go to school? It's been about ten years for me, but this is not at all what I experienced. Now, my US History book didn't talk about the Mayans or the Aztecs, but it did spend quite a bit of time talking about Native Americans. We spent a week or so learning about them (Contrast/Compare: We also spent a week or so talking about the Civil War). In high school, my History teacher was very blunt about what happened. The US government executed a series of policies to systematically remove Native Americans from the continent. In 9th grade, I learned that the Mayans were a scientifically advanced culture with complex math and astronomy. We spent two weeks talking about Meso-American and Incan cultures (Contrast/Compare: We spent about two weeks talking about Chinese culture). There was quite a bit of talk about how they got worked over by Europeans.

Just like everything else in the world, you shouldn't judge the whole based on a sample set of one. Sorry, but it sounds like you were either taught a) a while ago (pre-1980) or b) in a crappy school. One of the biggest problems with people's view of schools is that they stupidly assume that nothing ever changes. Granted, the schools in this area are known to be exceptional, however, I know for a fact that students here are taught about the atrocities committed against the Native Americans. History beyond elementary school is not about feeling good, its about learning lessons.

Just because you were taught poorly doesn't mean that is the norm. Teaching methods and materials have progressed quite a bit. I guess the most telling thing is that you're talking about a textbook. Most good history or geography teachers don't use a textbook. Regardless, every history class in this area talks about the US policies against Native Americans. Of course, being the on the East Coast, classes don't spend much more than four days or so teaching it, but that's much better than what you got. Lots of teachers wish they could spend more time on it, but it was one of the first things to be cut in order to make time for the weeks of testing for the "No Rich Child Left Behind Act". Giving politicians meaningless numbers is apparently more important than having children actually learn.

Re:Look at American Textbooks

[MightyMartian]

There's been a lot done over the last decade or two to begin addressing these issues. Though we're still a long ways away from an official recognition that the Union Army was basically set to the task of clearing the Indians out of the mid-West to give them something to do after the Civil War and to make way for what would ultimately be the Mid-West, there is recognition that the native peoples of the Americas were the victims of a pretty systematic set of abuses and de-facto genocides from the time the Spaniards and Portugese began enslaving them right up until the mass British and American landgrabs that saw many tribes' traditional territories eliminated or shrunk down to rather pathetic reservations, and where their cultures and languages were squashed by governments and government-backed missionaries whose job was to eliminate Indian-ness and turn them into God-fearing Protestants.

Thank you

[Loundry]

It's a good thing that we have folks on the other side of the Pond who can inform us which News Outlets are categorically Good(TM) or unflinchingly Evil(TM). There is no middle ground, after all. Progressive nuance is all we need in order to know which groups should be judged unacceptable and thus banished forever in the pit of "Faux News".

Holocaust Museum

[allscan]

I just went through the US Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC the other weekend (my second time, much more appreciative then in high school).

All one needs to do is round up these "non-believers" and show them the facts. Show them the Nazi records that listed the profit they made on each murdered person. The Nazi's had it down to a science taking gold fillings and even selling people's hair to clothing manufacturers. Show them the photographs of mutilated and dismembered corpses, most who were still alive when such things occurred. Show them the interviews with not only US soldiers who discovered death camps, but the survivors who can never close their eyes without reliving the horror.

Let them go through such a place and still insist they do not "believe." Facts do not need to be believed, they are what they are - irrefutable proof.

As a side note, if you are making a trip to DC stop at this museum. While you're at it, bring your kids through as well and explain to them this is what happens when you hate without understanding - when leaders go without question and public challenge. All the really gory things (videos/photos of mutilations) are hidden by concrete dividers about 4 feet high.

Re:Deny everything

[tenchiken]

Please mod parent up. That's a very very insightful comment. I used the last of my mod points yesterday.

Re:teach both..

[$RANDOMLUSER]

They should teach about the Holocaust and also about the denial; impart only information or content; Let the student decide what he wants to believe.

This is not a troll, but a (sadly) funny and insightful comment on the current state of science teaching in the U.S. - it's almost literally a quote from the President of the U.S..

Scaremongering

[CmdrGravy]

From the looks of it they are really talking about 1 school, out of the thousands in the UK that has decided not to teach, what are, optional subjects. From next year teaching the holocaust will apparently become compulsory. I wasn't taught about the crusades at school either but I don't think that had anything to do with offending the 2 muslims in the class and was more about their being other things to teach.

I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion, especially since their holy books etc were written long before it actually happened and I'm not sure exactly what teaching about the Crusades goes on inside mosques but if this teaching is correct then teaching it in schools as well will just re-enforce the lessons and lead to better exam grades for Muslims.

Re:Scaremongering

[Richthofen80]

especially since their holy books etc were written long before it actually happened

A large part of Catholic doctrine is not contained in the 'official' holy books such as the bible (nowhere in the bible does it talk about a Pope, or priests, or the scapula, or the rosary), but rather by the catechism and periodic councils of priests and other leaders who every now and again 'divine' how we should dress, eat, or fuck based on 'research'.

To say that holocaust denial is not a common Islamic thread because their holy books were written before the holocaust is disingenuous. the ISLAMIC republic of iran held a large holocaust denial conference. There are about 50 videos on youtube from the MEMRI group (http://www.memri.org/) showing that on any given day, you can turn on the TV in the islamic world and hear a religious official or pseudo-academic deny the atrocities of the holocaust.

Re:Scaremongering

[Beetle B.]

I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion

It isn't.

Re:Scaremongering

[Lord Ender]

I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion, especially since their holy books etc were written long before it actually happened

If you think the start and end of a religion is one book or other, you are sadly mistaken. Many beliefs, practices, traditions, and "values" have been added to the christian religions long after the bible was canonized. It is the same with every religion.

It is entirely possible for holocaust denial to be an official part of some branches of Islam.

Re:Scaremongering

[free space]

I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion

Actually, it isn't part of Islamic religion at all (I'm a Muslim). It doesn't even make sense. I think the article is either inaccurate or that when they said "...students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial." they possibly meant the beliefs of those students in particular, not the religious beliefs of Muslims.

Re:Scaremongering

[Plutonite]

Thank you. I've studied the Muslim religion intensively and lived in the middle east for a long time, and while there is an immense amount of antisemitism there now, it simply did not exist on such a scale before the uber-nationalist period of the mid 1900's. Arab governments needed a "devil" to pin things on, much like the US is doing now. Religion has little to do with it, and I am aware of the difficult relations between Jewish tribes and the early Muslims. They still had eventual peace, however, and denial of heinous crimes is not part of any monotheist doctrine, or any religious doctrine in general.

Re:Scaremongering

[nkv]

To say that holocaust denial is not a common Islamic thread because their holy books were written before the holocaust is disingenuous.
To say that Muslims deny the holocaust these days is one thing. To say that it's a part of their faith is something else.

Re:Scaremongering

[Richthofen80]

If enough people who adhere to the faith do it, it becomes de facto part of the faith. It was said the scripture didn't dictate holocaust denial, and I countered with a number of elements from another faith which have not been declared by scripture, yet are 'part of the faith'. Walk into a mosque in London and ask any patron if they believe in the holocaust. Ask a prayer leader. The people denying the holocaust are often Imams, who are essentially representative of the faith and its teachings.

Do you believe being anti-abortion is part of the catholic faith? I'd say so, since the leaders of the church have said it, and priests will gladly confirm the fact for you.

I believe what constitutes being 'part of the faith' are those things largely practiced and believed by a majority of the practitioners of the faith in question.

Time to legislate the separation of church + state

[zerofoo]

In the US, the separation of church and state is largely a by-product of our political system, but it has never specifically been spelled out in law. There are laws that prohibit favoring one religion over another in the public arena (like sanctioning a national religion), but nothing that draws the line between separation of church and state.

It is time for that law.

We have a secular government, and it is time to codify that into the laws that govern our society. Personal belief systems do not belong in public policy. This national law would help protect local governments and school boards from religious political pressure applied by a small group of very loud individuals.

-ted

Not True

[pinkocommie]

There is no such 'belief' about holocaust denial in Islam. I grew up as a muslim (Don't believe in religion per se at the moment) but the holocaust denial is a reaction to Israel and the resulting growing anti semitism in the muslim world. Linking it with the faith is a tad unfair

Re:Not True

[pinkocommie]

Where do i start?
1) Reread my previous message where I said I was a muslim not that I am one...
2) Muhammad lived with the jews for years until they broke the treaty of mutual defense that they had. The treaty was basically a joint defense pact of Madina against all external enemies. When they sided with the enemy they were treated as traitors. Yes their death was morally wrong but it was according to an agreement they signed on for and was decided by an arbitrar not Muhammad (read up No God But God by Reza Aslan)
3) I am not a muslim and even when I was I always believed the hadith are complete and utter bull shit. Heck there's a hadith from Sahih Muslim that quotes the prophet as saying that do not collect the hadith.
4) Just as Falwell does not represent the best of christianity so does Khomeini not do so.
5) Marriage w/o consent is expressly forbidden in Islam despite what some cultures do.
In any case I'm not saying that Islam is some sort of panacea or its right but thats true of all religions. If you want to judge any of them please do so but at least be accurate about it.

Making up one's own mind...

[Kalzus]

...I don't have kids, but I get the impression that those who do find it dangerous, or too difficult, to explain to kids that information is usually affected by perspective.

Apart from the relative difficulty of controlling what a child is exposed to, why is this?

Whose society?

[Loundry]

Why does accommodating religion nearly always harm society?

It depends on which society you're talking about. I don't see how accomodating the Muslim religion is going to harm the Muslim society, for instance. That is, unless you will argue that Muslims themselves are harmed by Muslim society by nature of their harmful religious beliefs, but that's not very multicultural of you, is it? Quite a pickle we have here...

Religion and Education

[Psx29]

I'm not sure which is worse, having evangelical Christians in the United States trying to discredit evolution as a valid scientific theory, or denying the holocaust because it will offend certain Muslims. The purpose of public school teachers should be to teach the facts to the best of their ability, it should not be about bending and twisting historical events, or science. If a child's parents do not want their child to learn about these things then send them to a private school(and no I don't believe in government backed school vouchers, I don't want _my_ tax dollars to fund your fundamentalists). It's time for public school educators to stop shirking their responsibility of teaching and start trying to break down the ignorance and dogma that has filled some of these students heads.

Re:Religion and Education

[Glothar]

Let's be fair about this. I haven't met a science teacher who actually believed in ID-anti-science. I guess I assume they have to exist. Similarly, I haven't met any history teacher who actually doubts the Holocaust occurred. That said, I do know of schools where Evolution is not taught (neither is ID) and where the Holocaust is mentioned but not really focussed on.

In neither case is it the teacher who made that decision. I know of science teachers who hate ID, but cannot teach Evolution because if they do, their children's Right-Wing-Nutjob parents will complain to the school board and have the teacher fired. That is the source of the problem. The ignorance and dogma comes from parents. Don't blame the teachers for doing what administrators and school boards order them to do. Do you honestly expect them to stick their necks out when they are being paid crap wages already? Do you have any idea what happens when a teacher gets fired for something like this? There are two options: Go back to school and get a new career or move to a school so crappy that they are willing to explain to the parents why they hired a teacher who was fired. No one cares that they were fired for having principles and fighting a war that you should have been fighting for them.

If you want to fix this problem, don't blame teachers. They're already on your side. Blame yourself. What have you done to stop the nutjob parents of the other children from robbing your child of the good education the teacher wants to give them?

Re:Religion and Education

[Psx29]

I didn't mean to blame the teachers, although re-reading what I wrote it might sound like that. The last line I mention "educators" which (to me) includes not just teachers but everyone at all levels of the educational system. It's gonna take cooperation at all levels, I certaintly don't want to place the blame on teachers when it is often times higher-ups or disruptive students causing problems. Sorry for the confusion^^

Re:Religion and Education

[Glothar]

I didn't mean to blame the teachers, although re-reading what I wrote it might sound like that. The last line I mention "educators" which (to me) includes not just teachers but everyone at all levels of the educational system. ...[snip]... I certainly don't want to place the blame on teachers when it is often times higher-ups or disruptive students causing problems. Sorry for the confusion^^

No problem. I just wanted to be clear. I used to blame higher-ups for such things and then I started taking a closer look. It seems that stupid parents cause many more problems than administrators. The use of appeasement in these cases is only partly the fault of the administrator. I place more blame on the part of the parent who puts a figurative gun to the head of the school (in the form of lawsuits, firings, or forced "transfers") just because they don't want their child to be exposed to any ideas that might cause them to think differently from their annointed-by-god parents.

It's the Daily Mail

[Silver Sloth]

Anybody who takes what the Daily Mail publishes seriously needs their head examined. They are slightly more in touch with reality than the Enquirer but not much.

Now if this story were in The Times, The Telegraph, The Independant, The Guardian...

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[jb.hl.com]

The paedophile list was, IIRC, the News Of The World, and the paediatrician was not on it; in fact, it was just some cretin not knowing the difference between a paediatrician and a kiddy fiddler, and kicking down the door of the former.

Otherwise, yes, it's bollocks.

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[gdr]

In the Guardian

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[DoofusOfDeath]

Without even checking the source, I can reliably recommend that the Slashdot editors pull this story; there won't be an ounce of truth in it.

Well sheee-it, Bubba, sounds to me like what we go us is one of them Muslim sympathizers...

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE don't assume that the Daily Mail is representative of, or in touch with, any part of British culture.

I live in Britain. I'm guessing you don't. The Daily Mail IS representative of, and in touch with, a considerable part of British culture, specifically:

1 -- the part that just loves terrible journalism (this is a small part)
2 -- the part whose views are naturally middle-of-the-road, but have found themselves marginalized by an establishment that focuses almost exclusively on What We Can Do To Make British Culture More Acceptable To Immigrants and so forth, and who have therefore become propaganda-consuming rumor-believing extremists without having to actually move their views away from the center at all (this is a large part)

there won't be an ounce of truth in it. Believe me, if there was, it would be all over the mainstream press

The Guardian is about as mainstream as Fox News. You'll be happy to know, however, that they did cover this story (albeit briefly).

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[Himring]

I'm British.

Impossible. You never once said, "smashing."

Re:It's the Daily Mail

[jb.hl.com]

If you wanna play technicalities, Australians are pretty much descended from the British and were ruled by the British for a long period of time.

To quote House: "You put the Queen on your money...you're British." ;)

Worst Slashdot article ever.

[jb.hl.com]

This. Is. A. Load. Of. Bollocks.

It's an April Fool's joke from the Daily Mail, a newspaper that loves a) making shit up, b) railing against Muslim evil and c) making shit up about Muslim evil. It's bullshit, and I'm shocked that the editors didn't even notice the BBC News article about it being bullshit.

Denial

[rmadmin]

Denial? Thats all it takes? Ok, I'm going to deny all the bad things that have happened in my life and everything will just be better!

I guess ignorance IS bliss.

offending Muslim students whose beliefs

[l3v1]

offending Muslim students whose beliefs

This is f*cking stupid. The Holocaust has nothing to do with beliefs and/or religions, all it has to do is history. History, which all of us, and all of our - and their (whoever they might be) - children should learn and know about, inside out. We, people, are so stupid and ignorant that we have very hard time avoiding and not repeating mistakes, even if we lived to see and experience the old ones we could've learned from. If we don't even tell the next generations about our history, however bad certain parts of it might be, how will they be able to build their better future ?

I know well about denying history. When I was a school kid our history books - I won't tell which country that was - contained so many bullshit at certain parts, related to certain historical events, that even a fairytale would sound more realistic. Our luck was that we had very good and honest teachers all the way (I certainly couldn't know this back then).

We should not let the education system fall back into the middle ages' cultural level. We can't evolve by going backwards.
 

Re:offending Muslim students whose beliefs

[moogs]

Japan?

Hmmmm

[MBCook]

UK: It's not history if it's offensive
US: It's not history unless it is offensive, then we must teach it to death

Weird. They don't want to offend Muslims (look, sorry, but it happened and is a VERY important part of world history). But here in the US this kind of things gets taught. This kind of thing gets EMPHASIZED. Slavery? We have to talk about how terribly the white man treated Africans (and we should). We have a whole month to teach kids this. Native americans? It's important to talk about how terribly the white man treated them, and stole their land, gave them smallpox, how they lived in harmony with mother nature, how nice they were (like helping the pilgrims), etc.

Wait, some tribes were warlike and would attack everyone including other tribes and us? We don't teach that. It would make them look bad.

Isn't PC fun?

Re:Hmmmm

[Peyna]

Wait, some tribes were warlike and would attack everyone including other tribes and us? We don't teach that. It would make them look bad.

Go back only about 15 years. That's ALL that was taught in U.S. schools.

The crusades aren't exactly covered well in school

[simm1701]

Uk schools don't exactly teach a well rounded view of the crusades either.

They mention when they occurred and when they happened, that's about it.

How about mentioning the fact that a load of knights got on a ship and decided to go and invade another country and basically try and convert them by the sword, but that we got our asses kicked twice, mainly because we couldn't grasp the skirmish style light cavalry tactics and the amazing accuracy and power of the thumb draw short bow that their horsemen were equipped with (ie out knights often in full plate/chain would get an arrow right through the gaps in the visor)

Oh and the children's crusades, there's a good idea. We lost the first two rounds, so lets round up a load of kids, put them in armour on a boat and ship them down there. Obviously in their innocence god will protect them and the righteous will be victorious!!

Oh and just for the record, I'm English with a family lineage that is traced for several generations in most directions, white, from a Christian family but Pagan by choice and a casual student of ancient and medieval history.

This is Bullshit

[shma]

Not only is this 'story' over a month old, but it is 95% bullshit. Snopes, though, has you covered.

Quoting: 'There are no plans to stop teaching the Holocaust. Indeed, the education department's plan seems to be ensuring that it is taught everywhere. A spokesman for the Department of Education and Skills (DES) maintained that "The Adjegbo report on citizenship [a different report authored by Sir Keith Adjegbo and released in January 2007] said key British historical events must be taught" and that while "the national curriculum is a broad framework and there is scope for schools to make their own decisions, teaching elements including the Holocaust and key British events will be compulsory."'

That Is Pathetic.

[saudadelinux]

Did their clue bag get cut? Are they friends with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or David Duke or something? By avoiding teaching about one of the worst examples of intolerance and hatred in human history, they contribute to the problem. And let's face it, there are a lot of reports of Muslims in the UK becoming increasingly radicalized, because they are learning hatred and distorted history in the mosques. The Brits are cutting their own throats.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's face it, there are a lot of reports of Muslims in the UK becoming increasingly radicalized, because they are learning hatred and distorted history in the mosques. The Brits are cutting their own throats

Or at least thay would be if it were true.

Here's a hint for you left-ponders -- the Daily Mail is the UK
equivalent of Fox: a racist rag which will print anything which puts
muslims, women, gays, trades-unionists or the working class in a
bad light. Check snopes before posting a story from them.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[homey of my owney]

Not sure why this was submitted anonymously. It certainly is right on the money though. Of course the troubling part is, that even one school would choose to drop the lesson.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[ATMosby]

Good to see that that ever effective plan of appeasement is still in use by the UK folks.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[K'Lyre]

I still think there should be a Godwin's Law counterpart for invoking the name of Fox News.

I call it K`Lyre's Law.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be new here. posting information that is "right on the money" does not mean that you won't be modded down as a troll or as flamebait. even if your point can be proven mathematically you'll find detractors here.

and what makes it worse is the number of people who will shout you down for posting as an AC even tho there is a great amount of tolerance towards people who get to mod AC by using the underrated/overrated mods. if you take the pains to follow it you'll often find political/social postings modded in this fashion because the mods do not have the conviction to stand by their ideals and worse yet the higher ups at slashdot can't be bothered to see that this system isn't abused. they know it's abused, they've seen it go on for years, and yet they still sit on their hands.

it has become so bad as late that i've nearly abandoned my account here because of moderation corruption.

for what it's worth anymore i can understand why slashdot has gone from an exchange of ideas into simple flamewars. but hey, the site gets hits and the advert dollars keep on flowing so why rock the boat?

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[ATMD]

Who modded this flamebait?

This deserves +5 informative - I read the summary, became briefly angry, and then thought, "wait - I bet that link is to the Daily Mail". A quick mouseover later and I am smiling a wry smile.

The Daily Mail will blow any story out of proportion, and put the most sensationalist spin on it possible, because it knows that if a story makes someone angry, they're more likely to buy the paper to find out more about it.

For the record, if I thought the story was true then I would be just as angry as any other reasonable-minded person. But because of its source, I'm strongly inclined to disbelieve it's anywhere near as bad as the summary makes it out to be. Also, I'm not going to RTFA as I don't want to give the bigots advertising revenue.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[ATMD]

...except that this particular comparison is actually valid.

To draw a parallel, should Godwin's Law be invoked during an explanation of who the KKK are, and what they stand for? I'm not too clear on the finer points...

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[AGMW]

If this happened in the US, the schools, school board members and their cats would all be in the news.

Especially if they looked like Hitler!

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[looseSpark]

If you did read the article you would have seen that half of it was quoting the government report.

(SARCASM ALERT!)

They could, of course, have completely made up a fake government report.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Dogtanian]

Talk about deja-vu. My reaction to the summary was almost identical, my response (directly below) was also very similar, and I hadn't even seen your comment when I wrote it...

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[iapetus]

I think this is the parallel you were looking for...

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snopes says that it is true that one history department in northern UK did stop teaching it for that exact reason.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Dogtanian]

They could, of course, have completely made up a fake government report. Or they could have quoted selectively from it to make a better story, like they do with quotes and facts in general.

I wouldn't dismiss this issue altogether simply because it came from the Daily Mail; if their slant on it could be taken at face value I would consider it cause for serious concern. Unfortunately, the Mail in itself is not trustworthy; I prefer to read these things via a less potentially biased source before passing judgement.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[linguizic]

You forget that to a lot of slashdoters the Nazi's and the Fox news are one in the same.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[jedidiah]

You see there was a bit of a spat a few years ago. It involved rocket bombardments of British towns, a little invasion in France, some tank battles in Egypt and some really nasty carpet bombing of German cities. Perhaps you heard of it?

I have relatives that have seen those camps firsthand.

So yes I would expect schools in my country (who participated in the spat) to be aware of this not trivial aspect of the whole conflict.

I would expect to hear about Stalin's escapades for similar reasons.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[ravenshrike]

That's because the study the article was referencing didn't give out that info dipshit. RTFA

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Kwami]

I'd say it's more of an issue than you seem to believe. This winter, the leader of a mosque was arrested for preaching that all Muslims serving in the British military should be killed because they were traitors. It's not a non-issue, though it probably isn't anything worth getting worried over either.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Artifakt]

Godwin himself has repeatedly stressed that his law is about inappropriate comparisons to Nazism, Hitler, and the rest, and particularly hyperbolic ones. Comparing a trivial or completely non-existent rights issue, such as an internet poster being 'censored' by other posters when they criticize his posting with a particular Nym, to Nazi practices, will justify invoking Godwin's law. Since the KKK actually killed quite a few people, subverted the legal process in capital cases, preached intolerance for most of the same groups as did the Nazis, and a great many KKK members converted to the American Nazi Party, I'd argue the comparison is perfectly appropriate and Godwin's Law can't be used to stifle it.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[smithmc]

  Here's a hint for you left-ponders -- the Daily Mail is the UK
equivalent of Fox: a racist rag which will print anything which puts
muslims, women, gays, trades-unionists or the working class in a
bad light. Check snopes before posting a story from them.

So this article is supposed to make Muslims look bad? Well, I suppose it does, but to me it makes the schools and teachers look bad, for being willing to shy away from the truth in the face of intolerance. The Holocaust happened, dammit, and any school (and any government that administers education) that pretends otherwise should be sorely ashamed.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[MightyMartian]

A helluva lot of people died during the Second World War. What sets the Holocaust is that it wasn't casualties, it was a government machine of murder. The Jews weren't unlucky people who got in the way of bombs, or who starved because they were forced off their lands due to invading forces. They weren't victims of the fog of war. They were the victims of a systematic and bureaucratic engine of mass-murder of the like not really seen before. The Nazis set up a government bureaucracy responsible for seizing property, imprisoning and taking Jews to what can only be described as factories of death. That's what makes the Holocaust the most chilling aspect of the war.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[MightyMartian]

This is nothing more than the etymological fallacy. The term "anti-semite" was invented in the 19th century not to include all "Semitic" peoples, but rather to describe the hatred of Jews.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[operagost]

Please, PLEASE show me ONE moment on Fox News (I assume you meant Fox News and not the Fox TV network) that anything even remotely like a racist viewpoint was expressed, you kneejerk leftist troll.

-5 on all AC posts from now on. I've learned my lesson.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Arthur B.]

Hum trade-unionist use force and physical abuse to prevent people from working, they're basicaly bullies, how can they be put in a *good* light?

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[operagost]

Peace in our time! Party like it's 1939!

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[macdaddy357]

You don't make a plural with an apostrophe, you illiterate yahoo.

Read all about it here.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[FredThompson]

Quote: Here's a hint for you left-ponders -- the Daily Mail is the UK
equivalent of Fox: a racist rag which will print anything which puts
muslims, women, gays, trades-unionists or the working class in a
bad light. Check snopes before posting a story from them.

Really? The "equivalent of Fox"? Which "Fox" would that be? FoxNews has the most statistically balanced criticism/praise of both left and right political leanings and an almost perfectly equal number of left and right commentators. This has been documented a number of times through various studies in Universities examining number of occurrences of criticisms and the backgrounds of newscasters. FoxNews is so "racist" they have Black, East Indian, Latino and Asian hosts. Contrast that with, say, MSNBC, who was justifiably called out for having only white males as evening hosts.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Damvan]

Just one moment?

Here, this video shows many examples.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/15/fox-attac ks-black-america/

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[colonslashslash]

Exactly the same here. I was about to post a reply to the parent, then saw you had already done the exact thing I was about to do...

It's the Daily Mail effect. If you see a horribly twisted and obviously sensationalistic story in the UK about any person or group of people that are not white, British and middle-class, chances are good that shower of utterly shameless bastards are the ones pimping it out. Although it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to line them up next to Fox News in the US, they are probably even worse.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

you got modded insighful. case in point, eh?

Irony is your friend. Heh - and overrated and offtopic, I'm on a roll! Frankly, offtopic is what I would have expected to get in the first place.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[LynnwoodRooster]

I thought the new standard - especially for the political Left - was it's not the accuracy of the statement, but the seriousness of the charge. Facts be damned and all...

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Omestes]

By avoiding teaching about one of the worst examples of intolerance and hatred in human history, they contribute to the problem.

There are two ways of seeing this. I agree, we need to teach it, it shows the dark side of human nature, and is a major psychic blot on the consciousness of western society. The holocaust (or to be exact, the reactions against it) are a major driving force behind what we call modernity. So to understand ourselves, we must understand it.

On the other hand, it is often taught wrong. I was genuinely shocked, after high school, to learn that the Holocaust was not just about Jews. Hitler also killed millions of Gypsies, Poles, Catholics, and POWs, but these people are generally ignored, making the Holocaust a "Jewish thing", which is not true. It shouldn't be about Jews, it should be about Genocide. It should be a narrative about a country of people rising up and slaughter millions of people. It annoys me, and is rather insulting to the other non-Jewish survivors (and victims) of the Holocaust. We should teach it as a bad, to understate, action made by normal people under the control of an unspeakable evil man, and not as a bad act towards just one group of people (since that would be a lie). We should focus on the actors, as well as the totality of the victims.

In America I still run into people saying that World War II was over the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis, these are generally the same people who claim that the civil war was the war to free the slaves. Neither of which is true. Education has become a liberalizing, and sensitizing institution, over one that teaches facts. It seems, from TFA, that this is true over the pond as well. People's beliefs have nothing to do with facts. And school is about teaching facts.

There is a point where sensitivity becomes dangerous stupidity.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[crotherm]

damn.... I knew they were bad, but damn!!!!! That is just sad.....

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[bob.appleyard]

Fox News is a paragon of tolerant liberalism compared to the filth that is the Daily Mail.

In the UK, there is the cliche of the "Daily Mail reader," who is generally portrayed as a lager-swilling, angry right-wing bigot. Contrast this with "Guardian reader," a sandal-wearing, vegetarian, right-on lefty.

Man, I love stereotypes.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[lysse]

Yet even that may be an exaggeration. According to the BBC rebuttal, it simply wasn't set as a coursework, rather than the whole lesson being dropped. So since there are no details, let's indulge in some hypothesising:

Let's say that you're a history teacher and your school has a large number of Muslim pupils, and the leader of the local mosque (and his version of recent European history) commands a heck of a lot more respect than you or any of your colleagues. Not to mention that his son is one of the brightest - and most confident - kids in your class. Furthermore, your head teacher is a bit spineless, and the school itself is on the brink of being labelled a "failing school" and having central government intervene; one more bad set of league table results, and the head and half the staff are history. Set your kids a coursework on the Holocaust (or anything else controversial, but the Holocaust is the big one in History GCSE syllabi) and you know from past experience that you're likely to get such a ragbag of half-truths and distortions back that you'll have to fail a disproportionate number of those kids; in contrast, they'll probably get their teeth right into Stalinism, having enjoyed it all year and having been as staunchly anti-communist as anyone else. Clearly the easiest way out is simply not to set a Holocaust essay as a coursework - but when people start asking the school secretary why not, what's she going to tell them? Will she be privy to your reasoning, or will she just remember overhearing you say "and of course, Ibrahim keeps saying it never happened" as she was walking through the staff room that one time?

That's one way it COULD have happened. I'm not saying it DID happen that way, but it appeals to my understanding of what people are like. Unfortunately, in a world where every mistake is displayed forever in a public museum, where there is no proportion, no forgiveness, and nobody can follow a causal chain with more than one fucking LINK in it any more... this happens.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[ArcherB]

Those racists bastards! How dare they call black racists "racists". Don't they know that saying anything negative against anyone but whities is racists!!??!!

And to have all those "people of color" on there that say such bad things about their own people like, "too many black people are having children out of wedlock."

How dare they ask a black man if it is OK to say that a black man is articulate. Everyone knows that using white words to describe a black man is racists. Black people "talk good". White people are "articulate". Get it right!

Also, they shouldn't have so many black...er...negr...um...African American people on there. It is racist to compete with BET! They should let the black networks tell the black news and Fox should keep to reporting the "white news". The nerve of these people!

Finally, Border Controll. Everyone that wants our country to have borders is a racist... PERIOD!

Thank you for the link!

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Danga]

For one taking things out of context can make what people say much worse than what was intended so that video is bullshit in that regard. Second, nearly everything talked about during those clips was TRUE. Just because the facts hurt doesn't change the fact that they are facts. I watch all of the news stations every once in a while and from my point of view Fox is actually one of the less biased stations and does a good job of showing both sides.

As someone else mentioned above whenever I hear someone claim that Fox News is biased I ask them for a specific example and they always blunder around babbling non-sense with no proof and basically end up with the answer "just watch it to see what I mean" and when I do I never see what they are talking about.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[hobo sapiens]

Oh look! I got modded offtopic too!

Whatever you have, it's catching :)

Smell that smoke? It's our karma!

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[looseSpark]

It's a good point you make. I didn't get that impression of this particular article, though. The general thrust of the article seemed to me to be largely driven by the quotes from the actual report itself rather than any kind of editorialising comment. I can't be sure without reading the original report in its entirety, though.

As to the points you raise in your linked comment, I believe this is true of most, if not all, (British) tabloid newspapers and I wouldn't single out the Daily Mail as anything different. Their bias tends to be on the rather conservative side and their style appealing to the emotion rather than intellect; but I would also add that the kind of frothing-at-the-mouth, leftist style of accusations of against them of "racism" (with them writing often about illegal immigration being the main cause for such accusations as far as I can tell) are also just as unreliable, in my opinion--I think a person would have to be prepared to call the legal system racist also to make that one stick.

Anyway, like yourself I just don't take tabloid newspapers as a serious research source, but I would not dismiss everything they say out of hand.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[gerrysteele]

It is true though. The daily mail is a journalistic cesspit.

It specifically generates (not reports) stories with the specific aim of creating a fuss so that its name will be syndicated on other news sources.

When this news is reported in other media outlets, they must then cite "The daily mail has said...." before the article because they have no real way of substantiating the claims themselves.

Ignore them at all costs.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Lemmy Caution]

It's true.

A community group at one time decided to have a celebration on Guy Fawkes day that focused on the Indian culture that was the vast majority of the local council. It was reported in the Daily Mail as a council "banning bonfire night," because they chose to do something other than the bonfire. This lead to a chorus of anti-immigrant sentiment from the Mail-reading rabble.

This is typical of the Daily Mail. They are in the business of generating outrage among angry right-wing types, not in reporting the news.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[myowntrueself]

The term "anti-semite" was invented in the 19th century not to include all "Semitic" peoples, but rather to describe the hatred of Jews.

I have even heard Jews yelling "Anti-semite!!!" at other *Jews* as the worst insult they could think of!

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[KwKSilver]

And one of the Nazi's greatest assistants and cheerleaders was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, see here. The French, Yugoslavs, and, I think ,the Soviets wanted to try him for war crimes at Nuremburg. The Brits had a tizzy and refused, threatening to withdraw from the Nuremburg trials altogether.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Trogre]

Watch a couple of these hidden-camera episodes and get back to me with how unlikely you think this story is.

Or perhaps this.

Then again you might not mind if Britain ends up looking like France.

Just because the messenger is of ill repute (DailyMail in this case) doesn't mean the message is wrong or unlikely.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[Ash Vince]

Please bare in mind this story is from the Daily Mail. They are not the most reliable paper in the country if you are looking for balanced news.

It may well be that some schools are not teach holocaust in history lessons, but this may well be simply because it is not in the national curriculum which every school is now required to teach from. Also absent from the national curriculum are core math skills like algebra so these are going out the window too.

That paper is only fit for wiping your arse with.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[mdwh2]

If you did read the article you would have seen that half of it was quoting the government report.

It doesn't matter how much of the article quotes, when they mislead you on the important bits.

See:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2 048161,00.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp

We're talking about one school, but the Daily Mail mislead you into thinking this is widespread. They also don't mention that it's non-compulsory, and that the Government plans to address the issue by making it compulsory.

There may be a real issue here that kids are brainwashed with religion, but I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail's version of events, and also this problem doesn't just go for Islam - oddly, the Daily Mail never seems to complain that all state schools much have daily Christian preaching and worship (and they'd probably be the first to complain if it ended!)

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[steveoc]

Well said, I cant agree more with that.

But its not the first time (or the last time) that we see systematic institutional genocide. You dont have to look far from home to see examples either .. Ill leave that as an exersize to the reader.

And by the way - guess which modern country holds the record for the only successful systematic genocide of an entire population ? Its not Germany, its not Israel, its not the USA ..

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[AmiAthena]

one in the same

one AND the same.

I'll bet you're one of those mouth breathers who thinks it's "for all intensive purposes"...
I should of thought of that.



(Before you reply, I was being ironic!)

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[red3dwarf]

The Daily Mail is well known for publishing this kind of scare story. Please don't believe everything you read.

Re:That Is Pathetic.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Oh look! I got modded offtopic too!

Whatever you have, it's catching :)

Smell that smoke? It's our karma! "Burn, baby, burn!"

Separation of religion and state?

[voislav98]

It's just sickening that scientifically proven facts actually need approval in order to be a part of curriculum. The whole school system is becoming a joke and I'm not talking only US and UK. I've heard stories from a few of my teacher friend that make me cringe. If a kid gets a bad grade the parents get offended, so everyone gets good grades now. Forget about giving someone F, you might as well hand in your resignation. The kids are not doing so well in science, so they don't need to take science. Let's make everyone happy. Why not just pay people to keep the kids at home, homeschool them, and then they can teach them whatever they want. If they like Sun revolving around Earth, so be it.

Fear of Islam

[TheSciBoy]

This is one of the reasons why I changed my mind on the Danish cartoons that enraged the muslim world so much.

Fear cannot be allowed to dictate what we say or teach.

If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries. Send them to jail.

In this case it's not even a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. The Holocaust happened and denying it is in itself illegal in some countries. Rewriting history is a very serious thing, even though it's being done on a daily basis. History is there for us to learn from so we do not repeat it. We better learn our lessons or we're bound to make the same mistakes over and over.

Re:Fear of Islam

[alcmaeon]

"If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries."

Interestingly, in most "civilized countries" if you say what you think and what you think is contrary to the state approved position, (let's say you question the numbers or methods of the killings during the holocaust) then you have broken the law. Send them to jail!

Freedom means the freedom to disagree and the freedom to have opinions that the masses do not share and may even find repugnant. In even the most authoritarian state, one always has the authority to express ideas of which the goverment approves.

Frankly, I see little moral difference in the government threatening to send people to jail for expressing an unapproved idea and an extremist threatening death or bodily harm to a person expressing an unapproved idea.

Of course, I recognize a real world difference: the ability of the state to prosecute and the liklihood that it will is many times greater than the ability of the extremist to carry out his treat or the liklihood that he even will.

Re:Fear of Islam

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

"If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries."

Name 1 (ONE) muslim country where this exists about islam. There is none. In most muslim countries it is punishable by death. Examples of countries where criticism of islam is punishable with death :
-> Saudi Arabia
-> Pakistan
-> Iran
-> Afghanistan (even now)
-> Tunisia
-> Libya
-> ...

Renouncing islam is also punishable by death in most of these countries.

Re:Fear of Islam

[TheSciBoy]

Oh, come on, no one will throw you in jail in, for example Germany, for saying the Holocaust never happened. Speaking your mind is not illegal. Writing it in a book or paper might get you a fine, but I think that's about the extent of it. Mind, I'm Swedish so I'm not to clear about German law (and I think this is one of the places where denying the Holocaust is in fact illegal).

Anyone from Germany who is a lawyer is free to correct me on all these guesses. :)

Re:Fear of Islam

[kalirion]

Seriously, I can see this sort of thing happening in France, but UK? That took me by surprise.

Re:Fear of Islam

[d3ac0n]

Google is your friend: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/info/archives/bac kground/speech.html

the money quote: "The Criminal Code, in its Sections 185, 189 and 194, prohibits the defamation and denigration of the character of deceased persons and make such denigration punishable by law. The statement that Jews were not persecuted during National Socialism is clearly false. The mass murder of Jews in the gas chambers of the Third Reich is a historical fact that has been proven by countless witness statements and documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research."

And: "The "Auschwitz-Lge" (Holocaust Denial) may also be prosecuted under Section 130 of the Criminal Code, which makes incitement (Volksverhetzung) a punishable offense. The current German legal interpretation of incitement protects public peace and human dignity. The constitutional foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany recognizes no interest that could justify injuring the personal honor and dignity of some of its citizens and promoting enmity and hatred toward them."

So yes, Denying the Holocaust is ILLEGAL in Germany, and you CAN get thrown in jail.

Re:Fear of Islam

[Vicissidude]

The whole Danish cartoon reaction in the US didn't appear as fear of reprisal. Maybe some of it was, but certainly not all of it. The lack of printing appeared as a capitulation to diversity. If the press was afraid of anything, it wasn't that Muslims would attack, but that the press would look bad by appearing intolerant.

Nevermind the fact that the press couldn't accurately and objectively tell the Danish cartoon story without showing the cartoons. No reader or viewer had any idea what the problem was about without viewing the materials themselves. In today's day and age, accurately and objectively telling the news is a secondary objective for news stations. Their primary goals are diversity and inclusiveness in order to keep their viewers and advertisers happy and the money rolling in.

Re:Fear of Islam

[TheSciBoy]

Still not convinced that you can get thrown in jail for it. Do you have any court cases?

Re:Fear of Islam

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

This is one of the reasons why I changed my mind on the Danish cartoons that enraged the muslim world so much. Fear cannot be allowed to dictate what we say or teach.

Totally. If you're not ok with parody or even blatant disrespect of what you hold important or sacred, you're only a couple steps from burning people at the stake for heresy. If your beliefs cant stand up to parody, how strong can your belief really be?

Re:Fear of Islam

[Maltheus]

In this case it's not even a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. The Holocaust happened and denying it is in itself illegal in some countries.

Making it illegal to deny the holocaust will only exacerbate the denials. I've never had any reason to doubt the details of the holocaust until they started arresting people for denying it. If they started arresting people for believing in UFOs, I'd probably start considering that they may be real as well. Why arrest someone for ridiculous beliefs unless they're not in fact so ridiculous? Hitler was evil and clearly killed many people, but arresting people for any mere belief is in itself an evil to be fought. You yourself even make the point earlier that "fear cannot be allowed to dictate what we say or teach."

I'm not saying that I believe that the holocaust didn't happen, but I have started to suspect that maybe the numbers were exaggerated or something. I simply do not know one way or the other anymore. Arresting people for denying it reminds me of closeted gay guys constantly reminding you of how much they love knockers. You know, the whole "thou does protest too much" thing.

Re:Fear of Islam

[alcmaeon]

Wow, you're kind of ignorant. I guess you haven't heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_ZndelErnst Zundel who was sentenced to 5 years in prison in Germany for denying the holocaust or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_IrvingDavid Irving who was sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for disputing "facts" about the holocaust.

Re:Fear of Islam

[TheSciBoy]

Yes, you are right. Of this I am ignorant. Now I know better. Though I fail to see how calling me ignorant helped.

Re:Fear of Islam

[thesandtiger]

I agree with you, but I still found the Danish cartoons to be very tacky. The reason they were created and run is one I can agree with - they were saying "Let's tip a sacred cow." But the subject is what I found offensive - tipping your own culture's sacred cows is bravely speaking out. Tipping the other guy's is just being a dick. Had they done the cartoons and included things that the Danes take seriously, that would have salvaged the whole thing for me.

I'm just a fan of being an equal opportunity asshole.

That's Okay...

[morari]

Just the other day at work I overheard two colleagues talking at lunch. The one was rather agitated because the school was trying to "brainwash" her child by not teaching what her church taught; namely that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together in the beginning of time. Yeah. She apparently attends the Church of St. Flintstone. Now, did the holocaust happen? More than likely, though it was and is probably a tad exaggerated, just like any defeated enemies' "horrors" will be.

There's religious beliefs and then there's...

[Guppy06]

political ones. Considering that both the Crusades and the Holocaust occurred many centuries after the writing of the Qur'an and other founding events, I'd say a Muslim would be hard pressed to say that Holocaust denial (at least) is actually a part of their faith.

But if these schools want to play this game of avoiding material because students claim it offends their faith, how much longer before an enterprising group of students get together and decide that homework is against their religion?

But not this example...

[tpjunkie]

There are still people who survived the holocaust alive today. One doesn't need to "best guess" or "interpret" a primary source's experience. Holocaust denial is like calling those people, and the soldiers who liberated them and witnessed the death camps, all liars.

Re:But not this example...

[Aladrin]

It's not 'like' that, it's EXACTLY that.

I personally believe it happened, and I'm not attempting to argue that it didn't.

But people -do- have a right to their beliefs, no matter how wrong the majority think they are. No matter how many 'facts' stack up against them. Beliefs do -not- need to be rational or have logic to support them.

Nobody can -prove- the holocaust happened. We've got a lot of people that claim memories of it, but no real 'proof'. It does not matter how many people stand up and say 'I was there' if these people simply refuse to believe that.

There are people that believe we've never been to the moon (or even out of orbit) and that there are helicopters (black ones!) small enough to fly through your circulatory system.

We don't let them rule our society, and anyone else that has a belief that marked differs from the norm should not be allowed to, either. I'm not against informing students that some believe it's a lie, but I -am- against not informing the students at all. In fact, it's just as important for those who don't believe in the holocaust to learn what we think it was, as it is for us to learn that they don't believe it existed. (And why, if they've got even a single reason.)

For the record, I'm not against teaching evolution (and how it works) and creationism (and how it works, even though it'd only be 'God did it') in schools. There'd just be a heck of a lot more info on the evolution lectures than the creationism lectures. The students should not be forced to do anything religious, just learn what is believed and why. Likewise, the children should not be forced to experience evolution in the classroom. I think there's laws against that already anyhow. ;)

Re:But not this example...

[Christoph]

This is true for beliefs which are unverifiable, such as "God's name is Steve". I can believe it if I want, and say so, without hurting anyone. But for verifiably true or false events, we are obligated to a reasonable "standard of proof".

What if I tell all my neighbors, and the local police, that someone is a pedophile who molested my daughter? Later it turns out I have no living daughter or other facts, it's just my "belief"? This is extremely harmful, and is in fact a crime. What if the next time you fly, someone on the plane says it will be blown up by a bomb. It turns out this is only there "belief", based on no facts whatsoever, but you're flight was still cancelled. Would you say it's OK, because they are entitled to their beliefs?

I do agree with you people can believe whatever they want in terms of THINKING whatever they want. But speaking and acting change the formula. The above are just two examples of the problems created by making IRRESPONSIBLE statements, which are in fact criminal in the sense of false police reports and defamation.

It's worse than that

[Loundry]

Why is it perfectly ok to offend the people who the tragedy happened to, but not ok to offend people who deny it ever happened to begin with?

What's more, why is it not okay to offend people who perpetrate tragedy at a surprisingly disproportionate (not to mention theologically-justified) rate?

(Answer: craven fear and militant denial are much more powerful than a genuine desire not to offend. "I don't want to get my head cut off, so maybe I should entertain the notion that all Jews are Nazis and the Holocaust never happened...")

It's the Daily Mail

[Peregr1n]

I'm British. I'm guessing most of the readers here are not. PLEASE don't assume that the Daily Mail is representative of, or in touch with, any part of British culture. They are a populist tabloid who don't shy from publishing any old headline-grabbing bollocks without the slightest grain of truth. It was the Daily Mail, as I recall, who published a list of paedophiles, most of whom turned out to be paedotricians. Without even checking the source, I can reliably recommend that the Slashdot editors pull this story; there won't be an ounce of truth in it. Believe me, if there was, it would be all over the mainstream press, not just one particular tabloid.

Truth vs Facts

[Danathar]

I'd recommend using some other word than "Truth" when talking about these subjects. Use "Facts backed up by evidence" instead.

Truth is a loaded word that not even philosophers can agree on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Commonly truth is defined as the "correct" interpretation or meaning as defined by the person professing the "truth".

Facts with evidence is for the most part incontrovertible. That is unless you put your self-evident religious faith above the self-evident faith that what your eyes and ears are telling your brain is accurate.

Re:Truth vs Facts

[nicolastheadept]

Truth is a loaded word that not even philosophers can agree on.
Philosophers are idiots anyway.

disgusting

[roman_mir]

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'. - and Evolution must not be taught either, it's offensive to many religious folks.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class. - if the students are crossing the law of the land, call cops, otherwise do your fucking job and teach history.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework. - this 'school' must loose it's school license.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques." - I guess 'challenge everything' is just a Sony logo. Obviously at schools we don't want anything to be challenged, it's not a boxing rink, right?

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'. - these parents must be told to go fuck themselves...

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship." - Which means these 'places of worship' must be closed down if they teach hatred against people of other religions etc.

Sorry but...

[CFBMoo1]

I say offend people, especially if these events did happen (holocaust, crusades, etc). You should however present the whole picture in your lesson but you'll never please everyone so people will just have to deal with it.

Better to offend a few religious people then to have history repeat itself? Right? I think so, I mean look at Vietnam and Iraq. Whoops, did I say that out loud?

Japan rewrites history books all the time

[AncientPC]

Battle of Okinawa history book revision angers Okinawans


Scarred by history: The Rape of Nanjing

Between December 1937 and March 1938 one of the worst massacres in modern times took place. Japanese troops captured the Chinese city of Nanjing and embarked on a campaign of murder, rape and looting.

...

The number of women raped was said by Westerners who were there to be 20,000, and there were widespread accounts of civilians being hacked to death.

Yet many Japanese officials and historians deny there was a massacre on such a scale.

They admit that deaths and rapes did occur, but say they were on a much smaller scale than reported. And in any case, they argue, these things happen in times of war.

Japan's Skewed History Books Are Straining Ties With Asia


When I visited Osaka castle in 2001 they had a small section dedicated to WW2 on one of the floors. Under one of the historical photographs it stated that Japan was responding to the US aggression and mobilized its armed forces in national defense. I can't remember if it was referring to Pearl Harbor or Japan's entry into WW2 in general.

History doesn't necessarily need to be rubbed in the losers' faces as it causes unnecessary hate, but sugarcoating or ignoring history is equally dangerous.

Re:Japan rewrites history books all the time

[triffid_98]

Sure, there is the odd inaccuracy in the exhibit, but it's still a must see for the hourly "Comfort Women of South Asia a live review" floorshow...or maybe that was Las Vegas, I forget.

When I visited Osaka castle in 2001 they had a small section dedicated to WW2 on one of the floors. Under one of the historical photographs it stated that Japan was responding to the US aggression and mobilized its armed forces in national defense. I can't remember if it was referring to Pearl Harbor or Japan's entry into WW2 in general.

Re:teach both..

[Sobrique]

What is 'fact' depends a lot on your perspective. To some, Iraq is being liberated. To others, the infidels have moved in, and are performing atrocities. The truth lies somewhere between.

There is much documentary evidence about the holocaust. (Although not as much 'proof' as you might think). History is all about assembling the evidence, and deciding what it means. I'd be prepared to bet if Germany had 'won' then the whole 'holocaust' thing would have been heavily downplayed, and it'd have been 'unwise' to mention it too much, to the point where it _wouldn't_ have been an 'obvious, glaring horror'.

Human history is filled with such things. I mean, look at the Crusades. They're actually really rather nasty bits of human business, where a whole bunch of people were really quite nasty in the name of God, and incidentally taking their stuff and raping and pillaging. It's a little further back in history, true, but on one hand you have heroic tales of the liberators of Jerusalem, and on the other you get the 'barbarian horde burning cities'.

History may have happened one way. Memories cloud, and evidence is never 100% reliable. History study is all about putting together those snippets and windows we have on the past.

Re:They do have some cause

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh dude you're a friggin idiot. my jewish grandmother wished i married a jew. she got over it. but she never wished we could kill all the single non-jew women because they weren't jewish. how do you equate the two, you stupid moron?

Re:UK Schools?!!?

[shotgunsaint]

If there were no schools in the UK, Roger Waters would have written every song about his mother.

some thoughts

[circletimessquare]

yes the story is a fake, but i'd like to divulge some ruminations since we're on the subject:

1. it is conservative to only consider your own country's needs and wants. it is liberal to think of moral questions on a global level

2. in terms of your own country, the neocons and christian fundamentalists are the scariest things around for a liberal. on a global level, fundamentalist muslims have the greatest conservative venom

3. therefore, it is in the frame of conservative thought to prosecute home grown conservative villains only. meanwhile, to ignore (or even embrace) global conservative villains seems to be possible only if you are a nationalist, an ethnocentrist... that you can limit your thoughts to the petri dish of your own country and somehow be morally and intellectually consistent. it seems to me that a truly liberal pov would consider fundamentalist islam a much greater threat than fundamentalist christianity/ home grown neocons

so it seems to me to be the most liberal of things to oppose fundamentalist islam. it is truly the greatest conservative threat in the entire world. does anyone deny that? then why do so many liberals not see it as enemy #1? that confuses me. unless there is such a thing as an ethnocentric liberal? isn't that a contradiction in philosophical concepts?

Reality vs opinion

[jmorris42]

> ...it's their right to believe what they choose.

No. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, not their own reality. You get to to have your own ideas about what facts mean but you don't get your own facts. 2+2=4 no matter how hard you believe otherwise.

Reality is that which doesn't change no matter how hard you wish it otherwise. The Holocost is objective reality. The fact the whole Middle East was on the Axis side is also objective reality. The fact they LOST WWII is objective reality. And in the end that last fact is the heart of the matter. Because if all three of the facts I just stated are reality their own worldview can't exist, so they collectively went into denial. Because it all comes down to their objection of the Western powers setting up Israel. Here in Reality winning WWII gave the victors the right to remake the defeated enemies territories including, granting Israel to the surviving Jews, splitting up Germany, tearing apart Japanese society and remaking it in our own image, etc.

The difference is we didn't occupy the Middle East and force their backwards asses into the 20th Century, mostly because before oil was discovered nobody cared enough. That was a mistake, but hindsight is always better than foresight. What is happening now with appeasing the crazies is obviously stupid to anyone outside government and the far left. If we won't stand up and defend the teaching of objective REALITY how is the West supposed to muster the courage to defend it's BELIEFS?

Re:Reality vs opinion

[OS24Ever]

This is I think the crux of the issue, not just with the holocaust 'denial' but also with 'intelligent design' and others.

We've let lawyers weasel their way from wordsmithing the legal system to wordsmithing day to day activities. My skin crawled when I saw the Attorney General of the United States answer a question about torture with 'well we really haven't defined the word torture, so I can't answer the question'. We've gone from 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit' to 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' to 'stress positions'

This is just moving further to it. Is this Newspeak from George Orwell? You see it in the 'debates' of us vs. them. us is one side, them is the other. there is no middle ground anymore. You're either for us, or against us. You either want to 'cut and run', or 'stay the course'.

It's just a perversion of the language and human nature. I really think it'll get worse before it gets better. This is one of the worse sides. While the source of the material might be Fox News or the Daily Mirror. The fact that the Daily Mirror was intended to be read by the Deltas kinda told me what I thought of it, having not seen it on the shelf here in the States.

Re:Reality vs opinion

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Unfortunately it's also "objective reality" that the founder of the muslim religion, the "prophet" muhammad, was a

-> genocidal murderer
-> (incestuous) paedophile
-> thief
-> plunderer
-> gave his soldiers orders to rape captive women
-> a terrorist

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

Re:Reality vs opinion

[Carewolf]

Reality is that which doesn't change no matter how hard you wish it otherwise. The Holocost is objective reality. The fact the whole Middle East was on the Axis side is also objective reality.

You were doing so fine, and then you lost it..

Most of the Middle-east fought on the Allied side in WW2. It was in WW1 that the Ottomans was on Germany and Austria's side, after WW1 the Middle-east was divided between France and UK, and they fought _against_ Germany in WW2 if you remember.

Re:Reality vs opinion

[Serious Callers Only]

"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites, who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered - men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns."

- Christian Bible - Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT

"Kill [even] the good among the gentiles."
- Talmud - Mechilta, Beshalach 2 (on Exodus 14:7)

Re:Reality vs opinion

[dharbee]

What does any of that have to do with Muhammad?

Re:Reality vs opinion

[meringuoid]

So the ancient Hebrews were murderers just as much as Mohammed was? What does that prove? I don't see where the grandparent poster mentioned that he was a Christian or a Jew, just that he didn't think much of the founder of Islam.

Offended = Private School

[Anonymous Coward]

If a minority of muslims are offended that the free education provided to them by the English high-tax payer includes the Holocaust, let their mosques create an alternate school system and let their parents send their kids to that alternate school system to learn whatever they like. The other students should not be held hostage to the wacko beliefs of a few. I say teach the Holocaust, teach the Armenian extermination, teach about slavery in the "new world" and the middle passage, teach about the arab slave traders, teach about african slavery, teach all of these horrors so that *everyone* can understand through the lens of history NOBODY'S hands are clean.

I also extend the private school argument to intelligent design. Give people choices because in any free society which should include freedom of thought, FREEDOM IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER.

Garb.

[Mockylock]

It's more along the lines of, "If we close our eyes they won't see us" type of deal. Doing things like this by pure intimidation cause temporary solutions, but in the end, you're basically just letting a bully become stronger by making it happy.

It happens everywhere, mostly fueled by the media. He who controls the media, controls it all. It's no longer a physical battle, rather than PsyOps.

Why fight someone with brute force, when you can throw up a television station and blurt out some fallacies, censored media or edited truth to turn the majority in your own direction.

It's not a matter of what is common sense... right or wrong... but whatever the broadcasters and government feel like controlling that week.

In news a year ago, the states showed where a bomber went into a crowd of children that were gathering to get candy from a truck of soldiers. On Al-Jazeera it stated that a martyr died and 2 soldiers were also killed. A while later, allied forces bombed a farmhouse that was tracked down via satellite, containing 5-6 insurgents who were mortaring a base. On Al-Jazeera, they stated that a bomb killed innocent farmers in a barn.

Granted, we know someone has to be right, but nobody really knows.

I don't believe that taking the holocaust out is going to make a muslim extremist have any mercy on a Christian/"zionist". even if you took all of Christianity out, and everyone wasn't religious... they would kill non-believers as well as eachother, until their own sect was in power. You're only giving a bully your money and letting him do what he wants.... but, it's not going to make things better. They feel more powerful after things like this happen. Changing your ways only proves to be a weakness.

I was offended ...

[eck011219]

... by the concept of imaginary numbers. And they still taught that!

Stop it!

[Anivair]

Stop it! Just stop it!

Stop turning school into a religious debate! Stop it right now!

Teach facts. That's your only stupid job.

History

[Pecisk]

What I find more and more disturbing that history, which should learn facts, is more and more "corrected" just because some arrogant freaks can't accept the truth. Hololocaust did happen. As did happen crimes of Soviet Army and leadership. Western powers sold lot of countries to Soviets. In lot of these Eastern Europe countries jews where killed by locals (they were managed by Nazi, but still...).

I think biggest problem is that such attitude - I don't like it, therefore, it DIDN'T happen - is CHILDISH. Everyone knows it. But yet, there it is. Why? Why people are so afraid of truth?

I guess that such denial is allowed more and more because people live more stressful lives and in result, they tend to avoid unpleasant truths more and more. It is clear that in nineties there was less such absurd disscussions about history and sciences as it is now. It is clear, however, that leadership of countries use history more and more as propaganda tool just to "fix" thinking of nation in right way.

They want to avoid people who are actually thinking and analysing past. Because if they will do, they will start to think about what to elect, which laws are wrong or right, etc. etc.

The Islamist response

[Loundry]

The single, best argument to the contrary I have ever heard is that not one defendant at the Nuremburg trials stated, in defense, that the holocaust never happened....

The Islamist repsonse to that is to claim that the "Europeans" (Nazis) were actually Zionists who fabricated the Holocaust in order to carve out a homeland for the Jews land that belonged to the ummah. So naturally the defendants at the Nuremburg trials wouldn't have denied such a thing: the Nazis were hard-core Zionists (the worst stripe of Evil(TM)) and went to their grave to defend their Jewish masters.

Muslim hatred for Jewish people is stronger than that of Klan hatred for Jewish people: the hate is not merely cultural, it's theologically-justified. It's a big problem for those of us who believe in freedom of conscience and tolerance for other people.

Re:The Islamist response

[Himring]

Well then, as Lewis put it, "There comes a point when the unreasonableness of a person's argument forces me to have nothing else to say to them..." (paraphrased).

Thought Police

[cyberkahn]

Nice try at re-writing history.Well, personally I have met two survivors, so I know there is no convincing me that it didn't happen. My next door neighbor being one of them was the sole survivor from her family. When her train arrived at Auschwitz she was separated into the "other line" from her family. Her family went right to the gas chambers. She obviously survived until they were liberated. It's sad, but very true.

In addition, I also met someone who was expelled from Austria via forced emigration, who in fact had her papers signed by Adolph Eichmann himself.

To me the Holocaust is more than just the persecution of Jews, although they were the largest number. It is an admonition of what can happen under a police state and that said state determines you are an enemy of it. Not only were Jews killed in the Holocaust, but also gypsies, Slavs, Christian dissenters, disabled, mentally ill, and anyone who was against their ideology.

Kdawson....

[TiCL]

you should resign immediately, it is one thing to report inaccurate tech news about the hax0r l33t stuff, it is entirely different to post a tasteless April fools' joke as real news. And, btw, take Zonk with you.

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

Nope. Take a look at what has actually been written in History. Take a look at the history of the Crusades, the 100 years war, etc. The protestant revolution, etc. All of them have various accounts, including accounts that agreed and disagreed with what occurred. History is written by the survivors. Even in the case of Carthage, where the city was "a desert" after the Romans were through with it. Who do you know more about: Hannibal or Scipio?

Chuch and State?

[AvitarX]

DISCLAIMER:
Since the below is too far down in discussion to be read,it is not even slightly proofread,proceed at your own risk.

I assume the UK has some type of seperation of Church and State. Shouldn't that mean they can ignore the techings of religious orginizations when teching history?

And to say Holocust denialis a "belief" in the religious context is just stupid anyway.

And don't the crusades give a prime opening to bridge cultures?

They could teach a traditional lesson, then teach a Islamo-centric leson, then explain how all history has 2 sides, every winner has a looser (unles both teach victory which is even more interesting). By teaching the Islamo-centric version, and at the same time admitting the traditional Christo-centric version was also one sided they could be a reasonable option for trustworthy-ness,and hopefully the Holocust denial will work itself out in a generation or so (of couse I am way too optomistic).

Re:Chuch and State?

[Zelos]

The UK has no official separation of Church and State. IIRC, the head of state (the Queen) is also head of the Church of England

teaching the Holocaust is being made *compulsory*

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem, here - and I know it's hard to investigate beyond the first couple of lines of summary - is that Britain's schools have had, since the times of Thatcher (who, while claiming to be pro-freedom, was really everything but), something called the "National Curriculum".

It's often considered a big list for special interest groups to lobby over to get their pet subject included. This topic must then be taught by all state schools (not private/home schools, thank goodness).

The problem is that when you force people to sit and learn something (or, from the teacher's POV, you force them to teach something), especially while you're banging the drum about the glorious freedoms and rights of your nation, you will make them resent you.

You see, the Holocaust was awful, but it was not the the only awful thing to happen in human history. If you say "OK, we're going to make the Holocaust compulsory for all kids to learn" but not, say, any number of other massacres/mistreatments in the name of race, power, politics or just plain bloodymindedness, you are implying, somehow, that the Holocaust was worse.

The concerned party then asks, "Why are you implying that the Holocaust was worse than [insert long list here]?" But there is no answer - how do you quantify "horrificness"? You can rank by number of deaths, but then Stalin's purges beat the Holocaust; you can rank by racism, but blacks have suffered in the past three centuries in greater numbers under slavery (and I wouldn't recommend considering slavery as "better" than death). You can rank by the extent to which government records (census data etc.) was used in massive quantities for the first time to oppress a group, but the amount of data that could be used against you was paltry compared to what is collected on every citizen today.

So, let the fair history teachers combine various examples to give a sufficient overview to schoolchildren. A teacher with a strong agenda/bias isn't going to teach better because the government forces him to cover particular topics - he's just going to rebel, as above.

how does one go about that?

[misanthrope101]

I say teach it all, including intelligent design and holocaust history and let the student sort it out.

We should teach that the holocaust both did and did not happen? How do you "teach" mutually exclusive conclusions? Or are you just being completely relativistic and concluding that all viewpoints have equal validity?

I'm still unclear on how one would teach ID. ID posits nothing more substantial than "there are things that evolution can't explain." I guess you could go down the list of things ID proponents tell us can't evolve without a designer, and then go on to cover the extensive literature explaining how those very things could evolve without a designer. Of course that wouldn't be teaching ID--that would be refuting crackpot pseudoscience by pointing out that its claims are factually wrong.

I've come across quite a few people who said they wanted ID "taught" in the schools, but from what I could tell all they wanted to do was say "Evolution is bunk!" and then keep from the kids all the literature that explains the things they (the ID fans) claim are unexplainable. I'm not sure how you can use the word "teach" in that context without your pants bursting into flame.

Teachers:

[ZwJGR]

Teachers should teach the facts to the kids, and leave the religious/moral/etc. interpretation to somebody else.
The holocaust did happen, tell the students, let them engage their own excuses for brains, to come to their own conclusion, without being force-fed politically correct/religiously motivated interpretations.

Re:teach both..

[ChromaticDragon]

I believe that in the case of the Holocaust, you could make a very strong argument that indeed history was written by the conquered.

You can argue about motives, desires, aspirations, the collusion of the larger European society, the involvement of neutral countries, specifically their banks... You can debate any number of points.

But the funny thing is...

The Germans kept wonderfully accurate records of what they were doing. They were very meticulous.

In an enormously real way, the victors did not need to write the History of the Holocaust.

Holocaust Denial is an abomination simply because active and willful ignorance is dangerous. Holocaust Denial should be taught, but not as a way to present "balance" here. Instead, it needs to be presented as a psychological and pathological study of why in the world people fight so arduously to reinvent the past rather than to learn from it.

Daily Mail

[Steauengeglase]

Am I the only person who sees this story coming from the Daily Mail as just a little odd, given their support for the Nazis during the pre-WWII era? I tend to take their views with a grain of salt (for example are the schools who decline to teach the Holocaust publicly or privately funded?).

With all of that said I find the concept of "balanced treatment" in an educational environment revolting. Plurality's sake shouldn't lend itself to falsehoods, lies and distortions and if a fact hurts someone's feeling I'm sorry, but maybe they should just accept that the Earth is round, not flat.

Isn't it funny

[Vexor]

I've always been surpised by these kinds of things. How can you deny something that has mountains of evidence that it did in fact happen. We all know the nazi's documented nearly everything. Hence the overwhelming amounts of evidence/proof. Denying that is plain idiocy, not religion. As previously mentioned I think these are exactly the people who need a history lesson.

The Holocaust?

[thanksforthecrabs]

Whoa -- when did this happen?

How is Napoleon taught?

[jack_n_jill]

How is Napoleon taught in Britain, Poland, Germany or Russia? I suspect that it is a little different than it is taught in France. The same with the crusades, it is likely taught a little different in the Moslem world than the Christian world. If you are going to teach these subjects, and you should, you should teach the whole story.

The same with the holocaust, teach the reality of the horror of the holocaust. You should also teach that some use it for political purposes. Holocaust deniers generally have some other political purpose. You should always look for the story behind the story. The holocaust is also used to justify Israel and all of horrors it has caused. Teachers need to examine that story behind the story.

Re:How is Napoleon taught?

[fsmunoz]

There is a difference. A big difference. I'm from Portugal, and what we learn of Napoleon is basically a mix of early Revolutionary Enlightenment, military genius but ultimately an invader that needed to be defeated and we cherish each victory. Now, this is what we learn *here*, but I wouldn't dream of asking the French to start teaching this in *their* schools, even to Portuguese immigrants there. It's *their* f***** country, and they should teach what they see as fit (that is to say, being somewhat proud of Napoleon), if foriegners are offender, well, I can only supposed the border is open to those that dislike it. Of course, ideally History should be more factual and avoid emotional interpretations, but as you said each country has a general tendency to judge and see the events through their reflection in them, and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is beginning to go far, too far. By 1) Terrorist attacks and 2) Immigration and 3) Convertion Islam is getting a foothold in Europe and beginning to dictate what we should or shouldn't teach. This is only one of several such "incidents" that happen every day.

Re:teach both..

[mulvane]

You seem to think either World War had a victor. WWII by far most in my opinion had no victor but a consensus that enough was enough on all sides involved. The only real loser with the exception of all who lost their lives would be those persecuted by the factually evidenced holocaust. I'm an American, a US NAVY sailor, a father, and do not believe in torture and or teaching to not offend someone based on there contradictory beliefs.

Not true

[SuperKendall]

At worst, evolution was still being taught but labeled as an unprooven theory - still allowing someone to decide if that was true or not. I am not aware of any schools that refused to talk about evolution at all, as some are doing with the Holocaust by not mentioning it.

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

You are confusing motive with events. It is a fact that the United States invaded Iraq. It's a fact that Saddam Hussein was shooting at American planes before that. And it's a fact that Shia and Sunni groups are targetting civilians on either side. What is not a fact is the "why."

You argue that the Holocaust would have been down played if Germany had won the war. I can think of a direct Historical example where that is not true. During World War I, the Brits established a "starvation blockade" that basically strangled the German army and the German people. After the war, the UK and France basically raped Germany of what resources it had left, and left it to rot in the 1920s. Only the United States provided any aid at the time, and that was curtailed once the Great Depression hit. All of these facts are not beneficial to the UK or Germany, but are very well documented, and are being researched even now in depth.

The reality is that the Crusades have been thought on way in Islamic circles to justify a point: "Holy rules will be successful in Battle." Ironically enough, the West has swung to the opposite side ignoring the 300 years of previous warfare and focusing on the Crusades as if they just magically occurred out of thin air, and were due to nothing else but Rome's grab for power.

History has much to say about both (incorrect) views of History. But the political correctness that keeps the west from honestly looking at the Crusades, and the religious fervor and national identity issues keep the arab states from looking honestly at the crusades.

Don't blame History for the politics of man.

fascinating and troubling problem

[misanthrope101]

What does a pluralistic society do with those who do not believe in the values that allow a pluralistic society to exist? This question has been bugging me for a few months,since I read Kingdom Coming, The Rise of Christian Nationalism. The argument applies equally well to fundamentalists from any religion. They basically do not believe in a pluralistic society. Tolerance is not considered a virtue. Rationality is not considered a virtue.

Faith, obedience to God (or whatever the leader says that God meant, truth be told) and adherence to the group's internal norms are the only virtues. They hate a free, tolerant society for the very values and qualities that we love it for. But we can't very well shoot them all, because, well, that isn't very nice. But what do we do with them? They will continually try to co-opt, undermine, and degrade the freedom we care about.

And it isn't just freedom that suffers--intellectual integrity goes out the window as we try to accomodate them. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, but how many teachers have to tiptoe around it, along with the age of the Earth and who knows how many other subjects, because they might "offend" a subset of the religious among them? And now we're editing one of the most central facts of the 20th century out of existence because of yet more religious fundamentalists. Fantastic.

Re:fascinating and troubling problem

[Rallion]

Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, but how many teachers have to tiptoe around it, along with the age of the Earth and who knows how many other subjects, because they might "offend" a subset of the religious among them?

I'm so glad I had the biology teacher that I did in high school. Once we got to the point where the stuff we were learning REALLY depended on evolution, she started a class by saying something very close to this: "Evolution is. It's a fact and it's the basis for everything we've learned so far and everything we will learn. You can disagree with me, but I'll say it one more time: evolution is."

There was no further discussion along those lines, much to the relief of most of the class...

Re:fascinating and troubling problem

[AGMW]

We had a biology teacher at school who didn't believe Evolution was true because of his religous beliefs. Interestingly, he still taught the subject, and taught it very well, but he would start the Evolution course by stating that he didn't believe it was true.
Must have been tough for him to shine the light so effectively on his religion!

Re:fascinating and troubling problem

[ravenshrike]

Actually, macro-evolution is not a fact at all. You bio teacher obviously wasn't a very good scientist. Now, micro-evolution is indeed fact. But that wasn't what your teacher was talking about, now was it? Now, given strict recorded observation so far, it's a pretty high probability that macro-evolution is the cause. That IS fact. Although given the nature of species classification and some other issues, the particulars are probably all screwed to hell but it's stiill the safest bet.

Re:fascinating and troubling problem

[misanthrope101]

Macroevolution is speciation, and speciation has been observed repeatedly, in the lab and in the wild. The distinction is about as important as the distinction between microwalking, i.e., walking short distances, and macrowalking, walking long distances. Skeptics of macroevolution are basically asking me to believe that large numbers of small changes don't add up to large changes. Change is change, and the difference is one of degree, not quality.

Agreed

[Loundry]

Well then, as Lewis put it, "There comes a point when the unreasonableness of a person's argument forces me to have nothing else to say to them..." (paraphrased).

Indeed. The time for "dialogue" ends when it becomes clear that the enemy who wants you dead is exploiting your desire for "dialogue" as yet another means to your destruction.

Re:teach both..

[Algorithmnast]

Absolutely! There world is flat! Just because those other frauds won that particular battle is no reason to believe their tainted histories!

Why should it have to be non-optional

[SuperKendall]

If you'd paid attention to the previous comments you would have seen that the reason some schools are able to 'opt out' is that the Holocaust is currently an optional part of the UK national curiculum, but that this is being reviewed and it is almost certain that it will become a compulsory part of the curriculum and these schools will have to teach it. So if anything it's a 'bright day', not a 'dark day'.

How is it not dark that some teachers CHOOSE to not teach this aspect of history. Why should it have to be made COMPULSORY for history teachers to actually, you know, teach important history?

Saying that everything is OK now because we are going to force people to know what they should have done in the first place ignores a very real root cause problem. What ELSE are we going to have to force teachers to teach in the future that is also now optional but realistically very important?

Re:Why should it have to be non-optional

[jimicus]

How is it not dark that some teachers CHOOSE to not teach this aspect of history. Why should it have to be made COMPULSORY for
history teachers to actually, you know, teach important history?

There's a whole lot of history, y'know. Even if you just count relatively modern (for the sake of argument, let's say industrial revolution and beyond) history, you've got to decide what you teach and inevitably bits will be left out.

Historically, UK school qualifications have had a curriculum containing a bunch of stuff they have to teach and some which is optional (as in: you've got a choice of 5 major topics within the subject, teach any 3 of those). Which "optional" bits to teach is usually at the discretion of the school.

The "news" here is "some schools have decided to choose a more politically correct selection from the list of optional parts for fear of offending some pupils". This is something they're perfectly free to do - if you don't like the idea that schools might exercise this freedom, you shouldn't give it to them.

It seems the government has decided that perhaps the Holocaust should be compulsory and is proposing moving it from the "optional" to the "compulsory" section. The only amazing thing about that is that they thought that one of the most important events in the last 100 years, an event which has already been repeated in the late 20th century in the former Yugoslavia (free clue: "ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism), should be optional.

This is fucking bullshit!

[__aailob1448]

Saying that muslims deny the holocaust is like saying that americans believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy.

It just ain't so.

Show some perspective.

[IPFreely]

Teaching ID in the US is something on a slightly different level. The article says that the british schools mearly dropped the subject of the holocost, not that they introduced an opposing concept in its place.

For comparison, there are plenty of equally devistating topics that have never even been included in school curriculums, genocides all over the world, including in the US by the US army. If mearly dropping a topic out of history class is reason for such an uproar, then how much more stuff is out there to cry about because it was never included in the first place? And how long would history class have to be to include it all?

There is much more to consider than which side you are on concerning this one event.

Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[jmorris42]

> If there's a strong anti-Semitic view in the mosques of England, I suppose there's nothing we can do about that.

Yes there is. No the government should not pass more useless asshattery like 'hate crimes' laws. No the government should not establish a commission to regulate the contents of religious teachings. Yes the rest of society can and should hold those mosques that teach evil and stupid things up to public inspection and yes even ridicule. They get away with what they do because everyone is afraid to even object, and that is BEFORE the worries that the 'Religion of Peace(tm)' will KILL you for offending their insensibilities. Yes we can and MUST expose the terrorist supporting portion of Islam within Western societies, put protesters outside their door, regular dosings of media exposes and long well researched and 100% factual newpaper and magazine articles, etc.

The second thing we can do is FORCE them to integrate into our society instead of this politically correct multiculturalism that teaches that anything that isn't Western is superior so we have no right to object, even when leftist loons are forced to defend 7th Century misogeny like honor killings, forced weddings and female genital mutilation. Step one, force imigrants to know the dominate language and customs before granting Citizenship. That gets em out of their media and cultural ghetto.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[ak3ldama]

Excellent post.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[spun]

First, multiculturalism doesn't teach that anything non-western is superior. Sure, there are some loons out there who take it too far, just as there are loons in any unbalanced situation who want to swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction, thinking that two wrongs will somehow make a right. The fact is that there has been an unrealistic emphasis on western accomplishments to the detriment of learning real history, so a little balance is okay.

Your first point, however, is right on. We as a society need to take responsibility. We need the courage to stand up when we feel something is wrong and say so. But it needs to be done without anger , hatred, or intolerance in order to work.

Here's an example, a coworker made a sexist remark the other day. I could have over reacted, gotten upset and angrily denounced him, but that would only have gotten his back up and forced him to deny that he was being sexist. So I said, "Hey, I know you didn't mean it that way, but what you just said could be considered pretty sexist. There are a lot of women in our office who would feel hurt if they heard that, I'm sure you don't want to do that." That gave him an out, he admitted he hadn't really meant to come across that way and agreed to try not to do it again.

That may not work on the loons leading these Muslims into violence and hatred, but it will work on the majority of Muslims who are peace loving individuals who just want to live and let live like the rest of us. Have courage, stay calm, remember that most of the time when people act out in inappropriate ways what they really want is a little adult attention and guidance. Together we can put an end to hatred and intolerance but we can't use hatred and intolerance to do it.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[lebow]

that the 'Religion of Peace(tm)' will KILL you for offending their insensibilities.

Just a friendly reminder that historically speaking your more likely to be killed by a believer in the "Religion of Love" than the 'Religion of Peace"

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Lord Ender]

Yes the rest of society can and should hold those mosques that teach evil and stupid things up to public inspection and yes even ridicule.

How do you expect to do that? Have news cameras in the mosques every day recording the bad teachings? Have non-muslims attending the mosque sermons and standing up and shouting when bad teachings are mentioned?

Should we have protesters outside of christian churches every time there is a sermon on 1 Timothy (it is blatantly sexist)? Should we chant and jeer outside churches that teach the parts of the bible about male genital manipulation (circumcision)?

What about protesting outside jewish Temple? The only way to be God's of chosen people is to be born of a jewish mother. That is what we call racism.

All three of the abrahamic religions (jew, muslim, christian) include teachings which include tacit approval for slavery.

Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[TheMeuge]

What about protesting outside jewish Temple? The only way to be God's of chosen people is to be born of a jewish mother. That is what we call racism.

Really? Cause last time I checked, anyone was free to convert to Judaism. It is a difficult trek, but the option is open. The major difference is that Jews are generally prohibited from actively recruiting new people into the religion. So next time you're going to make generalizations, please educate yourself first.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[AGMW]

... if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.

... and that would be a bad thing because ... ?

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Reziac]

I agree with you absolutely. Political Correctness is the paving on the road to 1984, where only Correct-Think is allowed.

As I was RTFA'ing, I had the thought that those whose beliefs are no longer challenged have WON in the public mindspace. THEIR belief becomes "Truth" by default, whether it has any basis in actual history or not.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Rycross]

Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.

If exposing a religions teachings accurately causes such an outrage that support for the religion crumbles, then how is that undeserved? If merely telling the truth about a religion causes people to abandon it, then I would say that religion deserves to be abandoned. Religions don't have some innate right to exist. They are made and supported by people, and if the people find the ideas in that religion reprehensible, then I don't see any reason why they should not be able to discard those ideas, personally and societally (so long as they are not forced to).

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Darby]

Should we have protesters outside of christian churches every time there is a sermon on 1 Timothy (it is blatantly sexist)? Should we chant and jeer outside churches that teach the parts of the bible about male genital manipulation (circumcision)?

Sure, why not?

Idiotic delusional nonsense is just that regardless of what the particular trivial details that are the only distinctions between these various "absolute truths", so they should be ridiculed mercilessly until people are just too fucking embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy.

Where's the problem exactly?

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[TriezGamer]

Just a friendly reminder that if you're more likely to be killed by something that's already happened, done, and over with, than to be killed by something today, then you're either already dead, a survivor, or so far off in the future as to be irrelevant.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[ravenshrike]

You're right. Instead it teaches that all beliefs and cultures are EQUAL, which is almost worse.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[d3ac0n]

Just a friendly reminder that historically speaking your more likely to be killed by a believer in the "Religion of Love" than the 'Religion of Peace"

Just a friendly reminder that you are absolutely full of shit.

Historically, Islam has and continues to be a religion of barbarism, tribalism and conquest. Mohammed himself was a warrior chieftain famous for killing those he disagreed with. Islam has had ONE I repeat ONE bright spot, and that was Sufism. Unfortunately, the Sufists were exterminated by the Salafists in the east, and by power hungry Europeans in the west. Where Salsfism has reigned, things have changed little since the 7th century, and the followers of that religion just bring their brutality and primitive mindset with them to the west when they move.

Historically, Christianity (the Religion of Love) has had ONE dark spot on it's otherwise mostly peaceful existence, The Crusades. Before and since Christianity has been a largely peaceful religion, focusing on the spiritual rather than the physical. That's not to say that there haven't been other problems, but on the whole Christianity has been good for Western society.

Generally speaking, the followers of Christ have left dark ages barbarism behind them, and have helped to build a prosperous western society. The followers of Islam remain stuck in the past, and rather than follow the Christians into the present and future, seemed bound and determined to drag us all back into the dark ages with them. So please, don't insult our intelligence by equating Christianity to Islam. You only make yourself look foolish.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[lahvak]

Modern Western society is largely a result of Western history, and focusing on the history that matters isn't unrealistic at all. For example, Gutenberg's printing press revolutionised the spread of information in the West, and is historically important. The movable-type printing presses that were earlier invented independently in China and Korea are merely footnotes. If they had never existed, the world would not be noticeably different.

If by "world" you mean the west. I believe that for most people, world would indeed be quite different if these inventions didn't exist.

The majority of Muslims believe absolutely the Koran, and so think that those of us who don't follow its rules are evil, morally inferior or at best misguided. They don't want guidance from us, they want for us evil atheists to submit to the will of their imaginary god, and start adopting their alien customs.

I know a number of Muslims ( I happen to live in an area of US where there is a substantial Muslim minority), and all of them (every single one I personally know) are very well educated, really pleasant people, who are very tolerant of the fact that I am an atheist. While they observe their religious practices, they make sure these do no adversely affect people around them, and they definitely never attempted to convert me to Islam. That's more then I can say about some of my Christian friends.

There are only two possible outcomes: either they will become secularised like us, and give up their religious nonsense, or we shall be forced to live under a theocracy, based on medieval Arab culture.

If it was medieval Arab culture, that wouldn't be such problem, definitely better than medieval European culture. What Islamic fundamentalists promote is, unfortunately, post-medieval Arab (or Persian) culture.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[spun]

You're right. Instead it teaches that all beliefs and cultures are EQUAL, which is almost worse.

Does it? Does it really? Or is that just what the vocal minority of proponents of multiculturalism believe? Sensationalism sells, and so what you hear reported about a group or movement is often not at all what the majority actually believes.

Can you point out anywhere that multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures are equal? Care to quote a multiculturalist who says the Nazi's were okay dudes? Anyone out there advocating that we should all give cannibalism a try before condemning it? No? Thought not.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "world" you mean the west. I believe that for most people, world would indeed be quite different if these inventions didn't exist.

In some cases, yes. In many or even most cases, no. The printing presses invented in China and Korea, for example, did not lead to printing revolutions, either in China/Korea or elsewhere. In fact, these only came when Western printing technology, derived from Gutenberg's printing press, arrived in the 19th century. This, you see, is why Gutenberg's printing press is historically important and the others are mere trivia. In any case, to those of us living in the West, the most important part of history is that which moulded our societies, just as to the Chinese, the most important history is that which moulded Chinese society.

I know a number of Muslims ( I happen to live in an area of US where there is a substantial Muslim minority), and all of them (every single one I personally know) are very well educated, really pleasant people, who are very tolerant of the fact that I am an atheist. While they observe their religious practices, they make sure these do no adversely affect people around them, and they definitely never attempted to convert me to Islam. That's more then I can say about some of my Christian friends.

Yes, you're lucky in that most of the Muslims who migrate to the USA are highly educated. A lot of the Muslims here in Europe are barely literate, and insist on walking about in public in medieval robes. Even many of the educated ones, though generally quite pleasant people, believe every word of the koran, and some become angry over things like cartoons of Muhammed. How would your Muslim friends react if you drew a cartoon of Muhammed?

If it was medieval Arab culture, that wouldn't be such problem, definitely better than medieval European culture. What Islamic fundamentalists promote is, unfortunately, post-medieval Arab (or Persian) culture.

This is just a game of semantics. I enjoy living in a modern European society, with free speech, democracy, equal rights for the sexes and so on. I would not wish to live in medieval Europe, medieval Arabia, medieval Persia, post-medieval Arabia or post-medieval Persia. There are Muslims who want to impose such a society on me, and you can call it post-medieval Persian if it makes you happy, which is what I find intolerable.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[lebow]

Historically, Christianity (the Religion of Love) has had ONE dark spot on it's otherwise mostly peaceful existence, The Crusades.

One dark spot !? What about the Spanish inquisition, pogroms, blood libels, the KKK, 1st Crusades, 2nd Crusades, the 30 years war, 3rd crusades... the list goes on and on and on ...

I don't know how accurate this list is, but worth a look for those whose intelligence is easily insulted.

Islam may be "be a religion of barbarism, tribalism and conquest," but when it comes to body count followers of that defector from Judaism got a much earlier start, and carried out their killings in a much more systematic method...

It should be clear that I wasn't equating the 2 religions, rather I was in-equating them, just to remind that the christians don't have any reason to be so self righteous, and think that they alone are responsible for "prosperous western society."

BTW... I don't quite see how your reminder was delivered in a friendly manner, proper to a lover of the "religion of love".

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[lebow]

Good point ( I thought I could let that slip by but you darn slashdotters are just to sharp).

Just a friendly reminder that historically speaking your ancestors are more likely to have been killed by a believer in the "Religion of Love" than the 'Religion of Peace"...

But then I'm not sure about how accurate that is any more , because the "Religion of Love" was better at preventing survivors...

Just a friendly reminder that historically speaking if your dead it is more likely you were killed by a believer in the "Religion of Love" than the 'Religion of Peace"

But then the "Religion of Love" says that non-believers, are dammed to eternal suffering (how loving)... I'm not 100% sure that "eternal suffering" includes reading comments on slashdot...

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[CaffeineAddict2001]

This has never kept anyone from making that decision. More often than not it's used as a justification for genocide. Islamic fascists say "allah akhbar" and Nazi fascists have belt buckles that read "Gott Mit Uns". It's the same old story.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[_Sprocket_]

Say... you don't suppose it's possible to believe that "actions taken in this life may have consequences beyond our mortal existence" without also holding on to beliefs that are "racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies", do you?

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[jmorris42]

> Have news cameras in the mosques every day recording the bad teachings? Have non-muslims attending the mosque sermons

If that is what it takes. Listen up Citizen, we are in a battle for the survival of our civilization, not just a single nation state. One side is going to win and one lose.. or in the words of Ming the Merciless, "be willing to settle for less." I'm as simplistic as Reagan, "We win, they lose." is the only outcome I plan on accepting.

> Face it: if we start exposing religions for being racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies, they will all crumble, not just extremist Islam.

Yea, if carried to the extreme. But it wouldn't. Assume we (we being followers of what could broadly be called Western Civilivation) grew a pair and started holding the Religion of Peace(tm) to account for their more dangerous notions. Well it is safe to assume that under the scrutiny there would be a trend to moderate in some while others decided their host country was no longer hospitable and return to somewhere where Sharia prevails. As Islam (at least as taught and practiced in the West) moderated there being less to poke fun at, we would be less motivated to poke fun at em. Eventually a balance would be reached, much like Christian churches and the Enlightenment reached a stable relationship by moderating some of it's more antiquated notions.

Much like the Spanish Inquisition isn't likely to come knocking anymore, Islam has to give up a few of it's more uncivilized traditions if it is to be permitted to live in civilized lands.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[nicolastheadept]

(to religon): You wany the truth?
You can't handle the truth!

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[Lord Ender]

If such a religion exist, it sure has never taken hold in the West.

Personally, I think it would do society good to raise children to value a moral philosophy which has absolutely no connection to magic or superstition. Of course, that that point, it wouldn't be a religion.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[TriezGamer]

I don't see anywhere that he claims to be a 'lover of the 'Religion of Love'', seems to me he just disagrees with you. I'm also still a little confused as to the purpose of your claims, as regardless of the truth of past wrongdoings under Christian 'authorities', I have not met any Christians today who support those past atrocities beyond a few nutjobs who think blowing up abortion clinincs is God-ordained, whereas (granted through an American Media Filter) I do see Islamic radicals commiting atrocities on a much larger scale.

In today's world, on a global scale Christians are the victims of violence more than the instigators.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Christianity has many many dark spots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisiton

People being incarcinated or killed for herasy like Joan d'Arc.

Re:Sunshine and ridicule would work wonders

[lebow]

Admittedly, I am a little ignorant on current events, but where in the world are Christians victims of violence because of their religion ?

Don't get me wrong, I am in no-way I supporter of Muslim violence, I don't know if I can use strong enough language to convey how much I am against it. ( Also I disagree with the basis of their religion, but that is not the point here )

But I see a lot of Christians acting pompous, like their religion is so much better than Islam... Making sarcastically remarks about how it is called the "Religion of Peace." Christianity has a long history of violence and hatred, so they shouldn't think that they are in any position to claim that there is something inherently wrong with someone else's religion, something inherently wrong that causes it's followers to be violent. That was the purpose of my post here.

(BTW there are still plenty of hate filled christians today, to our great sorrow there are still groups like the KKK running around. Personally I have seen much hatred from the religion of love, you seem to be fortunate to live in an area where you are sheltered from this, or you are enough inline with their thinking that they can find better targets. )

Re:Deny everything

[Hoi Polloi]

They were too busy pointing fingers at each other and Hitler. "He did it! Not me"

Actually...

[Rachel Lucid]

Reform Jews have no problem with intermarriage. We just insist you raise the kids Jewish, which isn't that hard of a step (and it doesn't mean they have to end UP Jewish, but raisin' em so ain't asking much).

Re:Actually...

[estarriol]

"raisin' em so ain't asking much" Is it not? I think it's asking a great deal. What would you think if your potential spouse insisted that your children be raised as, say, Greek Orthodox? Would you accept? If not, and it's something that would prevent your marriage, how can it not be asking much?

Re:Actually...

[Rachel Lucid]

How is this any worse from having to deal with a Catholic man who refuses to use condoms, or any other religious sect?

If you're dead set about your religion, you're prolly not going to intermarry regardless. Jewish people are a little more lenient 'cause there's not a big pool to pick from to begin with, and inbreeding like chihuahuas isn't a great option either.

Compromises abound, but you've got to be willing to bend too, ya know?

Re:Actually...

[lebow]

What is so informative about this ?

Re:Actually...

[Rachel Lucid]

I don't mod it, but I imagine someone thought it relevant as a counter to 'all religions do it'.

Re:Actually...

[lebow]

Ok ...

I guess something can be moded informative even if the information is wrong ...

I know, I must be new here.

Re:Actually...

[Rachel Lucid]

If you were to actually counter my position with something reasonably factual, be my guest. I'm making reference to the 'official' reform stance here, so I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm wrong.

Perhaps the other branches of Judaism have different ideas, or perhaps you have conflicting data from a certain rabbi. Feel free to state them here, but don't plain tell me I'm 'wrong' because I state a subsection's beliefs.

Re:Actually...

[wiredlogic]

but raisin' em so ain't asking much
Indeed. Mutilating infant boys without their consent isn't much at all.

Re:Actually...

[lebow]

I'm not going to debate on Jewish beliefs here. ( If there are conflicts in the jewish people it's not really slashdot's business)

People should just know not to believe everything they read on slashdot about religion.

Re:Actually...

[Steve525]

"raisin' em so ain't asking much" Is it not? I think it's asking a great deal.

Indeed. I know of several mixed marriage couples who had to somehow promise both sides that they would raise the children in their religion. I think this issue causes more conflicts in a mixed marriage than any other.

Re:Actually...

[Rachel Lucid]

Whole other can of worms, especially since over half of new parents in the United States circumcise their kid ANYWAY.

And hell, let's forget all about the health benefits and relative (lack of) impact on the kid's life otherwise here...

Re:Actually...

[my $anity 0]

Mutilating? Ok, so it might have been painful, but I can't exactly say I remember it. It can reduce the incidence of many sexually transmitted diseases, perhaps even HIV. And we've been doing it for years upon years. We know how to do it well now.

Re:Actually...

[estarriol]

"How is this any worse from having to deal with a Catholic man who refuses to use condoms, or any other religious sect?"

Yes, I don't consider that to be a minor issue either. I don't see how that minimises what we're discussing though.

"If you're dead set about your religion, you're prolly not going to intermarry regardless. Jewish people are a little more lenient 'cause there's not a big pool to pick from to begin with, and inbreeding like chihuahuas isn't a great option either.

Compromises abound, but you've got to be willing to bend too, ya know?"

Sure, in the scenario you pose, I can see that. It's still a lot to ask though!

Re:Actually...

[heinousjay]

I think it might be this part:

(and it doesn't mean they have to end UP Jewish, but raisin' em so ain't asking much).

That's a lot to ask. Forcing children to believe in imaginary bullshit to keep them in line is approximately the most evil thing the human race has to offer. The nice part is that we wrap it up in virtue. Tricksy.

Re:Actually...

[geekoid]

If they don't believe, asking them to act as if their in the faith is asking too much.

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if I'm misreading your post, but as a circumcized male, let me make it very clear:

1) THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION

2) Circumcision has a permanent impact on kids' lives. It is very comparable to removing a woman's labia. It results in constant dryness and irritation of the penis head, dulled sensitivity, and is strongly linked to various disorders and health problems.

Re:Actually...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Mutilating? Ok, so it might have been painful, but I can't exactly say I remember it. It can reduce the incidence of many sexually transmitted diseases, perhaps even HIV.

All the health benefits of circumcision can also be realized by the application of soap and water. As for mutilating... the unnecessary snipping away of flesh, altering both form and function and preventing the previous function provided by the mutilated/removed flesh seems to fall into that category. But if you don't think so then why?

And we've been doing it for years upon years. We know how to do it well now.

Doing something a lot doesn't somehow make it right. The same goes for being good at it. Not to mention that it's all without the informed consent of the patient.

Re:Actually...

[Danga]

THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION

Umm there are plenty of benefits since for one it is MUCH more hygenic without all the extra skin around. Read some of the info at wiki and follow some of the references up too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

2) Circumcision has a permanent impact on kids' lives. It is very comparable to removing a woman's labia. It results in constant dryness and irritation of the penis head, dulled sensitivity, and is strongly linked to various disorders and health problems.

I don't think it is comparable to removing a woman's labia since that would essentially leave her with no feelings down there. As far as the results you listed I am circumsized myself and don't have any of those problems you listed nor have I had any problems at all. My sex life is great too. I did not have it done for religious reasons, it was for hygenic reasons and if I could go back in time and convince my parents not to make the decision to do it I would not want to. I have no problem being circumsized and frankly an uncircumsized penis looks scary and nearly all the women I have talked to about the subject prefer a circumsized penis.

Re:Actually...

[olman]

Strange. To me it was kind of health benefit to be able to, ahem, fuck without pain. And having constant sores etc was no picnic either.

So there's one health benefit of (adult) circumcision for you. Yeah, there are alternative surgical operations but the classic is idiot-proof. Depends if you're willing to go under knife again if they get it wrong 1st try..

Re:Actually...

[my $anity 0]

the unnecessary snipping away of flesh, altering both form and function and preventing the previous function provided by the mutilated/removed flesh seems to fall into that category. Do we know that it has a function? No one seems to have conclusively proven that. We could have a scientific paper fight if you want. Doing something a lot doesn't somehow make it right. The same goes for being good at it. Not to mention that it's all without the informed consent of the patient. I'm arguing that it isn't wrong. And experience makes someone better at something, language allows the passage of experience, no?

Re:Actually...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Do we know that it has a function? No one seems to have conclusively proven that. We could have a scientific paper fight if you want.

Ummm yes we do know that it has a function. The foreskin protects the head of the penis. Removal of the foreskin results in decreased sensitivity with consequent effects on sexual pleasure. Imagine we were talking about the wholesale and unnecessary surgical alteration of infant female genitalia that would result in women having decreased sexual pleasure later in life... would there be even the slightest doubt that it was wrong?

I'm arguing that it isn't wrong.

That may be what you are attempting but doing something a lot isn't an argument that it isn't wrong. Nor is being good at it.

Re:Actually...

[my $anity 0]

That may be what you are attempting but doing something a lot isn't an argument that it isn't wrong. Nor is being good at it.

Yes, but, I am arguing that doing something a lot has a tendency to help one do it better. Which means that complications are less likely to occur. Doing it a lot does not make anything more or less wrong, that's where the rest of my comment comes in.


Removal of the foreskin results in decreased sensitivity with consequent effects on sexual pleasure.br>
Prove that to me. Female circumcision has been proven to, in most forms decrease sexual pleasure. This should be rather obvious, as the tissue with the sensitive nerves is being cut off in these forms. Male circumcision may, or may not, or may even improve pleasure, depending on which article you read. It's definitely not clear-cut. And the proven decreases in incidence of disease (not only for the male, but for the partner) indicates either everyone does not follow proper hygiene, or it is insufficient.

Re:Actually...

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Yes, but, I am arguing that doing something a lot has a tendency to help one do it better. Which means that complications are less likely to occur.

As far as I can see the argument isn't about whether complications set in, it's about whether the action itself is right or wrong.

Prove that to me. Female circumcision has been proven to, in most forms decrease sexual pleasure. This should be rather obvious, as the tissue with the sensitive nerves is being cut off in these forms. Male circumcision may, or may not, or may even improve pleasure, depending on which article you read.

Then it should also be rather obvious that taking sensitive tissue and continually rubbing it against other surfaces can result in lowered sensitivity leading to decreased sexual satisfaction. Which part is it that you doubt, that years of rubbing a piece of sensitive tissue against a dry surface will lower sensitivity, or that lowered sensitivity will result in decreased sexual satisfaction? Do you have a penis? If you had ever experienced the effect (save the jokes) of rubbing the head against a dry surface you wouldn't be arguing this point.

everyone does not follow proper hygiene

If some people are not following proper hygiene then the solution is to teach them, or not have sex with them, or use a barrier, not to lop off parts of their body. As for circumcision increasing sexual pleasure, it may do so for the partner but I don't believe that it does for the victim.

And, once again, all done without the consent of the victim.

Re:Actually...

[r00t]

It is comparable to removing labia. (which would not leave her with NO feeling down there; the clitoris and vagina would remain)

Physilogically, it's like removing the clittoral hood.

Sex may be "great", but you have no knowledge of how much better it might be with a foreskin. The foreskin is the only part of the human body with estrogen sensors. ("sensor" meaning that you can feel it)

It takes a brave man to admit that his privates have been damaged.

Re:Actually...

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

FYI, Jewish people do not have a monopoly on circumcision; christians are pretty dilligent about having their male children snipped.

In any case, I don't believe either Judaism or Christianity requires that males be circumcised. It's just a tradition that was passed down from Abraham (IIRC).

Re:Actually...

[eli pabst]

The foreskin is the only part of the human body with estrogen sensors. ("sensor" meaning that you can feel it)
That's total bullshit, there is no such thing as an "estrogen sensor". There are estrogen receptors, but they're expressed throughout the body in a wide variety of tissues, from the prostate to the vasculature.

Sex may be "great", but you have no knowledge of how much better it might be with a foreskin.
Isn't the reverse true as well? How do you know it's not the same unless you've had yours removed?

Re:Actually...

[eli pabst]

1) THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO HEALTH BENEFITS TO CIRCUMCISION

Wrong. There have been a number of studies showing that it can significantly reduce the risk of contracting sexual transmitted diseases, including HIV. The WHO is now recommending it in Africa and projecting that if it was implemented, over 3 million people could avoid dying of AIDS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6502855.stm
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_artt ext&pid=S0042-96862004000500023

Re:Actually...

[eli pabst]

Ummm yes we do know that it has a function. The foreskin protects the head of the penis.
Which is extremely important for those who walk around naked all the time. For those of us who wear clothing, it's a non-issue.

Imagine we were talking about the wholesale and unnecessary surgical alteration of infant female genitalia that would result in women having decreased sexual pleasure later in life... would there be even the slightest doubt that it was wrong?
The reason they aren't equivalent is because male circumcision is done for proven health benefits, while female circumcision is not. There is a reason why thousands of years ago people cut off the foreskin and did other wacky things like not eat pork or shellfish. They didn't do it for shits and giggles, they had legitimate health concerns which in most cases turned out to be correct. Here is another example where science has clearly shown that to be true.

Re:Actually...

[pkphilip]

Indeed! and what about the cruelty of subjecting the poor infants to vaccination without their consent?!.. and later when they are still kids, the parents send them to school - again, without taking their consent?!

The sheer cruelty of this all is shocking!

Re:Actually...

[eli pabst]

Yeah, except in Africa they don't have a 7-11 on every corner where you can walk to and buy jimmy hats. Plus it's been shown to reduce urinary tract infections in infants. So if you want to choose not to have your child circumcised based on your own moral objections, that's your choice, but to try and say that it doesn't have any health benefits is false.

Re:Actually...

[pkphilip]

When did circumcision cause your body part to fall off?

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

Is there no one here smart enough to tell the difference between evolution and social Darwinism? Or that it wasn't creationists that killed the Jews?

It's just coherent behaviour

[OpenSourced]

Let's be real. The "history" we learn is nothing more than the history we like to learn. That's always been so, and UK teachers just adapt to new circumstances with new pupils that won't like the old history. There are many facts that are either ignored or twisted to fit the needs of the political whim of the moment.

The Nazis were defeated mainly by the USSR, not by the USA, even if that's not what you learn. The Japanese _were_ defeated by the USA, but the way of doing it, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of civilians in an atomic inferno is presented as rather the right thing to do, or, at the very least, as a great technical achievement. The holocaust is much remembered, and special laws passed to forbid the denial of the fact, but other much bigger killings go as footnotes in history books. Japanese don't teach about "comfort" women. The paper of England in the slave trade is usually hushed in the classrooms. Spain is indignant when Ben-Laden speaks about it being part of Al-Andalus, because in its history books, it's defined as a re-conquering, even if the people that re-conquered it had nothing to do with the people that lost it in the first place. France prefers not to speak too much about torture in Alger. Israelis will tell you that it's all right if they took the land from Palestinian people after WW2, because it "belonged" to them, somehow. I doubt they would return the land to some previous inhabitants of it, if the situation ever came up.

And so on. There is not such thing as "objective" history, and those teachers are just recognizing it. After all, we must remember that George Orwell, who came up with the idea of automatic history rewriting, was British.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[OpenSourced]

Julius Caesar did live

I heard that the Iliad wasn't written by Homer, but by a Greek fellow of the same name :o)

Probably somebody named Julius Caesar lived. But the idea we have of him is a construction of the partial facts that have survived. And the _opinion_ that we have is even more biased. Do you feel that Julius was a "positive" or "negative" figure. He was a military dictator, but would you put it on the same mental place with Musharraf? His manner of death makes us somehow pity him, but it's because we deplore magnicides in general or because of the dramatical gifts of a certain (again British) bard?

Of course "facts" happen. You can tape them. But the idea of History in the minds of people is not a collection of facts, anymore than a man thinks about his son like a really impressive hunk of cells. History has a feeling of purpose, of good and bad, of punishment and revenge, of justice, of tidal forces. That is, of a lot of concepts with no semantic value at all, and wholly unrelated to the idea of facts. That's what I mean when I say that there is no objective history.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[MightyMartian]

The Nazis were defeated mainly by the USSR, not by the USA, even if that's not what you learn.

That is an intense load of BS. The Soviets started out as being defacto allies of the Nazis, shipping steel right up until the day before the Germans invaded (let's not forget the partitioning of Poland, a very happy time for both Soviets and Germans). Soviet victory on the Eastern Front was not guaranteed until the Normandy Invasion and the opening up of the Second Front, which Stalin had been begging Churchill and Roosevelt for for three years. I have Churchill's History of WWII, and it has some nice memos of Churchill reminding Stalin of Soviet steel sales to Germany, and of the fact that it would take time to build up forces in Britain sufficient to get a landhold somewhere in Europe.

If Hitler had not invaded Russia, I have a hard time believing that Stalin would have at any point had any interest in attacking Germany. Russia did bear the brunt of the damage from the War (in lives lost), but that hardly means it was the major contributor to victory.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[OpenSourced]

I'm not an expert in WW2 history. What you say might be true. But your post just adds to my argument of history as an emotional issue rather than a record of facts.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[MightyMartian]

Emotions in history come about due to proximity in time. WWII is now reaching that point in distance that we can better assess it. All the major players (the politicians, generals and diplomats) are long dead, archives once secret are opening up, and we can now gain a much better understanding of that war.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[coredog64]

The Japanese _were_ defeated by the USA, but the way of doing it, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of civilians in an atomic inferno is presented as rather the right thing to do, or, at the very least, as a great technical achievement.

The two atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, they convinced it to surrender before the Allies had to attempt an assault of the main island. What defeated Japan was the US Navy restricting Japan's access to the resources their armed forces required while the USAAF bombed the shit out of Japanese cities. What amazes me is that people frequently get on their high horse about the number of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki while ignoring the number of casualties from the firebombing of Tokyo -- 72000 (essentially the same as Nagasaki). Why did the Allies use firebombing? Because the Japanese couldn't mount an effective air defense and so dispersed munitions production out into the general civilian population. That arguably opened up the general civilian population into being considered legitimate military targets.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[LynnwoodRooster]

Israelis will tell you that it's all right if they took the land from Palestinian people after WW2, because it "belonged" to them, somehow. I doubt they would return the land to some previous inhabitants of it, if the situation ever came up.

Israel exists because the UN decided it should exist. It's the only nation created by the UN - sure, Jews wanted a homeland but until 1947 when the UN wished it into being, a homeland was a pipe dream. It's not about Israelis taking the land, it's about the UN giving the land, and the rest of the world dealing with that decision ever since.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[IHC Navistar]

Considering that civilians WERE trained as soldiers, they were just as much fair game as the Japanese Imperial Army. I don't know why ignorant bleeding heat idiots make the claim that it killed "innocent civilians", when those civilians were being being given combat training to kill. Yes, both children (many appear to be as young as 6) AND women were being trained with weapons and taught how to kill the enemy.

When you give civilians combat training in how to kill, they are no longer civilians, and become fair game.

Hopefully, Japan has learned a lesson in starting fights: If you don't want to suffer the consequences of a fight, then don't start one.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: NO APOLOGIES. EVER.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[david_thornley]

Let's not forget that Stalin was trying to reach a deal with Britain and France in 1939, and that fell through largely because of Western indifference. Allying with Hitler was definitely plan B. Up until then, Stalin was anti-Hitler. (If you find somebody who was anti-Fascist in 1938, pro-Nazi in 1940, and anti-Nazi in 1942, they were taking orders from Moscow.) Moreover, the Soviet Union did most of the heavy work in defeating the German Army. The West did most of the work of defeating the German Navy and Air Force, but it isn't clear to me that that was quite comparable. The West knocked Italy out of the war, but the Soviets knocked Romania and Finland out. None of this, of course, was due to any sort of human feeling by Stalin (or Zhukov for that matter). The Soviet Union fought the German Army out of survival and revenge, not disinterested altruism. Of course, darn few WWII belligerents fought out of disinterested altruism (maybe Brazil? They sent about an infantry division and a few fighter groups to Italy). Churchill's history (well, actually, an autobiography called a history) is well worth reading, but it is not a good historical reference. It completely lacks objectivity, and there are a whole lot of things that Churchill either didn't know when he wrote it or couldn't talk about.

Re:It's just coherent behaviour

[MightyMartian]

In fairness to Churchill, he was hardly in a position to say or do anything during the 1930s when many of the big mistakes which lead to the war were made. If people had listened to him in 1933 when he warned that allowing Germany to re-arm the Rhineland was a guarantee of another conflict, and the Allieds had marched in long before Hitler had achieved air parity, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Churchill was still right to lecture Stalin on selling steel to the Germans. That steel was turned into tanks and guns which ended up killing millions of Russians.

Islam vs. Western Civilization

[ProteusQ]

Imam: And before we detonate the explosives that we carry on our bodies and destroy all of Western Civilization, I ask you: what have they ever offered us? Ahmed: Hot and cold running water? Imam: What? Ahmed: I said, 'Hot and cold running water'. Imam: Oh yeah, yeah there is that. Suicide Bomber: And sanitation! Ibrahim: Oh yes... sanitation, Blessed Imam, you remember how their cities smell compared to this old dump. Imam: All right, I'll grant you that running water and the sanitation are two things that Western Civilization could offer... Sadiq: And the roads... Imam: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the running water, the sanitation and the roads... Another Suicide Bomber: Irrigation... Other Suicide Bombers: Medicine... Education... Health... Imam: Yes... all right... Suicide Bomber Near Front: And the booze... Ahkbar: Oh yes! Good one! Abdul: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if we destroy Western Civilization, O Blessed Imam. Suicide Bomber at Back: Don't forget soap! Ibrahim: And it would be safe to walk in the streets at night. Abdul: Yes, they certainly want law and order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who do in a world like this. (more general murmurs of agreement) Imam: All right... all right... but apart from booze, hot and cold running water, sanitation and medicine, education, irrigation, roads, soap and the rule of law... what has the Western Civilization to offer us? Ahmed: What about peace? Imam: Oh, peace!... shut up!

Historical Revisionism: Scapegoating muslims!

[RexRhino]

This kind of rewriting history, or ignoring huge parts of history, is becoming more and more common. As governments, even Western governments, become more fascist and/or totalitarian, and as classical liberalism is taking it's last gasps before dying, public education is more concerned about suppressing the horror stories of previous fascist and totalitarian societies.

It is pure propaganda and finger pointing to blame Muslims for wanting to cover up the Holocaust. I am sure there are a few Muslims who do oppose the teaching of the holocaust, but the government has never had an aversion to telling religious minorities to screw off... why the sudden sensitivity to religion, ONLY in the case when it comes to supressing the teaching of the abuses of totalitarian government? I don't hear plans for schools in England to stop teaching evolution, or change the words to "Allah Save The Queen". Obviously the schools are interested in denying the Holocaust for other reasons, and are allowing Muslims to be the scapegoat for public outrage.

Is it the Muslims who are also responsible that 90% of Swedish teens don't know what a Gulag is? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag link in case you are a Swedish teen ) Or that (according to the article I referenced) "They have a lack of understanding for basic concepts such as dictatorships and democracy". (and a link to the source: http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/36893.aspx ) The last time I checked, Muslims weren't big apologists for atheistic Communism. What religious minority are you going to blame in that case, huh?

Clearly, the governments of the world (and particularly the western world), have an agenda of denying and covering up the horrors of totalitarianism as those governments become more and more totalitarian. If you teach kids the horrors of totalitarianism, the kids might not so readily give the state so much power!

this extremely disturbing

[DaMattster]

Some of my family members are Holocaust survivors. They were interned at Dachau, Treblinka, and Auschwitz. If the Holocaust never happened, how do you explain the serial numbers tattooed on my grandfather and great uncle's forearms when purposeful desecration of the body is frowned upon? How do you explain the emaciated photos, walking skeletons actually, of my family members and many, many others? I, for one, do not care about offending a minority of Muslims who deny the Holocaust. I am sure (or rather, hope) that many Muslims do not deny the Holocaust. As Jew first and a member of the human race a close second, I find the remarks of the Iranian president inflammatory and dangerous. All 12 million killed should be roiling in their graves at the words of the Iranian president.

Re:this extremely disturbing

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is a fake story. Some kind of april fools joke. Now you should be as angry with Muslim baiting as you are with Holocaust denial. Will you be?

Re:this extremely disturbing

[DaMattster]

Yes, because I do not hate Muslims. I have friends that follow the Islamic faith and they are very angry at the damage that radical Islam is doing to their faith. I was probably one of the few who stood up after 9/11 to say that those whom perpetrated the acts were not representative of the vast majority of Muslims. If anything, Muhammad taught peace and love and I could only imagine his anger at being purposefully misinterpreted. The extremists simply twist the Koran to suit their needs. There are extremists in every major religion. I do not like what radical Jews propose to do to Muslims and Arabs. There are even Buddhist extremists (Red Tide and Asian Dawn).

Re:this extremely disturbing

[DaMattster]

Oh and I suppose you think the treatment in those camps was human!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???? There is no debate to be had. The overwhelming evidence, photographic, anecdotic, and medical point to a massive atrocity. Are you telling me that my grandfather and great uncle were treated humanely?????? Perhaps, you'd sing to a different tune if you were made to roll in human feces, feed your own kin to the ovens, and bury those that died on a forced march. You are an Anonymous Coward because you cannot even put your own name to your words.

I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[JonTurner]

>>Doesn't have to be a large majority. Just a vocal minority that causes the problems.
Yes, and all the members of Jeffry Dahmer's first-grade class grew up to be law-abiding, upstanding citizens, except for one. Yet there were still many dead victims. What's your point? This line about the "minority" of violent muslims doesn't mean a damned thing, so long as that minority has 1) influence and 2) the ability to project power, which I argue it does.

>>There are a lot of peace-loving muslims around the world.
So simply going by the numbers, if only a percentage or two of Muslims worldwide are violent that means there are A LOT, tens of millions(!), of hate-filled Muslims worldwide, ready to erupt into violence. And they do, although you may have to dig deep into the news to find the stories. You see, all but one of the 21 "hot" wars in the world involve Islam as one of the parties. Bet you didn't know that.

You see, the problem is a culture fueled by religious extremism and fanaticism. The Koran is an instruction manual for waging war and spreading influence. (No, that's not slanderous or "flamebait" -- go read the damned book and see for yourself. Sura after Sura specifies precisely how violence should be applied to spread Islam. You are either in the House Of Islam, or the House of War. There is no other option. And, you should know, all those Suras which are oft-quoted and preach peace with the Infidel, are "overridden" by later Suras which specify violence.
And, before you go quoting sections of the Christian bible (Old Testament) which proscribe stonings or other violent actions, be aware it's not a fair comparison. You see, there are no Christians ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE ACTS. Christianity went through The Reformation, wherein it shrugged off many of these proclamations as archaic and incompatible with modernity. Islam has had no such event.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[SkunkPussy]

"This line about the "minority" of violent muslims doesn't mean a damned thing, so long as that minority has 1) influence and 2) the ability to project power, which I argue it does."

Who cares what a minority of muslims think and how much influence and power they project, when the MAJORITY of the united states desired to invade an innocent country for no other reason than imperialistic agression.

That the most militarily advanced country in the world is trigger-happy is a far far far bigger problem. (Don't forget that USA foreign policy - meddling in the middle east - is more or less the entire reason that many of these muslims are vocal).

"A LOT, tens of millions(!), of hate-filled Muslims worldwide, ready to erupt into violence. "

an approximation:
300 million americans, roughly 50% of whom supported GWB's war of agression. That is 150 million americans who vastly threaten the security of the rest of the world.

Why do you focus so much on these moslems? The problem is a bit closer to home than you think mate.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[JonTurner]

You are simply a fool.

>>an innocent country
Which one would that be? Afghanistan or Iraq? Perhaps you missed the two-dozen UN Resolutions demanding Saddam Hussein's compliance, or the hundreds of times his military fired at UN overflights or his murder of thousands of his own people with banned poison gas? Maybe you missed the buried French Mirage jet fighters buried in the sand and obtained by France trading weapons for oil. I keep the newspapers, because I knew it would be only a short time before you types were denying reality. More likely you're just ignoring the facts because they don't meet your socialist worldview.

>>Why do you focus so much on these moslems? The problem is a bit closer to home than you think mate.
Uh. maybe because they're doing most of the destabilizing of the world? Have you never heard of Dafur? I would guess you're either British or Austrialian, so perhaps you need to have a look into the 7/7 bus bombings or Austrailias' "Catmeat Shiek" who preaches violence from your shores. Have a look at what's happening in France right now. Nearly 100 cars burned EVERY DAY by "youth" (PC word for poorly integrated Muslim immigrants). THAT is your future, coward.

Cheerio.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[Darby]

And, before you go quoting sections of the Christian bible (Old Testament) which proscribe stonings or other violent actions, be aware it's not a fair comparison. You see, there are no Christians ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE ACTS. Christianity went through The Reformation, wherein it shrugged off many of these proclamations as archaic and incompatible with modernity. Islam has had no such event.

So all you're saying here is that the "Christians" not performing these acts aren't actually Christians. They are heretics who have hijacked the faith.
Now, it's certainly arguable that that's a good thing, but it's far better to be honest, deal with the fact that Christianity itself is every bit as evil as Islam if honestly followed, and treat both faiths as the unmitigated evils that they are.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[lebow]

And, before you go quoting sections of the Christian bible (Old Testament) which proscribe stonings or other violent actions, be aware it's not a fair comparison. You see, there are no Christians ACTUALLY PERFORMING THESE ACTS [Violence]. Christianity went through The Reformation, wherein it shrugged off many of these proclamations as archaic and incompatible with modernity. Islam has had no such event.

Maybe they got it out of their systems after slaughtering Muslims and Jews through out the years... See crusades and pogroms..

I'm not sure about this but aren't most advocates of the death penalty in the US, religious Christians? They didn't shrug it off, only made it "compatible with modernity".

Oh and if you think christians are so modern consider this: All 3 religions believe in creation as described in the Hebrew Bible... but Judaism and Islam do not consider Darwinism being taught in public schools as a threat to their religious beliefs. The whole christian religion is "archaic and incompatible with modernity."

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[digitrev]

I'm calling bullshit on your "whole christian religion" statement. There are many different sects and sorts of Christians. There's Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Lutherans, Mennonites, etc... All these are "Christian" in the most general sense of the word, in that they follow the teachings of Christ. But there are huge differences in between each sect of Christianity. As a Roman Catholic, I find Anglican teachings strange. And most people look at Mormons and wonder where they came from. And besides. It's only a vocal minority of evangelical Christians in the Southern US that have been protesting the teachings of evolution. So do me a favour and try not to paint two billion individuals with one brush.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[nietsch]

Rightly said!
Few americans will realize they are the bad guys in most cases. But their hegemony will not be for long and I think most americans are fearing that. They need to realize that after a country looses its leading role, they will not be trown to the wolves and their country invaded (although I don't think a civil war is impossible in the US). The US does not have the mandate to be the worlds policeman, so there is little need to waste all that money on their military. If they'd invest it into their own economy, then maybe they'd stay on top a little longer. The USSR came down from overspending on its military, the US will meet the same fate. let's prepare the emegency aid rations for when it finally does.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[lebow]

First, praying to a man on a stick, and a lack of moral accountability are archaic and incompatible with modern society. If you don't believe in a god with split personalities, then you believe in something other than Christianity. And that is why I'm not painting over 2G individuals with one brush, most of you are only calling your selves Christians cause that is what your fathers did, what percentage of the 2G actually believe this stuff? How many pray regularly ? How many refrain from premarital sex? How many believe that the earth was created in 7 days?.. Just cause you call your self a monkey and eat a banana doesn't make you a monkey, Just cause you call your self a christian and buy a tree for Dec 25, doesn't make you a Christian.

As for the whole Darwinism problem, I didn't say that all Christians had a problem with it, I just said that you don't see jews and muslims as upset about it.

Re:I am sick of hearing about "the tiny minority"

[Cederic]

his murder of thousands of his own people with banned poison gas? Bought from the US and the UK.

More likely you're just ignoring the facts because they don't meet your socialist worldview. Oh, so you're going to pretend that Saddam wasn't complying with UN resolutions on WMD? Show me the fucking WMD. Until and unless you do, that was was illegal, and has considerably destabilised the world.

maybe because they're doing most of the destabilizing of the world? So why invade Iraq, which was secular, and is now rife with sectarian violence. Oh, of course - oil.

perhaps you need to have a look into the 7/7 bus bombings A protest against the war in Iraq. Which should not have happened. Which the majority of people in the UK didn't want to happen. No, they should not have killed themselves and other people in the manner they did. However, from their perspective, what other option did they have? The government acted against the wishes of the public, and despite 64% of the voting public voting against them they're still in power.

THAT is your future, coward. If he's a coward for being hesitant to engage in illegal violence for financial gain then count me in.

Re:teach both..

[kahei]

The mountain of evidence on the Holocaust can't not be washed away just because people think that people ought to decide for themselves if something occured or didn't.

Oh, rubbish. It's like the invasion of Tibet -- well, I say 'invasion' but in fact lots of people would say the lives of working-class Tibetans got a great deal better, and anyway Tibet was part of the Manchurian empire and so was China so they're almost kind of nearly the same country, and anyway you're really just imposing your pre-existing values on something that isn't your business at all, and anyway if you insist on your intolerant interpretation it'll be very hard to get on with any nearby Chinese people whereas if you just drop the whole silly 'invasion' thing which is probably 80% Indian propaganda anyway, it all gets a lot more convenient... gosh, it's like the problem just *faded away*!

Repeat as necessary for other massacres, etc.

Re:teach both..

[Richthofen80]

This is untrue with the advent of media. One can sift through archives and see videos of wilted and dead Holocaust victims, and bodies stacked like cordwood. There are videos of Japanese internment camps, which, while the people may look haggard and unhappy, contains no stacks of bodies. The memoirs of the Japanese victims of the internment camps do not match the brutality described in the memoirs of the Jewish survivors.

Holocaust denial part of Muslim belief?

[sheepoo]

I will personally pay $1000 to anyone who can prove that Holocaust Denial is part of Muslim belief. Please leave the proof here on Slashdot as part of this post and I will provide with further instructions Holocaust denial, my foot!

There is only one Moon God

[Anonymous Coward]

Thy name is Goatse

way out of context

[RingDev]

Heck I support the use of suicide bombing as a tactic in extreme situations, I imagine everyone does to some extent. The wording of that poll was such that I likely would have said yes. The problem is not the tactic, it is the morals that lead people to using that tactic.

And when you get down to it, Bush still has a 25%+ approval rating which goes to show... 25% of the US is insane.

-Rick

Re:way out of context

[ScentCone]

Bush still has a 25%+ approval rating which goes to show... 25% of the US is insane

Which bothers you more? The statistic you cite, or the fact that Congress, now being run by his opposition (and, from your tone, the group that you presumably prefer), only 30-some-percent of the US approves of their agenda and (in)actions? Polls, in the context that you're using them, are nonsense.

Re:way out of context

[RingDev]

Personally I think the republicrats as a whole should go pound sand. The republicans and neo-cons for getting us into this blood bath and the impotent democrats for doing crap to get us out of it.

As for the context of the poll I am referring to, it was a "do you approve of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq." And I stand by my assessment, anyone who STILL thinks he did/is doing a good job must have some sort of medically diagnosable mental disorder. Yeah, it's a bit of a blanket statement, a tad inflammatory, and somewhat harsh, but we're talking about thousands of our friends, families, and neighbors dead, along with likely hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead as well. Not to mention the millions more who have been injured, maimed, displaced, and had their lives destroyed.

-Rick

Re:way out of context

[RingDev]

Actually, I like this take on his approval rating: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/ [msn.com] heh. 25% my ass.

While I love the outcome of that poll it has 2 rather large short comings. First, it is self selecting which means the sample pool can not be guaranteed to look anything like the larger body it is meant to reflect. And Second, the votes are very easy to spoof, with a little scripting and time a single person could easily spam thousands of votes and skew the results in what ever direction the wanted.

-Rick

What about other holocausts?

[master_p]

It was not only the Jews that were slaughtered in gas chambers and blast furnaces. There were lots of other ethnicities that were transfered to Germany to be made soap. What about them?

Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[lebow]

No, I didn't RTA (please excuse my avoidance of profanities), but :

 

similar problems are being encountered with lessons on the Crusades because these lessons contradict teachings from local mosques.

I can't see why the UK (England) would teach the crusades in contradiction to how the Muslims teach it.. I mean isn't there an agreement about proselyting aided by violence. Or are UK schools embarrassed about there heritage of slaughtering Muslims ( and jews ) who refused to accept that man on a stick as a god. I know I'm ranting here, but since when do christians have a right to claim that there hands are so clean, and the the Muslims are the only ones that slaughtered people in the name of religion...

I think this is just a ploy to try to shift the blame for the Holocaust, from European antisemitism to fanatical Muslim Jew-Hatred...

Ok that is the end of my pointless uninformed rant...

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[fsmunoz]

The First Crusade was initiated by Muslim conquests on the Holy Land and territorial advances on the Byzantine Empire. While centuries latter there was indeed violence-led expansion of religion (e.g. the Portuguese in Asia, the Spaniards in America, etc) the Crusades aren't a clear-cut situation of "Christian aggresion" on traditionaly Muslim territories. Much the other way around, Islam expanded, many times violently, into traditionaly Christian areas (some Churches from that time still exist). As such there is indeed a big difference in teaching the crusades, both the Eastern "Holy Land" one and the Western "Iberian Reconquest".

As for hands being clean, well, I don't think nobody is claiming that.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[lebow]

Honestly, I'm not an expert on Islamic history... but I do know that the Church had an additional motive in the crusades, to wipe out heretics ( read jews).

The Crusades turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage, and woe to the poor Jews in the way. Indeed, the Crusades mark the first large-scale mob violence directed against Jews which is going to become, unfortunately, the pattern for the next hundreds of years. The later pogroms are just going to be a repeat of this idea. The Jews were not the only -- and in fact, not the primary -- victims of the Crusaders. Muslims were. If you're a student of Islamic history, you know that a large part of the reason why the Arab world is today the way it is has to do with the Crusades. All the brutality directed toward them devastated the Arab peoples economically, made the Arab world very closed, and contributed to Arab hatred of the West.

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_C ourse_in_Jewish_History_Part_45_-_The_Crusades.asp
http://levshelo.blogspot.com/2005/11/you-just-gott a-save-x-tianity-richard_17.html

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[fsmunoz]

Oh, yes, of course. The backlash is there, and the intolerance was high. No doubt about that, bloody hell, even the Byzantine Empire suffered pillaes at the hands of the crusaders. I was just talking about the initial motivation, not the subsequent actions.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[lebow]

I don't know if I belive everything I read on wikipedia but...

The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" ....

Religious war from start to finish my friend.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[fsmunoz]

You do well in being a critical reader. Note however that I said that the Crusades "were initiated" by Muslim conquests, and your comment supports that: Jerusalem had been taken by the Muslims in the VII century. The Crusade was however initiated not by an appeal to take back Jerusalem per se but by an appeal of the Byzantine Emperor to the Pope seeking help in stopping the advances of the Muslim armies into Byzantine territory, namely Asia Minor. From there on the Crusades resembled in some parts an almost grassroots movement filled with religious zeal, akin to the Iberian Reconquista. It was religious in the sense that religions was used as a diferentiator, but like before and after it wasn't the only thing that set them apart, it was a mix of culture, religion, politics and ethnicity.

The Crusades were a religious wars because religion and the Holy Land stroke a deep chord in most Europeans at the time, fueled by the Church. Same thing withing the Muslim world at the time btw, the spread of Islam was of foremost important. My initial - and pretty much only - point is that the Crusades didn't happened because someone decided it was a good time to go and slaughter some peaceful Muslims in their countries, it was sparkled by the advance and conquest of Muslim rulers into the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire, from Jerusalem and surroundings in the VII century to most of Asia Minor in the XI century. Looking at it like it was some kind of unprovoked aggression against some peaceful denizens living in their secular lands is miopic IMO. It would be akin - I'm exagerating a bit here - to suggest that the Central and Eastern European armies that fought against the Ottomans that had reached Vienna were warmongering thugs, attacking the peaceful Ottoman Empire that just wanted to participate in a great multicultural exchange with the natives.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[lebow]

the Crusades aren't a clear-cut situation of "Christian aggresion" on traditionally Muslim territories.

It might not be a clear-cut case of aggression against Muslim territories, but it was clear, that there was "Christian Aggression" against non-Christians. And what about the peaceful Jews in their countries? The crusaders had a policy of removing heretics, including Jews who had nothing to do with the territorial conflicts.

The Crusades turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage, and woe to the poor Jews in the way. Indeed, the Crusades mark the first large-scale mob violence directed against Jews which is going to become, unfortunately, the pattern for the next hundreds of years. The later pogroms are just going to be a repeat of this idea.

The Jews were not the only -- and in fact, not the primary -- victims of the Crusaders. Muslims were. If you're a student of Islamic history, you know that a large part of the reason why the Arab world is today the way it is has to do with the Crusades. All the brutality directed toward them devastated the Arab peoples economically, made the Arab world very closed, and contributed to Arab hatred of the West.

I may have quoted this before. ( also I don't agree with everything he says here ).

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[fsmunoz]

We were talking about Muslims, not Jews. Depending on the time, the Jews in Europe have been tolerated, persecuted, emprisoned, expelled or killed. There is nothing new in this, and the Crusades are an example. I never said that religious intolerance wasn't present, quite the contrary.

As for the Arab hatred, cry me a river. Arabs and Muslims were *intensely* imperialistic and managed to crush several civilizations in their path. They weren't "tolerant" with others, actually they had this nice concept of "dhimmi" in which conquered inhabitants that didn't convert to Islam had to pay taxes, had different judicial rules annd were constantly humiliated, and could see their sons taken away from them as slaves. They swept over Iberia at one time, reached Vienna at another, and somehow I'm supposed to be sympathetic them and not with the oned that drove them away? I'm always at awe as how can the Arab and/or Muslim world play the victim card.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[lebow]

We aren't really talking about muslims or jews, we are talking about historical objectivity. If anyone can provide a more objective account of what happened, and the amount of religious persecution, it would be the Jews, who were caught in the middle. What do you think is worse to be a 'dhimmi' under the Arabs, or to be Killed and/or raped by the Christians. Christianity had a policy of convert or die, the Muslims ( of that time ) gave a 3rd choice at least.

All world powers were imperialistic, the western world considers Rome and Greece, to be cultured and respected, even though they were Just as bad if not worse than the Muslims. But some how Muslims are they only ones who we see as intolerant and violent, this isn't a uniquely Muslim quality. It's also true that today they are the biggest perpetrators of open intolerance and voilence

Look I'm not defending the Muslims, or playing the victim card for them, I'm saying that the christians were just as bad (if not worse ) at the time. I'm sure that both sides are stretching the truth, both have a history of doing so.

Re:Shouldn't muslims also be offended by this ...

[fsmunoz]

Hey, I'm not defending the Christians in here as well... I also consider that most, if not all, civilizations have a violent kernel to them. I'm not saying that Muslims are special in this regard, what I'm saying is the opposite: just as it would be miopic to view the Crusades and the Discoveries (just two examples) as solely great achievements in which the Muslims or others are to blam I think it's stretching it to far to embark in modern-day revisionism (not saying that you did it) that seems to considers anything that borders Europe as pacific and tolerante at heart, being driven to their excesses by the bad deeds of Europeans of yore, and as such worthy of eternal apologies and excuses. War is bad, people day, people get massacred. It's been that way since the Neolithic (at least). I can see the double standard in many ways: taking Iberia for an example, people get all hiffy with the remaining moors being put in "Mourarias", special sections of the cities, and even more when the posterior expulsion and/or popular massacres (always looking for a scapegoat) occured. On the other hand they paint the Islamic occupancy as a great, tolerant world in which the Christians "only" had to wear special clothes and badges, were taxed, were liable to be killed for trivial "offenses" and were massacred as well at the minor outburst.

I'm not saying they were "worse". But I'm not buying that they were that great either, as seems to be the PC thing to say.

Beating a dead horse

[A nonymous Coward]

I posted this a few days ago, may as well repost it ..

The usual pro-confederacy arguments are that they were fighting for states' rights and not for slavery. These are both patently false.

The southern states were the ones arguing for federal supremacy over states. They wanted the federal government to enforce slavery laws in free states. They argued that a slave owner should retain ownership of those slaves while traveling in free states, and that slaves who escaped to free states should be returned to their owners. Hardly a states rights position!

The war of 1812 was a disaster, economically, for the New England states which depended so heavily on trade. They spent three years getting up the nerve to send a delegation to Washington to bring up the subject of secession, but the war ended before they could do anything. The southern states were the most vocal in condemning secession as treason. How interesting that when their ox was being gored, they acted immediately, not even trying to negotiate with the federal government. So much for honor!

As for economics, which is the usual neo-confedrate blame for northern aggression, it was slavery which put the south at a disadvantage, in that it made labor so cheap that industrialization was too expensive. It really hurt the small farmers who had to do their own labor. I have never understood why poor whites, then or now, backed the slavery system which kept them in poverty. No self-employed man can compete with slaves. The expense of overseers doesn't come close to compensating for the cheap maintenance (crowded crappy housing, no elders to take care of) of slaves.

It was a war for the rich white southerners. Nobody else would have benefited from secession.

Re:Beating a dead horse

[ravenshrike]

The reason why is quite simple. It's the idea that there is someone "below them" so they can say they are better than someone else. Look at the stratification of Haute Couture society for an example of the same idea. Or the way different "classes" of servants treat each other in any of the classics.

Chick tracts!

[Diablerie]

So do you ACs have any sources for this moon god stuff? Because the Wikipedia page for "Allah" says nothing about it.

Someone's been reading their Chick tracts...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.a sp
http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/

Re:Chick tracts!

[Eli Gottlieb]

What in God's name is that crap?

Re:Chick tracts!

[qengho]

Not familar with Jack Chick?!! I thought Dark Dungeons was required reading for Slashdotters.

Re:Chick tracts!

[Rycross]

Ah Jack Chick makes these little comics that you can order and put around in public places in order to convert people to Christianity. Most people find them entertaining, more because of how hilariously crazy and uninformed they are.

Some gems include the one associating Dungeons and Dragons with witchcraft, and one where a religious student shows up a biology teacher teaching evolution using paper-thin "logic."

Re:Chick tracts!

[Eli Gottlieb]

Most people find them entertaining, more because of how hilariously crazy and uninformed they are. Really? I find them rambling and lacking in the very basics of comedy.

Another universe?

[anonieuweling]

Why does this look like I am in the wrong universe?

They need to be taught to accept differing views. They need to be taught facts.
They need to adapt a little more to the more or less civilized western world instead of trying to colonize and indoctrinate us with their violence.

no

[Weezul]

Not really. The Dail Mail is quite a bit above Fox News.

The codling of extreamist beliefs is ridiculous in Britian. People only deny the Holocaust for one reason: They support killing Jews.

Daily Hate

[Epeeist]

One of the things Lord Northcliffe, the owner of the Daily Mail, wanted to do was to give his readers a "daily hate". It hasn't changed in that aim, constantly raising topics that will infuriate Britain's "moral majority"

hey, they're just catcing up with the US...

[Number6.2]

Where we go through this cycle of trying to take evolution out of the curriculum because it offends certain religious groups here...

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

That's the difference between History and your opinion. History records MacArthur sitting on the deck of the Mighty Mo and Japanese pens signing the treaty. Your opinion is that no one won, because of the horrors of the war. I am willing to bet that there are a lot of Chinese, Jews, Germans, and Americans who survived because the Allies won who would disagree with you from their emotional point of view.

But history still records the end of the war one way or another.

I, for one...

[Braintrust]

welcome our new Muslim overlords!

Wait, what?

Re:Deny everything

[gaspar ilom]

Hey, how about that genocide/holocaust that went on for *500 years* across two very large continents: North and South America?

How many people ignore that one? Which one was "worse"? (At least the Nazi Holocause is acknowledged and repudiated by most people in this country.)

FYI: That genocide even continued through the 1980's and early 1990's, in Guatemala.

This shouldn't be an issue.

[C_Kode]

government-backed study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, found that some teachers are reluctant to teach history lessons on the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

While people can believe what they wish, you cannot *not* teach history because a group refuses to acknowledge the fact. That is like when the Catholic church refused to accept scientific facts that refuted what they taught and demanded that all studies cease, destroyed their work and jailed and or killed the scientist.

All people deserve to know all the facts from the beginning. Afterwards, they can decide how they use those facts. To deny them, question them, or outright accept them.

Re:teach both..

[gaspar ilom]

you have to look at the pure documented evidence and make a judgment.
Your comment is especially ironic, then, considering that the Original Post is a such a misrepresention of fact, or a hoax.

Dear UK,

[lordsid]

It's ok to offend muslims. Idiots.

Re:Dear UK,

[_Shad0w_]

But we're terribly polite and don't like to offend anyone.

Well, except America. And the French.

Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

Flamebait? Don't know if that mod was done in (misguided) good faith or not, but I certainly don't agree with the downmod either way.

To quote one article

The Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate" - and it does. It says a *lot* that the first thing that I thought of after reading the summary was to find out whether the story came from the Daily Mail... and that I wasn't remotely surprised when it did. The fact that the Mail's style and biases were obvious even via a secondhand interpretation of the story says a lot about it.

More here. Can't say whether they're as bad as Fox News or not, because I haven't seen a significant amount of its output (due to living in the UK). However, I personally wouldn't trust the Daily Mail as far as I could throw it.

Anyway, there is probably some truth in the story, but I expect it's been exaggerated, distorted and "enhanced" by selective reporting. For example, I remember reading a story about ecstasy in New Scientist a few years back. It was all about a study which claimed that there were serious effects of the drug on the brain. However, the story also included plausible-sounding criticism and rebuttal of the study by other equally reputable scientists.

I saw the same story in the Daily Mail later that day. It also included the details about the study and the possibly dangerous effects of the drug, and was written in a moderately "reputable" manner. However, unlike NS's report, they didn't hint that there was *any* scepticism about the findings, let alone print those views. Result was that the effect of the story was very different, more one-sided and scaremongering. Fact-by-fact, the Daily Mail story was correct, but it lied by omission.

Mind you, the Daily Mail is full of scaremongering health stories; that's a staple of the front page for them. Along with reports on how something the government has done is going to affect the value of your house, and right-wing political half-truths.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[dave_boo]

I would think that using "The Guardian" to disprove "The Daily Mail" is a bit like using "Little Green Footballs" to disprove/discredit "Daily Kos".

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

I would think that using "The Guardian" to disprove "The Daily Mail" is a bit like using "Little Green Footballs" to disprove/discredit "Daily Kos". Despite its left-wing perspective, The Guardian is generally considered to be a fairly reputable paper, and Polly Toynbee has a high reputation as a journalist. Personally, I'd trust her not to make that up.

However, I do concede that there is insufficient evidence/attribution for that statement beyond her column, and having seen this page, I'll admit that I'm quite a bit more sceptical about it now.

Everything else was quite true though; I know that because it was my own experience and opinion :-)

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

You are attacking the messenger and not the message. A cute but misleading cliche. The idealised horseback messenger who is the victim of his King's wrath on the receipt of bad news has (we can assume) had no hand in manipulating or massaging the facts, and no reason to lie to his King, but is simply reporting the news.

That should not be assumed here. If I don't know all the facts of a political story for sure, and read it in a newspaper with a known reputation for right-wing bias and pandering to its readership to sell papers, I'm quite entitled to be sceptical.

Is the message false? who knows but instead of trying to figure it out you assault the messenger.

Example: If Hitler said 3+5 is 8, you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it. No, I wouldn't, because I know for a fact that 3 + 5 = 8. Your suggestion that I would is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.

Please read this comment of mine, which you'll note was posted almost 90 minutes before your comment. Salient points emphasised (here) in bold:-

I wouldn't dismiss this issue altogether simply because it came from the Daily Mail; if their slant on it could be taken at face value I would consider it cause for serious concern. Unfortunately, the Mail in itself is not trustworthy; I prefer to read these things via a less potentially biased source before passing judgement. Next, you say

We need a serious look at Logical Thinking in this country. Its a major reason why we are splitting apart in the country that people like Sean Hannity uses Logical Fallacies all the time. If that was supposed to be an attack on me, it's irrelevant, because I don't come from "this" country (i.e. the U.S., where Hannity apparently lives and works).

And, as I made clear, my message was *not* an "ad hominem" attack against the facts. It's a valid questioning as to whether the facts as presented are accurate. Since you misinterpreted it as such, it may be true that *you* need to look at logical thinking in *your* country- starting with yourself.

As to the Daily mail, they may do all the things you state and that just means you have to get more to get to the truth but it does not mean its false or even their SLANT on it is false either. No, but since I don't know whether it is or isn't true and/or unbiased, it means I do have a right to be sceptical.

This isn't denying that 3 + 5 = 8. At best we know that the right-hand side is 8, but we aren't sure what the two numbers on the left are. Am I going to take the word of someone with a vested interest in 3s and 5s? Am I heck! They might be 4 + 4, or 6 + 1, or whatever...

I am rather conservative myself but its more harmful to lie using logical mindtricks than to just face the truths. And- as demonstrated by my explanation and the linked comment above- I did no such thing.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[agrippa_cash]

Journalism is very much about the messenger. If a source of news wants to be credible then they should do research and not distort news to get people's attention. People here are familiar with the source and say it isn't to be taken at face value. The onus isn't on the reader to prove that a source is not credible. You are right about SH et al, but the people they attack are policymakers whose arguments should in theory have nothing at all to do with the messenger.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

I wish they did. When they attack the policy makers, it gets crazy to me.

The left and the right do it. The left attacks George bush as Stupid and so anything he does must be bad and the right attacks people like george soros and anything he does must be bad.

I see many things that get tossed and its hard to critically think when so much crap is tossed around.
If someone says it enough its true.

What I find most disturbing is how people like SH will use straw man or another fallacy to help the point they are making and then when they wish to attack a policy they decry the use the same tactic. Some people called it demonization of the opposition.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

As to having to know about a post you made elsewhere that was directly on point. How am I supposed to find that out? You're right, and I did not require (nor expect) you to have read it; I included it to emphasise the point that I was not in the business of making ad hominem attacks.

Nevertheless, there was no logical fallacy in my original post. On the contrary, your labelling of my criticism of the Daily Mail's reliability as "attacking the messenger" *was* logically incorrect for reasons I already explained.

What I found questionable about the reply was very simple. "I wouldn't dismiss this issue altogether simply because it came from the Daily Mail; " implies that the Daily Mail is bad, but the Daily Mail isnt bad or is it? I think that it's unreliable and has a consistent and demonstrable bias, and in that sense I consider it "bad" from a news point-of-view.

The Straw Man argument seems to be in play here. Care to explain whose position I am misrepresenting there? Or did you just want an excuse to throw back a tit-for-tat "strawman" accusation after I accused you of it with your ludicruous "you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"?

Btw, Sean Hannity is in 540+ radio stations worldwide and can annoy and enlighten as he goes. [..] He was used, as an example. It's not really important; my point was that (since Hannity apparently resides in the U.S.) that the "this" country you complain about wasn't my country. Thus, any supposed flaws in my logic would not reflect on the U.S.

none of this Validates or Invalidates 3+5 =8. Who said that it did? I certainly didn't.

I said that if x + y = 8, you can't assume that x = 3 and y = 5. That seems quite straightforward to me.

I love simple math exercises to confuse people. [..] These things can confuse those not associated with higher math. I use this as an example if you pare it down to Logical thinking. If you have not been trained in Math, you may end up thinking 1 does not equal 1 and Logic works similiar ways. That's certainly interesting, but ultimately has no bearing on what we were discussing. You basically said that my comment was an "ad hominem" attack. I explained why it wasn't.

Maybe you are cleverer at maths and certain aspects of logic than me- I wouldn't know- but that does not change the fact that you failed to counter my defence of my original position. Or was this an appeal to (your) authority- another logical fallacy?

I would rather discuss Logic than the Daily Mail or any possible April fools jokes. Well, that's your choice, but you were the one who chose to (wrongly) accuse me of a logical fallacy in the first place, so of course I'm going to defend my position. For someone who claims to like logic, you seem to apply it quite badly to real-life arguments.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[dharbee]

"This isn't denying that 3 + 5 = 8. At best we know that the right-hand side is 8, but we aren't sure what the two numbers on the left are. Am I going to take the word of someone with a vested interest in 3s and 5s? Am I heck! They might be 4 + 4, or 6 + 1, or whatever..."

Exactly.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

Is there a direct reason to continue a flamewar here?

yes i believe that you were attacking The Daily Mail but after you pointed out your other message I no longer believe that. Context is important. In the end, was the article truthful?

I would rather get into reasons as to why you think 3+5 = 8? Is it because someone told you at sometime in life? Learned it by example? How is it real? Someone told me that 4 divided by 0 in not achievable but someone else told me recently some math guy invented a new math and it is achievable. How do we know what is logic? How do we know what is real?

Its all fun really. Think of math all being based on a point, which is assumed to exist. Thus do we exist at all if we can be described by math, which is assumed?

Life is much more fun if people relax ya know. Of course, I am probably wrong on that too. See, i kinda mentioned that ALL Generalizations are FALSE.... I always tell a Lie.

The logic I learn, is on my own from old Philosophy Books that are no longer part of University Experiences. It takes a while to learn something fun too. Also, its hard to detect when someone is being sarcastic too.

I also tend to use the Pronouns in place of general people statements and I apologize for that. When I say You, I mean You as in "People in General".

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

I apologise if I mistook your discussion of mathematical curiosities as an attempt to change the subject or pull rank.

I would rather get into reasons as to why you think 3+5 = 8? Is it because someone told you at sometime in life? Learned it by example? One or the other; I'm aware that there are issues surrounding this.

How is it real? Someone told me that 4 divided by 0 in not achievable but someone else told me recently some math guy invented a new math and it is achievable. How do we know what is logic? How do we know what is real? These are issues that I have personally considered. However, much as I'd like to discuss this, it's definitely off-topic and thus probably not a good idea for us to continue here in a public discussion. :-/

I also tend to use the Pronouns in place of general people statements and I apologize for that. When I say You, I mean You as in "People in General". No need to apologise for that; most people (including myself) do the same- it's unclear why saying "one can..." in English is considered posh or affected, but I wish it wasn't because it would help make things clearer. It's not a problem in French, for example.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

Draw me on a graph how 1 = .9999999999....

A=1/3 so B = 2*A. so then 3*A should equal A+A+A? so that will end up as .999999999... but in math you get 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 1.0 So
1 = .999999999.....

Lets divide by Zero!

heh.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Dogtanian]

Dogtanian: "This isn't denying that 3 + 5 = 8. At best we know that the right-hand side is 8, but we aren't sure what the two numbers on the left are. Am I going to take the word of someone with a vested interest in 3s and 5s? Am I heck! They might be 4 + 4, or 6 + 1, or whatever..."

dharbee: Exactly.

Ermm..... (coughs).... I meant for large values of "6" and "1". ;-(

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

I have no rank. Well I do but whenever I get another half dozen people who work for me, we end up in a layoff or something stupid. Thats another story of course.

Of course this is now off-topic. Then again I would have to think any logical discussion on Slashdot could be considered offtopic.

I apologize if I don't get the French reference since my Grandmother speaks it and I only know about a dozen (COMPUTER) Languages. My grandmother would relate to me the story of in the 1960's when she was on vacation with my grandfather in France that they were in a little hotel. They put the language down and registered and the Frenchman behind the counter turned and yelled to a busboy to come and "Help these asshole americans". My grandmother didn't say much but she said France seemed to be rude to them. Only real negative thing I know about France (of course, I do read crap but I don't trust it).

Pronouns are a killer problem for English speaking right now. You know what I am saying right You or Everyone right? heh.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[dharbee]

You have to admit, after going to the trouble you did to make your point, that was kind of funny.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[turbidostato]

"You are attacking the messenger and not the message"

When the messenger is known to be unreputable, it's quite savvy to discredit the message and let it on hold till more trustable sources can be questioned.

"Example: If Hitler said 3+5 is 8, you would say its WRONG because HITLER said it"

That's doubly stupid. On one hand, do you think Hitler would give too much credit on the report of an English spy (which doesn't know he has been discovered) about where or when the big alley invasion will take place? Yes, the messenger reputation renders *quite* a lot on the credibility of the message. On the other hand, nobody would say the affirmation "3+5=8" to be false because it came from Hitler's mounth... because Hitler is known to be an assassin son of the bitch with terrible racial prejudices but *not* to be mathematically challenged (and because of the fact you already made your opinion about the "3+5=8" assertion by other means you trust to be reputable, but just forget about this now). Just try yourself:

-Would you trust Hitler if he told you Canary Islands are worth visiting on summer?
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are infrahuman?
(and now the most interest)
-Would you trust Hitler if he told you jews are pretty good guys after all?

See? There's nothing wrong with Hitler talking about pretty islands since, as far as we know there were nothing wrong about his perceptions on landscapes, but you couldn't trust him about jews, even if he talked about them in good terms because we know too good this is not an issue we can confy him any credit at (hummm... now he says jews are good guys? Surely he is concealing something). When you know the messenger it's quite intelligent to take advantage of such knowledge.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

Sorry What I was doing is giving a common example of a logical fallacy.
To me, I do believe that 3+5 is 8. So that makes me more inclined to believe it from anyones mouth.

If I didn't know that, I would be less inclined to believe it if it came from a known liars mouth? Of course I would. The Logical Fallacy is that people take this to make the message wrong since it came from a known Liar.

Some examples:
Clinton is a Liar since he lied to his Wife about Sex. Thus, Clinton telling us he never was given a chance at Osama Bin Laden is a lie too, since Clinton is a proven liar.

Saddam Hussien is a Liar since we have proof he bombed people before and he denies it. Thus, when he says he has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, he must be telling a Lie.

These are logical fallacies that are so easy to get into that of course I do too. That does not make them anymore true. In the end we ended up at War because of a series of Logical Fallacies.

If someone watches a Violent Video Game and then murders someone, does it mean the violent Video game caused the murder? I would say this is a logical Fallacy but Jack Thompson would not.

The biggest logical fallacy to me is that people generalize about someone else without knowing the specifics. This is how Media operates to sway the public. The media tells you something in fact, the media believes its a fact, but since they add statistics to the statement it means that event MUST fall inside some statistical boundry when it may not.

The more critical thinking we teach kids and ourselves, the less pain we have.

And its also a logicial fallacy to think that since we have not seen GOD written in the stars, there is no God.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

I thought it was funny too but I then again 6+1 could be 8.

Why was 6 afraid of 7?

Because 7 8 9

Har Har Har.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[Joey7F]

X is less than Y is less than Z for X != Z there are infinite Ys

X = 0.9999....
Z = 1

Give me a Y.

--Joey

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[avante]

Actually, I saw this article a few months ago when it was making the rounds. Which government study? Where is the study? I could not find any study that matches the description from the article on the appropriate Ministry website. Nor have I found any other articles about it. Government cover up? Or just a made up story?

WHAT STUDY!?!

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[turbidostato]

"The Logical Fallacy is that people take this to make the message wrong since it came from a known Liar."

It's a logical fallacy *if* you take the part for the whole. It was *your* point that this was a case of killing the messenger which clearly it was not: previous poster only said that he just didn't gave credit to news on a given tabloid because he knew it to be unreputable. And he is quite right doing so.

And about the rest of the comment, what was the phrase from The Promised Bride? I don't think "logical fallacy" means what you think it means (while you bring some cases that *are* in fact logical fallacies: 'petitio a principii', 'non sequitur' and 'post hoc, propter hoc', mainly).

"The media tells you something in fact"

It is not a logical fallacy, then; it's just an utter lie. Awake: it's not that (USA) media incurred on a logical fallacy; it's that they were either knownling lying or being lied by USA Government. You can use perfect logic and still reach the wrong conclusions if you are feed with false principles.

"And its also a logicial fallacy to think that since we have not seen GOD written in the stars, there is no God."

That's certainly not a logical fallacy but an epistemologic requirement rised both from Occam's razor ('entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem') and Hume's economy principle ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). In other words, I won't say God doesn't exist (I think you mean the hebraic one -Yahveh/God/Alah, don't you? Or were you talking about FSM?), but I'll do say that there exists God as much as there's the cow that jumps over the Moon (hey, the fact that we still didn't see the cow jumping over the Moon doesn't mean we won't see it tomorrow, does it?).

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

Some stuff to look up. nice. More things to learn!

For me, God must not be something quantifiable by man or its not a God really. Consider that for God to be infinite, we cannot comprehend it with finite minds. I can comprehend the FSM and think hes pretty interesting. Pastafarians Eat well!

A major issue in all these discussions is that we focus on the USA media being flawed or the UK. Is this because they are more transparent than the others. In Russia, whole sets of journalists quit or even are killed for reporting things the government does not want to be known. Its the government controlled media that softpedals stuff and in the end controls the logic of it all.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[lordmage]

Give me a M

Give me a C

Give me a A

We have...

Y M C A

Sing with me! heh.

Re:Mail's founder admitted formula is "Daily Hate"

[turbidostato]

"For me, God must not be something quantifiable by man or its not a God really"

Then you should either abandon all hope of reaching any rational knowledge of the physical world or just accept God doesn't exist for any practical meaning of the verb "to exist".

"A major issue in all these discussions is that we focus on the USA media being flawed or the UK. Is this because they are more transparent than the others."

No. It is because there are quite other countries were the "flawness level" is not yet that of the USA. Yes, you are too focused: there's a whole world outta USA, UK and Rusia. There's Spain, and France, and Finland an Denmark and a whole lot of others, and they are more transparent than Rusia too, and not so flawed as the big media from the States (yet).

Holocaust denial not part of any 'beliefs'

[bulled]

Holocaust denial is not nor has it ever been part of Islam. To claim otherwise is FUD and needs to be recognized as such.

Re:Holocaust denial not part of any 'beliefs'

[Slorv]

Please, mod parent UP!

Re:teach both..

[tnk1]

True. But as events in history fade into said history, the decreasing amount of information we have about that time means that debate starts to open over the gaps that start to appear. And if the issue offends a strongly held belief of a group, any gaps will be grasped as means by which to cast doubt on the events and especially the motivations of that time.

To the general population, events in history and even a lot of scientific theories are actually articles of faith, since the general population are rarely in the situations where they can experience either experiments or history making events.

This is not to denigrate good science or history, but bear in mind that most people believe in either something like evolution or the holocaust based on reading about it or hearing about it in a class. We tend to believe in the scientific method because it appears to work, and we generally have a common view of history because most people share an accepted view of it and agree on the events.

However, if there is a clash between the faith you have in science or history and the faith you have in your religion or your ideology, you may find that your faith in the first two wavers because one or the other of the latter is percieved as being more important, and those around you reinforce that view. Since your belief in certain parts of science and history is basically hearsay, (since you cannot demonstrate it yourself), you find yourself open to accepting other reasons for why the history or the science of your group differs from the rest of the world.

It is extremely important for those people who have had practical scientific experience, and for people who have studied history to understand that their experience means that they don't have to take their theories as articles of faith. They've read the primary documents, done the lab experiments, or the field work. They are the exception, not the rule. Indeed, in some field that they don't have any experience in, they can be affected by a faith-based decision as much as anyone else. Being a superlatively good computing professional does not give you the automatic ability to critique something like say, climate change.

Its interesting that we refer to a non-scientist as a "lay man" in regards to a particular profession, as that is the exact term for those in religions who are part of the general population which is not clergy. The parallel is apt, given the levels of faith often required of the general population by science or history.

The difference between metaphysics and real physics is wide, but the mode of acceptance of both to the population is not so different, because it is simply impossible to grant experience in everything to everyone.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

By avoiding teaching about one of the worst examples of intolerance and hatred in human history,

The denial of Palestinian human rights, their expulsion from their own homes, their denial of basic resources (water), economic strangulation, and the British government's key roll in creating and supporting those problems are also not taught in schools.

And it won't be for years, and probably never will, because whether people want to openly admit it or not... Arabs are considered animals and there blood is not as valuable as Jewish or Western blood.

And let's face it, there are a lot of reports of Muslims in the UK becoming increasingly radicalized, because they are learning hatred and distorted history in the mosques.

... And let's face it, there are a lot of British children growing up with this mindset about Arabs because they are learning hatred and distorted history from their own schools.

Or perhaps...

[gillbates]

They are ignoring philosophy dressed up as science.

When science represents unverifiable theories as fact, and accepts arguments in spite of the fact that they are statistically and rationally improbable, one has to question their motives. It seems the healthy skepticism which keeps bad theories out of physics and chemistry is entirely lacking in biology. Perhaps more embarassing is that the early theories of evolution gained widespread acceptance not because of their merits, but rather because it provided a scientific rationale for racism.

Real science is refined by skepticism, not dogmatic belief in the status quo. In my grade school and high school science classes, we did experiments which demonstrated the principle in question, reinforcing the lesson. How exactly is a high school biology teacher to show evolution, especially when one of the brighter students in the class could use arguments like Behe's to show that evolution is highly improbable from a statistical perspective?

I understand there's a need for better science education. But true science is skeptical, and it's easy to forget that those who refrain from teaching the theory of evolution as science are merely being skeptical - IOW, they're employing the scientific method. And this, I believe, is a better lesson to teach students - when it comes to science, be prepared to prove your hypothesis. Many of the theories in evolution - abiogenesis for example - are constructed specifically so they can't be proven. For some reason, this extraoardinary claim does not require extraordinary evidence. Interestingly, evolution is the only family of theories, and biology the only science, for which a substantial remains unprovable, and yet, accepted.

Perhaps evolution would be better suited in a comparative religions course. After all, you can't prove either the existence of God or abiogenesis.

Re:Or perhaps...

[grub]

But true science is skeptical, and it's easy to forget that those who refrain from teaching the theory of evolution as science are merely being skeptical - IOW, they're employing the scientific method.

Scientists are skeptical, of course. But the Creationists haven't really given any evidence to back up any of their claims. They haven't had a publication in a peer-reviewed science journal (I have access to those and have checked), they haven't even really presented a theory other than "god designed this". All they've done is throw some undue doubt at science without presenting a valid theory and proof to back up their theology.

Casting doubt and naysaying isn't science, disproving accepted ideas with better proof for better ideas is what drives science.

The only reason Creationist rant and rave is because scientific discoveries are creeping into the realm of their superstitions. The leaked Wedge Document is quite illuminating.

Re:Or perhaps...

[gillbates]

Regardless of what other theories may say, the claims of evolution are not falsifiable, not verifiable, and unproven - in short, it's not science, but scientific superstition. What the Creationists, Pastafarians, etc... believe is irrelevant to the matter, unless you want to start teaching philosophy and religion in science class.

And we do have a certain responsibility to reject illogical, or unscientific theories, even if they are the best ones available. The issue with evolution is that the statistical arguments against things like abiogenesis are extremely strong. While I don't believe in purely statistical proofs as a matter of semantics, it doesn't make much sense to me that biology has accepted theories which have only a minuscule chance of being true, and which are unprovable in any case.

Re:Or perhaps...

[gillbates]

Actually, he hasn't. Unless, of course, you think the value of 4 to the 53 power has changed recently.

His notions about irreducible complexity were perhaps not as accurately presented as they should have been, but as far as I've read, no scientist has actually produced a series of actual intermediate stages which would explain the evolution of something like blood clotting or eye formation.

And the stone bridge example is interesting, but silly. Biological mechanisms are far more complicated than a stone bridge, and the statistical likelihood of useful structures forming is extremely small, let alone having the intermediate stages survive a system which selects for the fittest.

Re:Or perhaps...

[grub]

(Damn, I replied and it vapourized. Here's the bulk from memory)

And we do have a certain responsibility to reject illogical, or unscientific theories, even if they are the best ones available.

Present your data which shows evolution to be illogical or unscientific. Also note that the misinformation about abiogeneis has been debunked.

Creationists have no valid scientific data to back up their crazy claims, they've never had a paper in a peer-reviewed science journal, they only have "life is so complex a god must have designed it!" Feel free to believe in whatever you want but Creationism is not science, if it were there'd be at least one publication or fact that the Creationists would announce to the world. They have nothing other than a misguided attack on the scientific method and facts. Creationists jumping up and down screaming about what they want to be true isn't science, it's religion.

I recognize your name from /., you're a smart guy. So rather than wasting your time attacking things you find uncomfortable why not find just one verifiable fact to support the Creationist myth. Or you could disprove facts accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community with contradictory data of your own. That is, after all, how science really works.

Re:Or perhaps...

[masterhibb]

I don't seem to recall the GP ever advocating the teaching of Creationism in science class, in fact, he seems to be against the notion. You're simply responding to his argument that the theory of Evolution is not as sound a scientific theory as most we currently teach as fact with rebuttals against Creationism.

I don't recall this being an either/or debate. The currently accepted theory of Evolution has its problems, and I personally would prefer "Science" say "I don't know yet," rather than "let's just settle on this untestable answer." The latter is the purview of politics and philosophy.

Re:They do have some cause

[Fnkmaster]

No, when a Jew kills non-Jews (Palestinians, Muslims, whatever other grouping) just for who they are, the condemnation by Jews is nearly universal. If you ask Jews if they think it's okay to blow yourself up with a bomb in a crowded market just to "take out" some Palestinians, 99.999% will say no. There is no culture of death, or glorifying martyrdom, or support for killing people who marry outside of their faith, or anything remotely like what you see in parts of Islamic culture in any part of Jewish society.

Prefering that members of an ethnic/religious community marry within that community is a common feature of many communities, especially when it comes to your own children. Nonetheless, the reality is that in America, Jews marry non-Jews all the time (as happened with my parents), and their families don't kill each other, they deal with it. In the most severe cases family members stop talking to each other for a time.

Christians (at least in the modern context) similarly don't generally kill somebody just because they refuse to convert to their religion. Things may have been different in historical times (the Inquisition, etc.) but it's not terribly fair to hold that against modern Christians.

No, Islam is quite different from Christianity and Judaism in this sense.

I call Bullshit !!!

[Penguin's Advocate]

I've put up with a lot of peoples' crazy beliefs, mostly because they involve things that can't currently be explained, but this is ridiculous. Your beliefs cannot include denial of facts! Those "beliefs" are invalid and ignorant, and not in the way that one religion declares the beliefs of another invalid and ignorant. These actually are, beyond any doubt I don't have any religion, my "belief" is that they're all full of crap, but I'm usually content to let people have their faith. When people start pushing "beliefs" that contradict knowable facts, that pisses me off. The only unfortunate part is that facts aren't really worth suffering for in the way beliefs are, the return on investment just isn't as good.

Re:I call Bullshit !!!

[geekoid]

"Your beliefs cannot include denial of facts!"

It's a belief, It can include anything. Denial of facts is a primary prerequisite to be a Christian church goer, for example.

Re:I call Bullshit !!!

[alexgieg]

Denial of facts is a primary prerequisite to be a Christian church goer, for example.

The churches on your neighborhood are pretty bad, aren't they?

What the hell slashdot?! What the hell?!

[Cathoderoytube]

This is just standard media garbage meant to angry up the blood. What the hell slashdot? What the hell? I thought this was a tech news site, not a venue for sensationalist crap like this.

The UK school boards have no intention of stopping teaching the holocaust or the crusades.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/101306.ht ml

Just so you know, this is old news. It was written back on April 2nd. Mind you shit like this is always in season.

Likewise Viet Nam

[mkcmkc]

When I was in school in the 70s, the subject of the war in Viet Nam was always scrupulously avoided, for the same reason.

Are you aware of the situation in Israel?

[BlackCobra43]

There is a growing divide between "born" Jews and "made" Jews - with the BORN Jews claiming superiority and priority in occupying the Holy Land. Bottom line, the "made" Jews are not considered "real" Jews.It IS racism ( or religionism if you want to look at ti from the other perspective), no matter how many fancy yarmulkes and bar mitzvahs you cover it up with - ironically enough

Re:Are you aware of the situation in Israel?

[Mattintosh]

There was always a distinction between Jews and proselytes. That much is recorded in the Bible.

The funny thing is, the Bible says that "born" Jews won't necessarily get to occupy the holy land, only "chosen" "Jews" will. And that Jehovah God does the choosing. And he chooses those who want to follow him, "born" or "made" is an inconsequential difference. Heck, "Jew" or "non-Jew" is an inconsequential difference. Only obedience to God matters.

Funnier still is when you tell a Jew that and he flinches at the mere mention of God's name. Like he's going to strike them down for hearing someone else use that name as a legitimate reference to him. Better yet is when you explain to them what his name means and why it means that. "Jehovah" is the anglicized spelling and pronunciation for YHWH, which comes from the words "ye hawah", which translates rougly to "He causes to become." Not only is he the creator, he has a will, and he can make it happen. He will create or cause whatever is needed to ensure that his will becomes reality. Truly almighty.

I just love to freak out a Jew with that info... they go into all sorts of doublespeak to get you to stop speaking so they don't get struck down. Hilarious. And I've never once seen anyone struck down...

Re:Are you aware of the situation in Israel?

[sita]

There is a growing divide between "born" Jews and "made" Jews - with the BORN Jews claiming superiority and priority in occupying the Holy Land. Bottom line, the "made" Jews are not considered "real" Jews.It IS racism ( or religionism if you want to look at ti from the other perspective), no matter how many fancy yarmulkes and bar mitzvahs you cover it up with - ironically enough

As bullshit as it gets. There is a taboo in Judaism inquiring whether a person is a proselyte or not. You are not supposed to care, because it might inconvenience the said proselyte. A proselyte becomes in every aspect a member of the Jewish people, upto and including getting a Hebrew name. The patronym is traditionally set to "ben Avraham Avinu" (son of our father Abraham) to mark that the person is adopted into the people.

In fact, if you read your bible it becomes quite clear that faith, not blood, has always been the definition of who is Jewish. There is a long list of Jewish prophets and kings who married non-Jewish women, including Moshe Rabbeinu, whose wife is supposed to have been black.

Re:Are you aware of the situation in Israel?

[Detritus]

I'm a Jew, and I can say that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about. A convert is just as much of a Jew as someone who was born a Jew.

Re:Are you aware of the situation in Israel?

[belmolis]

Agreed, with one exception. A kahen (cohen) may not marry a woman who is a convert. That is the only way in which a convert is different from someone born Jewish.

Re:I'm sorry, but no

[Hoi Polloi]

I didn't have to reply and correct it.

"People do not make mistakes anymore, they only lie."

Shouldn't you be on a ledge somewhere?

Can't believe I missed this

[toddhisattva]

Must be the crumbs under my spacebar...

Did you hear anyone call the unibomber a "christian radical bomber?"

No, because Ted Kaczynski was not a Christian radical, but more like Algore

http://www.bbhq.com/gorequiz.htm

Re:Can't believe I missed this

[NayDizz]

Thanks a lot for the link. Now my eyes are burning from that godawful choice of colors.

Re:Can't believe I missed this

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No, because Ted Kaczynski was not a Christian radical, but more like Algore

Ted Kaczynski was raised a christian, and turned to bombing because of his radical philosophical beliefs. The average person called a "radical muslim" suicide bomber was raised a muslim and turned to bombings because they are trying to change political policies and fight an invading army. The religion is similarly relevant in both cases, but applied by the media in the US, in only one case. That was my point.

"Never Again" should mean "Never Again"

[twitter]

Could someone please explain to the uninformed why does teaching about what happened in the 20th century bother some religious people, in this case holocaust and muslims?

People who think Palestine got the shaft by the British Empire and then the US don't like the story the US and UK tell about it. The Holocaust, to them, is used as a justification for Israel. They don't share the Judeo-Christian belief that Israel was given to the Jews by God, they see it as a crusade compounded by nineteenth century bigotry and twenty first century technology. They are outraged that current suffering would be ignored, to make room for a lesson about "never again."

Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Crazy Taco]

Here's a hint for you left-ponders -- the Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of Fox: a racist rag which will print anything which puts muslims, women, gays, trades-unionists or the working class in a bad light. Check snopes before posting a story from them.

That's a bunch of complete flamebait (and should be modded down by anyone with mod points). I haven't observed the Daily Mail, as I'm not from the UK, and thus I can't comment on it. However, I've watched Fox news shows regularly as well as their talk shows, and I've read books by many of their talk show hosts (Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, etc.). In no way is Fox a racist rag. That is a myth perpetuated by people (traditionally left wing flamers and mudslingers) who continually bash Fox without ever having watched it. Bill O'Reilly often has gay and lesbian men and women on his show, and he is extremely fair and often takes their side if they are facing discrimination. He often has the Reverend Al Sharpton and other black leaders on his show, and they quite often have some very constructive dialogs (even agreeing on some issues). In addition, these talk shows almost NEVER present just one point of view. They are very good at bringing in people from both sides of the political aisle and letting them discuss and comment on the issues. Sometimes the dems win, and sometimes the republicans. It just depends on the issue, but at least you get BOTH sides of the story during their talk shows.

When it comes to the news, they cover a broad variety of issues, and they are very good about having their reporters stay as neutral as possible and not make opinionated comments. They don't just take the president's line, either. They cover things that are damaging or scandelous to the administration. And some of their opinion shows will hammer administration actions that are scandalous. The fact is, rather than being a "racist rag", they are actually a good journalistic organization, and in my opinion they do a better job than most other news networks. Did anyone watch CNN's coverage of the 2004 presidential election? As Kerry was losing, Wolf Blitzer got combative and emotional, and at one point looked like he was going to cry. Then on another network you have the big Dan Rather scandal where he reported all those damaging (and as we found out, fake) documents about Bush's guard record. The fact is, an honest observer has to admit that Fox has had a much better record lately of avoiding scandals and emotionalism in their broadcasts. And you'd have to really, really be a dishonest flamer to try to claim that they are a "racist rag."

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree.

As a non-republican guy who watchs CNN, and FOX, I find FOX to be fair to liberals while being recognizably conservative and CNN to have a strong liberal agenda.

I don't like Hannity's style since I think he can be unfair to guests he disagrees with but paired with Colmes he works okay.

As a person who doesn't vote republican, who is for legalizing drugs, for small government, who is non-religious, I just don't find FOX to be a bad news station.

I can see how a hard left person feels Fox is biased- but that's because of their own bias they are not recognizing.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[ravenshrike]

Dammit taco, quit trying to ruin the popular /. meme. You'll have to force these wankers to admit that maybe they're being a teensy weensy bit hypocritical and are acting like a bunch of Rosie O Donnell clones.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[jnf]

I'm not really sure how you can say that objectively, I'm a non-republican/non-democrat who regularly watches fox news just because I find the way that they present things somewhat genius, it's kind of like watching Goebbels in action. A good example of their 'slant' is in how they reported the story about the kid who planned on bringing bombs to Falwell's funeral. What I saw on Fox news was that a college student has been arrested after he was caught with bombs in his car, that he intended to bring to Falwell's funeral. With that and other coverage of Falwell's passing it implied that the guy was some left-wing nut who wanted to bomb his funeral, when in actuality the kid was a student of Falwell's university and intended to bring the bombs to 'keep protestors from disturbing the funeral', which makes him a right-wing nut who is obviously totally out of touch with reality. Stuff like that, which an omission of a couple words completely changes the story, puts an incredible slant and spin on the story and honestly borders on outright disinformation.

Honestly, I think if you paid a little closer attention to what they report, how they report it and what they don't report I think you would find their slant pretty incredible, and as I said, their tactics somewhat genius.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[lymond01]

What you just said bears repeating. Many times, it's not what the media says, it's how they say it, or what they leave out. Check major and minor headlines between Fox and CNN, then delve into a couple stories. You'll be surprised at what overlaps and what doesn't. Then try something like Yahoo news, which is a conglomeration of different news organizations...it's a little less biased in its reporting.

Fox turns me off because of their over-the-top blustering be it their newscasters or talk show hosts. CNN turns me off because it screams "INFOTAINMENT!" You'll have a report on US soldiers found in Iraq at the same time the bottom streamer is talking about Paris Hilton's latest escapades, who the NFL #3 draft pick was, etc. I can watch Entertainment tonight and ESPN for that kind of stuff. When I'm watching world news, I want world news.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

Yeah -- Fox News, Fair and Balanced.

You are aware that they do things like assessing reporters politcal loyalties during the interview process and giving regular memos directing their newscasters to do things to support Republicans, right? You aware that even the CEO admits using it as a propaganda mouthpiece to sell the Iraq War, right?

If you can't tell that sort of stuff by watching them, then they're succeeding.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[operagost]

Liar.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

Sorry -- last link should have been to here.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[@madeus]

As a non-republican guy who watchs CNN, and FOX, I find FOX to be fair to liberals while being recognizably conservative and CNN to have a strong liberal agenda. A Liberal and a liberal are not the same thing (sadly most Americans consistently fail to demonstrate an undersanding of that when using the word, including professional commentators on both Fox and CNN).

You can be right wing and liberal, just as you can be left wing and liberal. In fact a lot of the values held by many Republican voters (small government, low taxes) are profoundly liberal ideals. If you are strongly right or strongly left leaning, you are unlikely to be very liberal however (people tend to polarise off into either Nazi or Communist parties respectively - and neither are typically liberal).

Fox is strongly right leaning, CNN is lightly left leaning (in the context of US politics). However CNN is right leaning if you are from pretty much any other western democracy (other than say countries with more right leaning political centers such as Japan, Greece or Israel) - or if you have a broader political perspective. Similarly, center-right political parties in Europe are frequently light to moderate left leaning from an American perspective.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

First any reasonable reading of the Moody memos shows someone trying to steer a path through the partisan noise on both sides.

Second, linking to wikipedia is useless as any numnut can post crap on there (and crap most of it was).

Third, I suppose you don't think the New York Times, ABCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC basically supports Democrats and their policies eh?

People will like the news organizations that report what they want to hear, or at least don't ram their idiology down the viewers throat.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

So if NBC supports the dems policies, they are propagand mouthpieces for the Dems?

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

You mean, in the imaginary world where Bob Wright ordered the network to try and sell the American public on certain policies like Murdock has done repeatedly with Fox, even by his own public admission? You bet.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

No, I mean in the real world where Dan Rather tried to torpedo a presidentail candidate with material he knew was fake.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[jnf]

That's now what they were saying on TV, when i saw the report a day or two back they werent addressing the subject at all. even more interesting is that the article says:

However, ABC News reported that the 19-year-old told authorities he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral.
Which underscores something else FOX likes to do, they distance themselves from aspects of the news that they don't agree with, notice that this isn't saying 'he was doing xyz', as every other article I've read has said, but rather 'ABC News reported that he was doing xyz', this is akin to the nigerian yellow cake stuff with the 'The Brittish Government has said ...', or how if you notice almost every time Fox news has an athiest on, the person has a British accent, et cetera.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

Ah, so you're comparing a *whole network* arranged around *admittedly spreading propaganda* to a *single reporter*'s *single story* -- and you're misrepresenting it at that.

Great analogy there.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

It's a whole network being told to steer the straight and narrow and not let their own personal biases muddle the story vs. the titular *head* of a network, their primary and most respected spokesman/reporter, who gets 30 minutes each evening to spread his own personal view of the world.

Yeah, Dan Rather was just a single little old reporter. Jeeze man, get a grip. He ran the place, he controlled everything.

All you have to do is watch the major media outlets and you get things like "Unemployment, inflation, and interst rates at all time lows, but is the average America really better off?"

Or crap like taking flawed and biased polls and then reporting them as headline news.

You may not like Fox News, but the tell it straighter than all the others.

And as far as their editorial side is concearned, they admit they have a viewpoint it and are proud of it. They don't pretend not to like all the others.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

It's a whole network being told to steer the straight and narrow and not let their own personal biases muddle the story vs. the titular *head* of a network, their primary and most respected spokesman/reporter, who gets 30 minutes each evening to spread his own personal view of the world.

Oh, that's bloody hilarious! Forcing your network to try and sell the American public on things like the Iraq War is "steering the straight and narrow and not letting their own personal biases muddle the story", while a journalist who gets 30 minutes a day, who was *forced out* for getting a single story wrong, is the "titular head of the network", controlling all of its content.

Get me some of whatever you're smoking. It must be good stuff.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

Suporting a policy is not the same thing as propaganda. Fairly representing the facts in not propaganda.

As for the 30 minutes a day, his and the other three network's 30 minutes usually set the media's aganda and talking point for the next 24 hours. If Dan Rather said it, then it was sure to be on the front pages of newpapers the next day.

And he wasn't forced out for getting it wrong. He was forced out for knowlingly putting suspect information on the air and reporting it as fact. Then, when it was shown to be without doubt fake, he came up with the insane Fake But Accurate excuse. No, he buried himself with his own bias and arrogance.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Rei]

What part of Murdoch's statement that they tried to shape the agenda on the war on Iraq, supported Bush's policies, and criticized it in cases where wasn't carried out the way they wanted, wasn't clear to you? After all, this is the *publicly admitted statements* of the *network's chair* that we're talking about, versus a single reporter (that you seem to be obsessed with, granting him silly powers to boot) who was fired when he got a story critical of Bush wrong (and yes, that case *was* "fake but accurate"; here's a nice summary of the available evidence; it's been hotly fought back and forth between both sides for years, so you'll find ample references from all sides)

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[jnf]

Uh, hi, you've got your facts entirely wrong. He was an right-wing nut job going to use them again the left wing nutjobs, not vice versa. Furthermore, I am not a liar because what they reported on tv when they first presented the story didnt say what that article says, now since then they've gone and posted a story on their website that reports the story as it was, that doesn't change the fact that on TV they didnt present that. Thats akin to me filling out a background check form and saying I'm not a convicted felon, then on a second form later disclosing it. It doesn't change the fact that I didn't initially disclose it. Everything else you said is foolish/very obviously has an agenda and not worth being addressed.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[jnf]

Eh, I haven't done anything serious to come up with actual statistics, it was just something I noticed one day and while it hasn't always been true, it's largely been true, or true more often than not, just something I found interesting. As for what conclusions I draw from it, I'm not sure, I could be reading into it too much, I don't think so, I think honestly its just a subtle way of saying that atheism is unamerican or at least implying it, or I guess more accurately it makes it easier for people to discount their opinions because 'you know how those europeans are', et cetera.

Like I said, I may be reading into it too much, but I don't think I am, Fox is real big about that type of stuff, when they were doing the stories/et cetera on 'the war against christmas' they brought orthodox Jews on several times to talk about how they thought it was wrong (the war against christmas that is), when I've seen pieces that deal with more ethnic situations, they tend to bring someone who would be considered empathetic to the subject on (i.e. a black guy to talk about the problems with affirmative action), and so on.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

Yeah. Right whatever. I'll not argue about anything in Wikipedia.

You believe what you want and I'll do they same...

See you at the ballot box.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[bob.appleyard]

And as far as their editorial side is concearned, they admit they have a viewpoint it and are proud of it. They don't pretend not to like all the others. So "fair and balanced" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek?

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Kadin2048]

I agree. (Though I expect you'll be down-modded for saying it, but sometimes that's just the way things go.)

There have been a few times when I've thought that Fox was pandering to the Right, but frankly it's a whole lot less often than when I've been watching CNN and seen some pretty clear Leftist bias.

I also think it's possible that Fox was perceived as being more "biased" back when they first got started, and were trying to aggressively differentiate themselves from CNN and the big three. However, I also think that was probably the height of the liberal bias on mainstream news, too. The whole reason Fox got popular was because of the discontent many people felt about the level of bias on the existing networks at the time; Fox responded to the demand for 'less-Left' news and did well. If the big networks had really been reporting unbiased news at the time, Fox never would have been able to grab marketshare as quickly as they did.

That Fox is probably more conservative than ABC or NBC is no contest, but I don't Fox is inherently any more biased. That is, I'm not sure that Fox is any further from the imaginary 'point of unbiasedness' than the other networks are.

If you want actual Right-wing bias, talk radio is the place to go; that's where the real pandering/propaganda is. (Although, not all of conservative talk-radio is that bad, and there are some folks on there who I think are up-front about their opinions and make interesting points.)

Ultimately, it may be an academic point; I'm not sure that "unbiased" is anything except the majority's median viewpoint at any given time. Both Fox, CNN, and the other networks are shooting for it, but I think that they probably have different ideas of where it is.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sycodon]

Read closely..."As far as their editoral side..."

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[TobascoKid]

Something else - they're using the tried and testing Hollywood formula of the bad guy having an English accent.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[nicolastheadept]

Damn Americans using the word liberal. Liberalism is being opposed to dictatorships, not opposed to conservatives.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal and http://www.politicalcompass.org/. While your there take the test.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[sdnick]

I'm not really sure how you can say that objectively, I'm a non-republican/non-democrat who regularly watches fox news just because I find the way that they present things somewhat genius, it's kind of like watching Goebbels in action.

Uh-huh. And how would you compare Fox's reporting and analysis to that of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc? I find that those who want to criticize Fox for it's slant on the news are typically blind to the slant used in other news organizations - indeed, Fox News wouldn't even exist if so many people didn't find an equally obvious bias in the other direction in the alternatives. I'm not a republican or democrat either - about as important as Coke vs. Pepsi in terms of real differences - but it's obvious that every news organization has it's own orientation in terms of politics and uses it's coverage to flog it's own point of view. Anyone singling out Fox without mentioning CNN, ABC, CBS, etc., isn't credible on this issue.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[brkello]

I disagree. CNN has really been ticking me off with all of its reporting on "racism". They are very consistantly taking a more right wing stance on this. Now Fox News is just a joke. Any human being is going to have some bias...but CNN journalism at least makes an effort to be professional and give you all the facts. Fox News omits many facts and even sometimes flat out misreports. For example, when one member of congress was found IMing children sexually explicit messages, they put up on the screen his name with the (D) when he was actually a Republican. It's little things like that that they constantly do that make that station pure fantasy. If you can't see the degree of bias and slant is worse on there than other stations...you just aren't paying attention.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[kalaf]

Claiming that Fox news does so well because it is balanced is like claiming American Idol does so well because it's intellegent. It's entertainment, and there was obviously an untapped market (or room to create one) for sensational conservative news stories. If any news outlet of any sort were actually unbiased, you'd never hear of them because the general public doesn't want to have to think about the news, they want to react to it.

Personally, I think one of the big news outlets should adopt something Ze Frank said (possibly always says, only watched a couple) "Thinking, so you don't have to" or something like that...

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[Maxo-Texas]

Weakly libertarian (4 grids), even more weakly leftist (1 grid).

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[kennygraham]

He wasn't going to use them against left wing nutjobs. He was a right wing nutjob who was going to use them against farther right wing nutjobs; the nutjobs from Westboro Baptist Church, the ones that claim soldiers deserve to die because god is punishing them for america's acceptance of homosexuality.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[jnf]

Oh. Thank you, I (obviously) wasn't as informed as I thought, and who the intended target nutjobs were exactly was a matter of speculation on my part, I just assumed it was left-leaning nutjobs, thank you for your observation/correction.

Re:Your Fox post was flamebait.

[kennygraham]

thanking me for a correction? you must be new here.

The Roma most definitely were

[Prien715]

The Gypsies were persecuted with as much fervor as the Jews. According to Wikipedia, 500k to 1m died. While it's not as large a gross number, proportionately, it's just as high if not higher. Interestingly, the Roma were the original Aryans who had traveled rather than staying in Germany. So the Nazis, in a rare show of coherency, only allowed part-gypsies to be exterminated but allowed full-blood Roma regular status. Later, it was argued that no one could have not become corrupted and the Roma were uniformly exterminated.

If they weren't victimized as systematically, why so much official propaganda and policies on the subject? See Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos

Re:teach both..

[tenchiken]

I've already explained in a different thread that History is written by the survivors, not the victors. For example Carthage and Rome. Or the fact that the crusade history is overwhelmingly western, not middle eastern.

History is the factual analysis of what happened. What you are arguing is that people's view of history is relativistic. That is also true, but it is also not the same thing as history itself being relativistic. Your second example is also a fallacy. History says nothing about right or wrong, it is a recording of what occurred. History records that the standard of living and average family size over the last 200 years has gotten way better in Europe, and is now getting better in third world countries as they adopt western practices. It says noting about weither that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that it occurred. History is written, it does not judge. (I hate the "history will judge" line that politicians on both sides of the aisle repeat so often).

Finally, you compare the view that history isn't relativistic as being childish. It is important to have a debate, but that debate should be over the specifics of what occurred, not what you think of why it occurred. There is a difference between honest scholarship, and trying to deny something for political merit. I have no problem with people who question if the Holocaust came out of Hitler's personal beliefs, or if Germany walked a "special path" because of World War II. Every man has a right to his opinion, but no one has a right to their own set of facts.

George Orwell and Anthony Burgess, Where Are You?

[aquatone282]

Britain needs you now more than ever.

Re:UK Schools?!!?

[linguizic]

You mean like the ones about his dead father?

Leaving religion out of the classroom

[anomaly]

I'm one of those "evangelical Christians" and yet I think that at a fundamental level we agree on the issue of religious instruction within the classroom. When it comes to the details, I think that our views diverge.

Leveraging the scientific method we can say with as much certainty as is possible that favorable traits are preserved by natural processes, and unfavorable ones are removed by attrition. (Where the definition of favorable merely means 'tending to preserve life and the ability to procreate.')

This process of gradual change through natural selection unequivocally produces variants, which after many cycles/generations can be easily seen to differ from their progenitors. If this process is what you mean about evolution, then I think that all the fundamentalist Christians I know (and I know a whole lot of them) either believe this to be true, or can easily find their way to that point of view with some reasoned discussion. In fact, I believe that all of them would wholeheartedly support teaching of that factual, measurable, information in the classroom.

Unless I'm mistaken, you and I are in agreement on this much of the issue, right?

Now on the point of religious fervor affecting material taught in the classroom.

As a Christian I hold to a world view that says that the origin of life was brought about from the actions of an all-powerful, supernatural God. This is a religious view, and is not a scientific one. It is not testable via the scientific method, it's merely a view to which I hold and to me it makes sense - it fits well with what I see in the universe around me. As far as I'm concerned, this should not be taught in science class. It's not science, it's a philosophical world view.

Here's the fundamental problem. All theories of the origin of the universe are based on a supposition which cannot be tested via the scientific method. The creation of the universe was not observed by anyone, and it has not been repeated. In fact, many many theories around cosmology have fallen by the wayside over recent years. We can study data that currently exists in the universe as we see it, but we can't say what caused it, only theorize about it.

Since universal origins were not observed and cannot be repeated, it's not testable via the scientific method, and these theories are developed by people who apply their world view as they think of ideas about the formation of the universe.

When one begins to speak of evolution as a means of the origin of life, it's problematic because the "change of something to create something" requires that "something" exist first. At best, evolution can provide an explanation of how life extant today emerged from whatever original life was created through some undetermined means.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the idea of evolution as the means of speciation provides a poor explanation at best. The fact that it's current conventional wisdom in science today is relatively irrelevant. It's a commitment to a world view that requires only natural means which requires that a process like evolution be used.

From my view, this is a religiously motivated argument, and because of that it has no place in science class, and certainly should not be taught as if it was factual.

Evolutionists and creationists have the same physical evidence and different explanations. I don't believe that the naturalist view is superior to the supernatural creator view. You probably do, and if so we disagree. My opinion is that evolution related to origins is a religiously motivated view, and does not belong in the science classroom.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Should any of you want to read the report...

[Budenny]

http://www.haevents.org.uk/PastEvents/Others/Teach %20report.pdf

It is not an April Fool story, it is not the Mail inventing news. Its a real report commissioned by the Historical Association. The point which is made in the body of the report is exactly that reported by the Mail. The worst that can be said is that the Mail gives rather more weight to this accurately reported section than to other parts of the 48 page report. This will be found on page 15:

"For example, a history department in a northern
city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a
topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting
anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among
some Muslim pupils. In another department, teachers
were strongly challenged by some Christian parents
for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and
the history of the state of Israel that did not accord
with the teachings of their denomination. In another
history department, the Holocaust was taught despite
anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but
the same department deliberately avoided teaching
the Crusades at Key Stage 3 because their balanced
treatment of the topic would have directly challenged
what was taught in some local mosques."

So, at least in the opinion of the researchers, this is happening in at least some schools in the UK.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[ravenshrike]

How about all fricking three? Of course if they teach about the "israeli colonial oppression" they better damn well have a documentary on Sderot and how the cease-fires are anything but on the paleoswinian side and how israel is mysteriously the only on ever to "break" the cease fire.

Dude, no

[Skadet]

Dude, not even close.

Cambodia: Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease. (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm)
Rwanda: estimated 800,000 dead (from your link)
Darfur: estimated 200k-400k dead (from your link)

Awful, terrible things, no doubt -- but a far cry from the 9 to 11 million deaths the Holocaust claimed.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[jedidiah]

...and harboring back robbers.

Let's not forget that.

The Palestinians can't even been gracious guests when they are living with their own pan-arab brethren.

Re:They do have some cause

[mhall119]

What I would like to know is why the Muslims don't believe that the holocaust didn't happen.

Because that would make it harder to hate the Jews for leaving Europe. The reason it is important for us to remember what the Nazis did is to make the thought of doing anything like it so utterly repulsive that nobody will support it. Since most holocaust deniers want to see Israel destroyed and it's Jewish population forcibly relocated, naturally they don't want to see Hitler when they look in the mirror. If they can convince themselves that nobody ever killed 6 million Jews, they can convince themselves that they will also stop before doing the same.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[ravenshrike]

The palestinian problem is caused mainly by themselves and the surrounding arab countries. Cause I'm pretty damned sure the israelis weren't the ones to take functional producing greenhouses and turn them into military fucking training camps after the Gaza pullout.Not to mention last time I checked, the fucking egyptians were the first to start building walls.

Re:They do have some cause

[ravenshrike]

Are the founding fathers directly responsible for the verdicts of all current or past federal court justices? If you answer no, than why the FUCK are you bringing up the functional equivilent of judaic history?

The reason Jews are the focus

[Overly Critical Guy]

The reason Jews are the historical focus is because they were the ones who mostly populated the concentration camps, they were the ones the Nazis originally wanted to ship to a different country, and they were the ones who were the primary target of the Final Solution.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[ispeters]

Hey, it's me--I clicked submit by mistake after I realized my comment was utterly stupid. If I could, I'd delete the post from Slashdot. I'd prefer if it was modded into oblivion....

Damn, am I ever embarrassed.

Ian

Re:I'm sorry, but no

[ravenshrike]

Actually, the correct quote would be

Four in 10 soldiers said torture should be used if it would save the life of a fellow soldier, said the survey disclosed by the Pentagon Friday. which is quite a different matter.
But mentioning that would frame the issue entirely differently. To be perfectly honest, if a certain gang had kidnapped a fmily member or friend, I would have absolutly no problem torturing a known gang member about the whereabouts of said person. OTOH, I have been known to be a vindictive bastard as well.

Why put one religeon on a pedistal?

[Antony T Curtis]

Why are people so upset about this? As someone who has gone through the UK education system, I have this to say:

A lot of nasty things happened during World War 2. Lets list a small number of the nasty unnecessary civilian casulties during that war in no particular order...

• Death of 6 million European Jews by Germany
• Death of 20 million Russian Christians by Germany
• Death of 90% of European Muslims by Germany
• Deaths of unknown millions of Europeans who did not fit "Ayrian" ideals
• Death of millions of Japanese civilians by American Nuclear weapons
• Deaths of many who surrendered to the Japanese
• Deaths of a few million German civilians by British bombings

Nasty stuff happens in wars. Civilians get killed. More civilians are killed every week in Iraq than who died violently on September 11, 2001 in New York.

As long as they don't deny that all sides did do nasty stuff during wars, I don't see why any one group should be put on a pedestal and singled out for special treatment.

'nuff said.

(of course, all opinions are my own)

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

Ah yes gratious guests.

These are Palestenian REFUGEES. And where are they refugees from?

There own homes

50 years ago those people were kicked out of there homes and forced to leave. They have no identity, no home. They aren't citizens of Lebanon.

To put this in perspective how would you feel if someone kicked you out of your home with all of your neighbors and you had no place to go but a neighboring country. You and your neighbors and family members have no home no identity no citezenship and have to live in slum camps for 50 years.

You may not rob a bank, or blow up a building, but your grandson might.

I am Lebanese, and while I understand that you might not be as educated about these issues as I am, or for that matter even care, but I want you to realize that this is a SERIOUS problem, and it is only getting worse with ignorance and neglect. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I believe that ALL people deserve basic human rights.

WHY is this pathetic?

[mlawrence]

Other religions have been ignoring facts for years! Evolution and the thousands of dinosaur bones have been ignored by all the groups that believe a god created the earth 6000 years ago. If anything, maybe this turn of events will open a few more eyes and they will realize just because millions of people believe something doesn't make it true.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

and how the cease-fires are anything but on the paleoswinian side and how israel is mysteriously the only on ever to "break" the cease fire.

What world have you been living in? Palestinian deaths tend to go almost completely unreported unless there are dozens at once. My favorite New-Speak-ish phrase is "A period of relative calm", meaning "only Palestinians are dying".

Of course, thank you for keeping the level of discourse up by your spelling of "Palestinian".

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

...Something about history... Doomed to repeat...I don't know.

Civilization and barbarism

[Anonymous Coward]

You can criticize the west as much as you want... But things are much better in the west than in many non-western countries. And, no, these countries aren't fighting each other since centuries because of the U.S. (this coming from a non-american, non-native english speaker).

For a start, don't even dare to call me "racist": I won't criticize a single race in my post (nor would I ever criticize a single race). This is not a rant about a particular race. It is, however, a rant against a particular view of one monotheist religion. The west shall never bow before a religion that considers women to be inferior beings. The west shall never bow before a religion that considers gay people inferior beings (if you think that it's bad to be gay in the U.S. then cite me one San Fransisco like city in a country populated with a majority of extremist muslims). The west shall never bow before extremists that claim that it is righteous to kill non-believers.

Muslims living in the west better adapt to western principles for western principles will never allow islam's principles to rule the west.

One of the biggest problems the muslims faces is that their religion is quite recent compared to the two other major monoteist religions. There's only one historical reality and it is clear that Jerusalem's history doesn't belong to the muslims. Heck, the historical reality of what happened in Jerusalem predates islam by more than one millenium and a half. They know that very well and it pisses them off in a way you can't imagine.

Once you realize that you understand why the muslims have always hated the jews so much.

The time where we tolerate intolerance is coming to a halt. The recently elected french president made it clear in its campaign that if you want to come live in France you'd better learn and adapt to the western civilization. Barbarism has no place here. Jews hatred has no place here. Turkey is now in wild turmoil due to islamists taking over power. France is now against Turkey joining Europe. People in the western world simply do not want to be ruled by extremists muslims. And they never will. The americas will never turn to a majority of muslims. Russia neither. China neither. Europe and the UK are now waking up.

Recently in germany a judge tried to free some man who beated his wife for "it was normal in his religion". Major fiasco. Overruled. In the UK the parliament will vote law to make teaching of history mandatory wether it displeases some people's little fantasical beliefs or not.

So if islam's views are incompatible with the west muslims living in the west better adapt their islam... For it's not the west that is going to adapt. There's no place for extremists here. Note that apparently there's no much place in Turkey neither, nor in Lebanon (where the regular is fighting extremists as I type this).

No I'm not a woman, no I'm not gay and, no, I'm not a jew. But, yes, members of my family died fighting nazis exterminating jews and gypsies and, yes, if it comes to that, I'll fight to protect women's right, gay people's right, gypsies's right and jews' right.

There's no future for religious extremists. And they know it, which pisses them off even more.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[MightyMartian]

There's nothing like a rabid racist lunatic trying to justify himself in this manner.

The mass murder of the large bulk of European Jewry, which happened during the lifetime of many people still living, is of tantamount importance if you take the teaching of history to be an exercise in educating us as to deeds done and how they can be avoided.

For instance, blaming everything on Zionists was precisely the kind of monstrous ideology that allowed the Nazis to kill so many Jews. By recreating a group of individuals into some sort of dark shadow cult out to take over the world, the Nazis were able to more easily demonize Jews. It's sad that there are still evil little monsters like yourself so happy to ape the discredited notions of Nazi anti-semitism. You do, through your hate, make it clear that teaching about the Holocaust is still of the utmost importance.

Look to yourself for the roots of violence

[spun]

You have been listening to propaganda about Muslims. Have you talked to any? I have, and you are absolutely, 100% wrong. It's the same as if I were to judge all Christians by the actions of a few lunatics who bomb abortions or picket gay funerals. Most Muslims are no different from people anywhere, they just want to live and let live.

I get the sense that you are a person who sees the world in black and white, and who longs for the sense of purpose, moral superiority, and sanctioned violent vengeance that comes from having a demonic enemy. You might want to spend a little more looking inside yourself for the roots of violence and hatred, and a little less time demonizing Muslims.

No one is a protected group. I call people for making fun of the French, too. Demonizing others without cause is wrong, no matter who the "other" is. Including Muslims. Fortunately, society has and will continue to stand up to small minded people who unjustly demonize others. Certain people want all such do-gooders to shut the hell up and stop pointing out what ignorant, bigoted hate-filled people they are, but we will not.

Re:Look to yourself for the roots of violence

[spun]

And you look like someone who has a self image to defend. I mean, if I step on your toes, I must hate you. Or toes. No? But it still hurt anyway? Well I'm sorry then, and I'll try not to step on your toes in the future. Get it?

Just because you have the right to be rude doesn't mean that I have to shut up when you are. I have a right to say that I think you are being rude. Oh, and it's pretty indicative of your personality that you feel the need to post unpopular opinions as an AC. I feel sorry for you, all caught up in your ego-self, thinking your self image is your true self. Sad. Have fun feeling trapped, isolated, and besieged for the rest of your life. And when you die, you lose the game forever. Very, very sad.

Re:Look to yourself for the roots of violence

[spun]

Most people are decent people who don't want to offend others. Now, no one has a right not to be offended. No arguments there, free speech trumps that. But what do you know? I have the right to free speech, too.

You obviously don't understand my point. If I accidentally step on your toes, I have still hurt you. I should apologize, and endeavor not to hurt you again. My motivations are irrelevant.

Individuals do not create themselves. Society creates individuals. As a member of society, I have a shared responsibility for the type of individuals my society creates. You don't realize the impact your innocent jokes can have on people's self esteem, on their view of their place in society, and their understanding of what their options are in the world.

I imagine you style yourself an individualist, and as such, you feel that others are completely responsible for their reactions to your words and actions. You are not responsible if something you say hurts someone, are you? They are just being sensitive. I find that line of thinking reprehensible, and fortunately, so do most of the rest of the humans on this planet.

You are free to say whatever you like, but what you say has consequences.

Re:Look to yourself for the roots of violence

[spun]

No, I don't see hatred, prejudice and insensitivity behind every shadow. Is it possible that some people do not see hatred, prejudice and insensitivity when it actually is there?

I don't want anyone to hide their honest opinions, that is what you want and you are projecting it on to me. You don't want others to express their honest opinions about things that you say or do, you have demonstrated that. You want the right to say anything you like, but you don't want to give anyone else the right to comment on what you said. That is pure hypocrisy.

Please don't blame us!

[tcoder70]

Blame it on the Muslims and you can get away with anything!!! Why should the holocaust offend the Muslims ? They had absolutely nothing to do with it. But its a sad truth that these days that if you blame it on them, you can get away with anything and everything. What the British and the Americans need to focus on is, who wants to forget the holocaust and who wants to tar the muslims with an event of which they had nothing to do with.!! Being a muslim from Pakistan, we saw graphic image of the holocaust on our own Govt. run TV. No denial there. We learnt about it our (so called) third world schools, no denial there, Although not part of the official curriculum, the holocaust was discussed by teachers if it came up, and no denial there either. Please teach if you want, or don't teach of you don't want to, but please don't blame Muslims for this (it just makes us even more Paranoid!)

Re:They do have some cause

[lebow]

If you ask Jews if they think it's okay to blow yourself up with a bomb ... 99.999% will say no.

WRONG!!!

100% will say no, it is against the Jewish religion to kill your self, no mater what the [perceived] benefit to society might be..

Christians (at least in the modern context) similarly don't generally kill somebody just because they refuse to convert to their religion. Things may have been different in historical times (the Inquisition, etc.) but it's not terribly fair to hold that against modern Christians.

Why not ? What have they done to payback all the muslims, jews, and others that they killed on their way to becoming "Modern". Now insted they use monetary incentives to convert impoverished people... this isn't much better..." Look heres the deal, if you abandon you culture, heritage, and religion, I'll give you enough food to live till tomorrow." At least the German government pays reparations to survivors ( This will in no way gain them forgiveness but it is better than nothing)...

With Regards to the Daily Mail

[portforward]

Just so that American readers will know, although many staff writers for the Daily Mail find it to be a steady job, they are in fact peddling stories to various publishing houses so they can get a break and be a paperback writer.

Re:They do have some cause

[MightyMartian]

The reason why modern Christianity has been so thoroughly cuckolded (much to the anger and anguish of men like the Late and Not-So-Great Jerry Falwell) is that the growing power of the nation states grew tired of having churchmen controlling so much of their affairs, and finally castrated European Christianity, permitting it to continue existing providing it kept itself out of the business of state. Nicely enough, a few Enlightenment thinkers came up with a legitimate issue of liberties which also served to justify amputating Christianity's political power. I eagerly await the day when Muslims do the same to their religion.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. The Daily Mail is a hate-filled racist rag at the best of times, this story is most likely a load of complete bollocks.

Don't be tempted to get riled up about it, that's their intention.

This is the same Daily Mail that supported Oswald fucking Mosely, don't forget.

Meanwhile, in other news ....

[PPH]

... US schools drop evolution for fear of offending fundamentalist Christian students.

Meanwhile, school boards consider dropping math and science for fear of offending stupid students.

When will it all stop?

Don't bother

[sycodon]

...citing Snopes. People are too wrapped up in the Fox News/DailMail boogyman.

And, it is amazing anyone should be complaining about a news outlet engaging in selective reporting and overhyping. For AMCCBSNBCCNNMSNBC is is a tried and true business practice.

Re:Don't bother

[Rei]

BREAKING NEWS!

One of the UK's 32,000+ schools thinks that the Holocaust shouldn't be taught!
Details at 11!

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

There is a difference between Judaism and Zionism. If you don't realize this, you're part of the problem.

There are legitimate complaints about the very concept of Zionism (the argument that Jews should immigrate to the Middle East to form a homeland, even if it means displacing the locals).

There is a legitimate argument to be made that Zionism has, quite contrary to its intent, encouraged a new round of antisemitism and made the world less safe for the Jewish people, not more safe.

There are legitimate complaints to be made about how the Israeli government is currently running its foreign policy.

By treating anyone who has any problem with the concept of Zionism or the policies of the state of Israel as being inherently anti-semitic, you're part of the problem, just like those who deny the Holocaust are part of the problem from the other side.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[operagost]

Arabs are considered animals and there blood is not as valuable as Jewish or Western blood.

Have you heard what Arabs say about Jews? You are hideously naiive.

Re:The crusades aren't exactly covered well in sch

[MightyMartian]

How about mentioning the fact that a load of knights got on a ship and decided to go and invade another country and basically try and convert them by the sword, but that we got our asses kicked twice, mainly because we couldn't grasp the skirmish style light cavalry tactics and the amazing accuracy and power of the thumb draw short bow that their horsemen were equipped with (ie out knights often in full plate/chain would get an arrow right through the gaps in the visor)

Except that that is also inaccurate. Let's try to remember here that the impetus for the Crusades was initially Byzantium begging for fellow Christians in the West to save their asses from a hoarde of Muslims out to topple the last vestiges of Christian Rome. If the Muslims think they were treated badly, they should ponder that, at the end of the day, it was the Byzantine *Christians* who ended up getting screwed, first by Muslims, then by Western Christians who "saved" the Holy Land only to set up their own kingdoms, then again by Western Christians who ended up sacking Byzantium and undermining what little power it had left, before finally leaving it to be toppled by the Turks.

Yeah, right

[Master of Transhuman]

"similar problems are being encountered with lessons on the Crusades because these lessons contradict teachings from local mosques."

In other words, since the Muslims aren't listening to the standard Christian belief system that extols the Crusades, there are "problems".

As for the supposed "Holocaust deniers", this is a crap piece. Who put this out? MEMRI? The guys runs by ex-Mossad agents?

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[ccmay]

Arabs are considered animals and there blood is not as valuable as Jewish or Western blood.

There's nothing wrong with Arabs. My cousin is married to a Lebanese Christian, and he and his family are great people. Great food too!

It's the radical Islamists (of all races) that are animals. I hope for speedy martyrdom for all of them. That way, everyone's happy.

-ccm

Holocaust Denial Common in the USA

[SRA8]

Holocaust Denial is common in the USA. Even at my college, people widely denied the Iraqi Holocaust (extermination of 1Million+ iraqi (UN figure) via Bush/Clinton's sanctions.) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions Guess who the loudest deniers were? Conservative organizations.

total shit

[Bizzeh]

this is OLD news, it was on the bbc news site about 2 months ago, and a week later, it was cleared up... NO SUCH THING is going to happen. this is just some journalists day of fame, on a story they have mostly made up.

What's happening in the U.K.?

[TheGreatHegemon]

A couple of months ago, I would have traded living in the U.S. for living in the U.K. any day of the week. But now? Cameras all over the place, the ability to ticket people based off these cameras, lip reading capable cameras, etc. etc. all seem to be popping up in the U.K. now. Now, they're starting to censor history. Europeans always ask the Americans why they don't vote and stop crap like the PATRIOT Act from staying around - now I must ask the same of the British. What's going on?

Back to the Dark Ages

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Back to the Dark Ages when belief took precedence over fact.

As far as I'm concerned if people are offended enough by the teaching of the Holocaust as fact, then they can always immigrate to Iran where they don't have to deal with such things. I'm sure the Iranian or any other government with Sharia Law will embrace their fellow Muslims fleeing Western corruption and oppression with open arms.

Kneejerk leftist trolling.

[sammy baby]

Something... remotely racist... from Fox News...

Oh! Okay, I got something.

O'REILLY: Reluctantly, and I mean reluctantly, "Talking Points" is going to support this legislation. It's the best we can get and does improve the situation. But make no mistake, it's not fair. It drastically alters the United States of America. And there will be unintended consequences all over the place.

The new census report says America's now one-third minority. And in four states -- California, New Mexico, Texas, and Hawaii -- whites are the minority. So with the infusion of as many as 20 to 30 million new citizens in the next 10 years, the landscape of America will absolutely change.

Translation: "Oh no, the brown people are coming!"

And this is from last week.

Re:Kneejerk leftist trolling.

[geekoid]

UM, no. In the example you cite, it is just a list of facts. I don't see one thing the indicates it is fear or bias.

Of course, all quotes out of context are suspicious.

Re:Kneejerk leftist trolling.

[ravenshrike]

Really? And what part of that statement is false exactly? Essentially it's the same damned thing that happens to various neighborhoods when different income-classed people move in. Just on a larger nationwide scale and culturally based.

Daily Mail

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

please don't believe any story in the daily mail, its the worst of the uk newspapers (and they are a bad bunch).

Re:They do have some cause

[my $anity 0]

Don't you realize that holding grudges like this, complaining about what X's people did to us a thousand years ago, is what fueled this whole craptastic issue? Jews were looked down upon partly because some group of Jews a thousand years ago supposedly condemned Jesus. And they used it as an excuse. If we can't forgive the actions of, say, the Catholic Church five hundred years ago, how do you expect us to be able to forgive the actions of Palestinians today, which would be necessary in order to bring about peace? What one person in the Catholic Church of today was in the Catholic Church during the inquisition?

When allowance is NOT good

[Loundry]

Fixed with a reminder: Allowing someone to practice their beliefs is good.

That's not always true. Consider Koran 4:34, for instance:

"Men are meant to be righteous and kind guardians of women because God has favored some more than others and because they [men] spend out of their wealth. In their turn righteous women are meant to be devoted and to guard what God has willed to be guarded even though out of sight of the husband. As for those women on whose part you fear ill-will and nasty conduct, admonish them first, next separate them in beds and last beat them. But if they obey you, then seek nothing against them. Behold, God is most high and great."

Should we allow a muslim man to practice his belief that men are allowed to beat women who do not obey?

What is more important: protecting others' freedom of religion, or protecting women's right to life?

By the way, many millions of Muslim women, in addition to being humiliated by being forced to veil themselves, are beaten by their husbands. It is all completely justified by the Koran. Sad is the plight of the Muslim woman who lives at the mercy of a cruel and misogynistic religion.

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[weighn]

Should we allow a muslim man to practice his belief that men are allowed to beat women who do not obey? I call bullshit on this. There is nothing in your quote that implies this. This passage outlines steps to be taken when a woman is motivated by "ill-will and nasty conduct". Its often dragged out by the Christian extremists who seek to demonstrate that the Koran allows "men to beat women who don't obey them".

There are plenty of Bible passages that are equally incongruent in modern times. Now quit supping on the feral propaganda, get some facts straight and you may find that you have a brain.

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[randyest]

I was impressed that you didn't play the usual "mistranslation" card so often employed to dismiss reports of the incredible sickness in religious texts, including the bible and the koran and the talmud.

But then I read the rest of your post and realized that you're too stupid to use the word "mistranslation."

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[weighn]

I was impressed ... and realized that you're too stupid I guess that makes mine quite a post.

Considering that I have both affected you deeply AND displayed how stupid I am.

But then, this is coming from a user whose last 24 posts have drawn 1 moderation. Pick it up randyest, its clear that you aren't leaving anyone "impressed".

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[shutdown -p now]

Should we allow a muslim man to practice his belief that men are allowed to beat women who do not obey?

We already do that, in the name of multiculturalism.

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[randyest]

Right on! Selective quoting is oh so clever. And forming your posts to garner moderation points is the hallmark of intelligence, because it's so very hard to get a mod point on slashdot. The funny (hypocritical?) thing is that your own post history, upon which you rely on for argumentative strength, includes a whopping two posts upmodded in your most recent 24, both noted as "funny," while my single upmod in my last 24 is "insightful."

And, if moderation points are the indicator of quality, note that your ridiculous (and unmoderated) post is a reply to a post moderated as "insightful." Uh oh. Now what?

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[weighn]

Now what?</i></i></i> my work here is done.

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[Loundry]

We already do that, in the name of multiculturalism.

It's sad to see women's rights get trampled in the name of multiculturalism. I've lost all respect for "progressives" for this reason (among others). That German judge rubbed her ass on the Enlightenment and on women with that abortion of a ruling. May history treat her with merciless justice.

Re:When allowance is NOT good

[randyest]

Haha, indeed; you've shown your fetish for style over substance, for approval over independent thought, for stupidity over intelligence. Now go, mighty warrior of ignorance! Your next task is near at hand, for somewhere someone is actually thinking rationally! Stop them before it's too late!

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[dan828]

There is a legitimate argument to be made that Zionism has, quite contrary to its intent, encouraged a new round of antisemitism and made the world less safe for the Jewish people, not more safe.

A new round of antisemitism? What fucking planet do you live on? Would you care to point out a gap between the "old" antisemitism and the "new" antisemitism? Antizionism is, much of the time, merely antisemitism attempting to be respectable. The "antizionist" propaganda coming from the left wingers is identical to that of the skinheads and neo-nazis, and pretty much looks exactly the same as what was produced by Goebbels.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[Rei]

Gracious "guests" in the tiny fragments that remain of their original homeland, most of them forced into squallid camps.

Oh, that and being killed.

Snippet:

More than 320 civilians were among a threefold increase in the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces last year, according to Amnesty International. The human rights group's 2007 report says that over half of the more than 650 Palestinians killed in 2006 were civilians, 120 of them children and young people under 18. Amnesty defines civilians, "as people that are reasonably supposed never to have been involved in armed operations".

While Amnesty said that dozens of Palestinians were killed in the West Bank it pointed out that most of the increase resulted from aerial and artillery bombardments in Gaza after the abduction of the Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit in late June and in response to increased Qassam rocket fire on Israel. These included, for example, the shelling of a house in the northern town of Beit Hanoun which killed 17 members of the Athamneh family.

The report said 21 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians militants in the same year, the lowest figure since the beginning of the second intifada in 2000.

Religion is like Masturbation

[KlomDark]

Best done in private.

Re:They do have some cause

[giorgiofr]

Don't hold your breath, as long as they have nothing to lose they won't wisen up.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Turkish destruction of Armenian life, 90 years ago?

I was once attacked on Usenet by a revisionist who claimed it was the Armenians who genocided the Turks- and he was complaining to me because my userid at the time "seebert", "sounded armenian". At one point I was getting a half a MB of e-mail EVERY SINGLE DAY from that guy- a lot at a time when my .edu mailbox had a 1MB limit.

brief history lesson

[JonTurner]

>>Maybe they got it out of their systems after slaughtering Muslims and Jews through out the years... See crusades and pogroms..

You are sorely in need of a history lesson. The Crusades occurred only after Muslims took most of Europe under their control; an effort (successful, I might add) to push the invaders (Muslims) back to their lands in the Middle East. (By the way, according to the Koran, once an area has been under Islamic rule it is FOREVER owned by Islam. That's why they're pushing so hard to capture Europe through immigration, according to their beliefs Europe is theirs are YOU are the invader! They are being successful, I will add. There are large slums in France under Sharia law, and the police are simply afraid to confront the residents. Been to Italy or Spain recently? If so, you'd hardly recognise it, compared to thirty years ago.)

>>Judaism and Islam do not consider Darwinism being taught in public schools as a threat to their religious beliefs.
The difference is that Jews do not riot in the streets and murder if someone should wish to choose a different way.

Once you accept Mohammed, there is NO LEAVING ISLAM. The penalty for attempting to leave the faith is death.

You're quite wrong, again. Islam considers ANYTHING other than what is written in the Koran (or interpreted as a fatwa) as a threat to Islam. Do you not remember the riots across Europe and the Middle East, in which many people were murdered, simply due to a few cartoon depictions of Mohammed?
If you do not believe that Muslims take threats to their religion seriously, you are not grounded in reality.

The shame/honor dynamic and tribal alliance is the very heart of Arabic, and in a more general sense, Islamic, culture. If you do not know what this is, I suggest you read "The Closed Circle" by David Pryce Jones.

But look, your mind is made up... there's probably no sense in me even writing this, is there?

Re:brief history lesson

[lebow]

I'm not sure I believe everything I read on wikipedia but...

The Crusades were a series of conflicts of a religious character which occurred in the years 1095-1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom.[1] The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.[2][3]

"The difference is that Jews do not riot in the streets and murder if someone should wish to choose a different way," but Christians do, have you ever heard of pogroms, or witch hunts, or the spanish inquisition ( ok that one isn't such a riot in the street).

Now I may be uninformed, I don't follow the news and politics so much, but I have yet to hear of Muslims being upset by the teaching of Darwinisms in public schools. One might say that the cartoon of their profit wasn't a threat to their religious beliefs but rather an insult.

Look, I don't need to read any book about middle eastern cultures, I live here... where the threat of Muslim violence is much more real than where you are sitting ( I assume that because you mentioned that you needed a book to understand arab culture). It [violence] is for sure a problem, and I want it to go away more than you do, but I'm not buying all the "Christianity is so much more civilized" propaganda.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A new round of antisemitism?

The difference being the people involved. The old antisemitics largely had no evidence other than racism. Antizionists on the other hand have friends and family, or themselves, who have been kicked out of their homes and regulated to ghetto life in the West Bank, Golan Heights, or the Gaza Strip. Some of them aren't even Muslims, but Christians- it's amazing the zionist racism that has gone on in Bethleham of all places.

Re:teaching the Holocaust is being made *compulsor

[MightyMartian]

Perhaps you would be good enough to point me towards any other event in human history where the mass-murder of an entire ethnic group was organized into a branch of the nation state in which it occured, where a fully-functioning government bureaucracy oversaw the seizure of property, the effective imprisonment of the ethnic group throughout most of a continent, the building and maintaining of factories to kill and dispose of the bodies of that ethnic group, hell, even laying down railroad tracks to make easier the large-scale moving and murder of the very large part of that ethnic group.

Yes, there have been other genocides, though I can't think of any that approached the Holocaust in numbers (the Turkish massacre of the Armenians and Rwanda come closest), but I can't think of another genocide that was quite so efficient and calculating. The Armenian genocide by the Turks was probably the only one that I can think of that comes close as far as official state involvement, but even the Turks went out of their way to try to hide out, and deny it to this day. The Germans made damn little secret of what they were doing.

The number of people murdered during the Holocaust is only a part of what makes this probably one of the most chilling mass murders in history. It's the very nature of the campaign that's probably the most startling. Anti-semitic pogroms had been occuring in Europe for centuries, but never before had science, engineering and the organs of state been united for the goal of destroying an entire ethnic group.

Re:They do have some cause

[Yaztromo]

Nicely enough, a few Enlightenment thinkers came up with a legitimate issue of liberties which also served to justify amputating Christianity's political power. I eagerly await the day when Muslims do the same to their religion.

You haven't been paying attention to what has been going on in Turkey lately, have you?

• Turkey protests draw thousands
• Turks rally to support secularism

Indeed, the day Turkish Muslims did what you're asking was originally back in 1924.

The problem here is that Muslims aren't just of the jihadist type you see on the news. Islam is practised world-wide, and not just in Palestine, Iran, and Iraq. At the same time, there is no Muslim equivalent of Catholicisms' Pope -- there is no one, central leader which dictates docterine.

Yes, radical Muslim fundamentalists are a problem -- but then again so are radical fundamentalists of every religion. While Muslim Turks are fighting en-masse to protect their countries secular system, there are Christian fundamentalists in the US trying to erode their own secular society.

Yaz.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Hitler

[DannyHaszard]

Holocaust Dropped From Some UK Schools Slashdot - 33 minutes ago Actually, Hitler was quoted as saying that he was going to exterminate Jehovah's Witnesses, too. Oddly enough, JW's were the only group given the ---------- Jehovah's Witnesses and Nazi 'persecution' With all due respect for Holocaust victims,you should know that the Watchtower corporation needs to use their heroism to exalt their cult,that has consumed and defrauded millions of followers. For the record it is true that Jehovah's Witnesses will not fight for their country and they didn't fight 'against' Hitler either.They were interned in Nazi concentration camps that were then liberated by young allied men who died to set them free. Note:JW's didn't support the Allies either and despise the same governments that protect their freedoms.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

Read up on history. Nowadays, you see a person protesting in front of a synagogue (we got one here recently), and it's like, "what cave did you crawl out of?" Yet, antisemitism used to be completely mainstream. Remember Henry Ford, who published a book, "The International Jew: The Worlds Foremost Problem"? And he was widely respected! Yet, he was hardly the only one. Around America and across Europe, anti-semitism was the de-facto standard. It's a sad part of the reason why the increasing violence against Jews in Germany wasn't taken very seriously, and why "Save the Jews" was never a rallying cry for the war, to say the least.

You see the opposite thing in the Middle East. Some of the world's oldest Jewish populations exist in the Middle East, where they, while being a minority and occasionally suffered for it, but only rarely got the same sort of persecution that middle ages, European Jews had to suffer. It remained this way largely up until the 1930s, when the influx of foreign Jews into Palestine and the spawning of Jewish terror groups and militias, culminating in al-Nakhba, led to a violent level of antisemitism in the Middle East. This, in turn, led to most Arab countries likewise pressuring their Jewish populations out, turning a slow Zionist trickle into a major exodus. Many of these Jews migrated to Israel, which increased the strains with Israel's neighbors, and so forth.

I can go into more detail with more modern history if you'd like, but you're probably well aware of the world (outside America)'s increasing dissatisfaction with Israel's foreign policy.

Re:They do have some cause

[MightyMartian]

Turkey is a pretty a-typical Muslim state, and was long before the fall of the Ottomans. Its proximity to Europe and its sizable non-Muslim minorities have long set it apart. It's no accident that many Turks see themselves as being more aligned with Europe than with the Islamic world. It was this Westward gaze of the Turks which in fact spawned the first modern Islamic fundementalist movement; Wahabism, which was initially formulated in Arabia in reaction to the view that the Ottoman Empire was a decadent institution that no longer was run by or represented Islamic views.

Read TFA closely. This story is complete BS

[wilson_c]

Based on TFA, the story isn't credible. The study, which is never named, is said to investigate what is broadly (and very vaguely) described as '"emotive and controversial" history'. No date of release for the study is ever given. Study authors are not named. Schools are not named.

The claims made are:

-"...secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework". The GCSE is a standardized test taken at the end of regular secondary education. Does anyone expect the holocaust to be covered by such a test?

-"In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils." How pervasive and menacing can this problem be if it isn't even universal policy within a single school?

-"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques." If this motivation is true, then it deserves criticism, but I wonder what exactly might be said in favor of the Crusades if the mosques had no input? My education had no muslim influences (in fact much of it was at Christian schools), yet I was taught that the only good thing about the crusades was that ignorant Europeans were exposed to Arab civilization which led to them bringing back the seeds of the Renaissance to Europe. Am I missing something?

-"A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'." Umm...yet again, the school apparently DOESN'T cave in, despite being "strongly challenged" by Christian(!) parents. Hmmm...strange that the article's headline blames this all on muslims.

I think it's telling that no historians or educators are quoted in the piece. Atypically for a story with a headline like this, there was no reaction quote from anyone in the Jewish community of Britain (the world's 5th largest at approx. 275,000).

The only government official quoted in the piece is "Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government". This man has nothing to do with the study. He's been out of that position for 10 years. It's not even clear whether he's responding to the study itself or to a reporter's quick summary of something he hadn't heard of before. It's even possible that the quote was lifted completely from a completely different context and could have been made many years ago.

Finally, the two paragraphs at the end of the story point towards the study really being about pedagogy and not about the putative topic of political correctness affecting curriculum.

Conservative British newspapers have a long history of doing this sort of nonsense. They will find an isolated case of something outrageous and imply that it applies to the general. Or they will distort a story. Or they will outright make up baseless facts to anger their readers and bolster support for their political position (there is a decade long history of these papers printing bogus stories about EU laws that erode British sovereignty and destroy British tradition). These type of stories all make claims that any reasonable person would be angered by, but the details - when you can find them - seldom bear the stories out.

Re:Time to legislate the separation of church + st

[MightyMartian]

The Establishment Clause has been for a very long time seen as a direct statement of separation. Jefferson himself pretty much confirmed that in other writings:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Re:Of course Holocaustianity is offensive to Musli

[MightyMartian]

Holocaust promotion is a significant enabling factor in Jewish ethnic cleansing of the Arab world, and is frequently used to shield or justify Israeli war crimes.

What an absurd statement. Palestine is not the entirety of the Arab world. In fact, it's only the tiniest fraction. It's precisely this kind of rhetoric which pretty much indicates just how far from reality you really are. Give it up. You're talking gibberish and lies. The truth of the Holocaust is undisputed whatever your feelings on Israel. I think everyone, Muslim, Christian or whatever, ought to be shown the attrocities of Nazi Germany, so that when truly vile and idiotic statements like this one come up, they can be quickly recognized and refuted.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

Well I am Arab and don't wish any harm or malice towards Jews. and as to what "Arabs say about Jews" you are just illustrating and reenforcing a stereotype. Now I won't argue that some Arabs do make statements against Jews, however there are also Christians who make statements against Jews, as well as Jews who are racist against Arabs or Blacks or Mexicans. Racism may focus on one ethnicity but itself can originate from all ethnicities.

Here is an example about something that is going on today.

Sacha Cohen famous for Borat and Ali G is jewish. Now I think he is a great comedian and extremely talented. However one thing that does bother me is Borat. He essentially is a jewish man dressing up and acting "like an arab" talking about how he "Hates the jews" and "Where are your horns jew" etc. etc.

Now if a white person painted himself black and went around doing movie about how "Crackas are takin' over, why can't a black man get a job etc. etc.". What do you think the reaction would be in the states?

The whole point of my original post was to illustrate this bias, and hope that one day ALL of these racial issues can be addressed and hopefully one day be extinguished. But unfortunately that won't happen unless people realize that we are all on this planet together, and EVERYONE deserves basic human rights.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[phozz bare]

Actually, I'd like to invite you to a challenge.

On Monday evening a Qassam missile fell in Sderot, killing a woman. Please, find me one single headline, in any non-Israeli newspaper, that mentioned this.

Comedians are cowards

[Crazy Taco]

Christianity is an openly mocked religion, the butt of countless punchlines on late night TV.

I wonder how much of the mocking of Christianity on late night TV stems from the fact that Christianity really is a religion of peace, and everyone, including the late night TV hosts, knows it? A comedian can constantly make fun of Christianity without fear of reprisal, whereas saying anything about Islam can cause a fatwa (religious edict) to be issued calling for your death (just ask Salman Rushdie, author of the Satanic Verses, who had to go into hiding for years after a cleric in Iran issued a fatwa against him). Just publishing a cartoon about the prophet Mohammed can cause worldwide protests, rioting in every Muslim country, bombings, beheadings, beatings, arson, and all the rest. Just look at all the months of rioting that went on ALL OVER THE WORLD after one Danish newspaper published a few cartoons about the prophet Mohammed. That's certainly not peaceful.

Just looking at the facts as they stand now, I think we can make the following conclusions.

1. Christianity, whether you personally believe in it or not, is a religion of peace, as evidenced by the lack of a violent response to the constant mocking it recieves everywhere.
2. Late night comedians are cowards, because they only attack the religions they know won't hurt them.
3. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Of course there are some Muslims who are peaceful, but Islam, as practiced today by the vast majority of Muslims, is clearly not a religion of peace. If the majority were peaceful, there is no way you could have violent riots for months in the Muslim countries of the world over a cartoon. If the majority were peaceful, you wouldn't have 20% of Muslims in even a secular country like the United States believing suicide bombings are acceptable.
4. Islam is NOT a religion that supports free speach. Again, there are some Muslims that do, of course, but Islam as a whole does not support it. Months long riots in every Muslim country over a few cartoons published in a small newspaper in a small country halfway around the world? I rest my case.

And just to pre-empt the argument that someone will no doubt make saying that the Crusades prove Christianity is a violent religion: I would like to point out that during the timeperiod when the Crusades happened, the following facts were true:

1. Almost no one, including the common people, could read, and
2. even if they could, there were almost no Bibles to read, as the printing press hadn't been invented yet.

The fact is, the common people had no way whatsoever to find out what Christ really said, what Christianity was really about, etc. All they could go on was what others said. And unfortunately, a deceitful, power hungry pope told them killing Muslims was the way to go to heaven. How were they to know any different? That's what the pope said, that's what the powerful nobility were saying, so of course they went out to fight on a Crusade. Of course, the Bible actually says exactly the opposite, so now that people can actually read it you don't see them calling for Crusades. Compare that to the situation in Muslim states today where the ability to read and the availability of Kuran's are commonplace. They all read the Kuran and still strap bombs to their chest. Just looking at this situation makes it clear that the argument that "Christianity is just as violent as Islam because of the Crusades" simply doesn't hold water. It is a completely invalid comparison.

Re:Comedians are cowards

[miskatonic alumnus]

I wonder how much of the mocking of Christianity on late night TV stems from the fact that Christianity really is a religion of peace, and everyone, including the late night TV hosts, knows it?

What about the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, Inquisition, Witch-Trials, etc? George Bush claims to be a Christian, right? Then why all the war in the Middle East? Whatever happened to forgiving and turning the other cheek? For a "Christian Nation", the U.S. sure devotes a lot of resources to making war. Christianity is peaceful in theory, but not in practice.

Re:Comedians are cowards

[kalaf]

They all read the Kuran and still strap bombs to their chest. Just looking at this situation makes it clear that the argument that "Christianity is just as violent as Islam because of the Crusades" simply doesn't hold water. It is a completely invalid comparison.

How about the argument that modern day Christians in your nation (I'm assuming you're American) shoot abortion doctors? That's about equal to suicide bombers in violence, although perhaps a little lacking in personal dedication to the cause... One could also mention the IRA as another fairly high profile example, although I'm led to believe that situation is improving.

Every movement that really believes what it is doing is right and what others are doing is wrong is going to attract crazy people that take the conviction a little too far. That's not just reserved for the religious. Heck, just take a look at extreme left wing organizations like PETA or Green Peace...

Nope

[dharbee]

You most certainly can use an apostrophe when pluralizing.

In this case "Nazi" is an abbreviation, for which an apostrophe is acceptable.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsp elling/pizza

However, in order to deflect the inevitable pedantry to follow, there is a lack of consensus on this issue.

Re:Nope

[Bastard of Subhumani]

So what is "pizza" an abbreviation of? Or is that link totally pointless? The word "nazi" indeed started out as an abbreviation but it's become an acceptable word in its own right. There is no need for the apostrophe.

Re:Nope

[dharbee]

From the pointless link

"An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:

      1. in the plurals of single letters:
            There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
            Mind your p's and q's.
            (Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)

      2. in the plurals of abbreviations:
            We have several pg's [paying guests].
            We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
            (But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs)."

"The word "nazi" indeed started out as an abbreviation..."

Thank you for admitting I was right. Is an apostrophe necessary? No, but it is ACCEPTABLE, as the pointless link shows.

Re:Nope

[dharbee]

"You never use an apostrophe to signify a plural, except possibly maybe perhaps in some cases if it's a single, lower-case letter (like "a's"), but even that isn't good english"

I'm sorry, but your link is wrong, as it leaves out numbers (6's) and words that refer to themselves (you have 5 and's in that sentence).

And frankly, pretending there is anything remotely approaching a consensus on this is futile.

Re:Nope

[Planesdragon]

And frankly, pretending there is anything remotely approaching a consensus on this is futile. No, not really.

We are FAR better off simply saying "Don't use an apostrophie like that." "6s" is better than "my two car's".

Re:Nope

[dharbee]

"No, not really."

Wow, very insightful. It's nice to know I can expect such high quality commentary here.

Yes, really. There is no consensus, and no, your opinion doesn't change that.

You are wrong.

Re:Nope

[Bastard of Subhumani]

"The word "nazi" indeed started out as an abbreviation..." Thank you for admitting I was right.

I didn't. As you're so obviously an expert on grammar you'll no doubt understand what tenses are. They differentiate when an action takes place. Hence you have a concept of time and ought to be aware that "started out as" != "is".

Is an apostrophe necessary? No, but it is ACCEPTABLE

Maybe it's acceptable to people who want to write like greengrocers. But if you don't want to look like a gibbon who thinks an apostrophe is an advance warning that an "s" is coming, you'd do better to leave it out and avoid the ambiguity.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

[blockquote}They weren't kickout out of their homes, you ignoramus.[/blockquote]

1. Yes they were - 2. Becuase I stand up for an opressed people I am called names.... Ridiculous

Millions of other Palestinians live as refugees in other Arab countries (as well as one million in Israel proper), after fleeing wars in 1948 and 1967. According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) and subsequent resolutions, these refugees have the right to return to their homes, or to be compensated for their losses. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert indicated that refugees might be allowed to return to a future Palestinian state, even his "best offer" refused all the right to return to homes in Israel itself.

here is the source link
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/pa lestine/

And here is some background about globalexchance.org

  Global Exchange is a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world. Since our founding in 1988, we have successfully increased public awareness of root causes of injustice while building international partnerships and mobilizing for change.

Re:Deny everything

[wsanders]

Well, I think the related theory of PC is really like this:

If The Man says it happened, then it must not be true. I meet people who smoke, and deny that smoking can hurt them, because The Man says it's bad for them.

There is a difference between "ignoring" and "denying" the Holocaust. There's every indication that our Modern World is capable of perpetuating new state-sponsored holocausts of equal or larger scale that will cause the Holocaust of 1938 - 1945 to fade into obscurity. That particular Holocaust, two hundred years from now, could very well be ignored by history schoolteachers in the interests of expediency.

As for "denying": It used to be that only one kind of person "denied" the Holocaust, the person who wished Jews dead. But now it's fashionable to "deny" the Holocaust because evidence of the Holocaust is presented by The Man.

Beware, haters of The Man - you are known by the company you keep.

MINOR CORRECTION BEFORE I GET BLASTED

[binary paladin]

Dammit. If you WEREN'T personally a victim... dammit. That's what I meant.

I know, I know. I should have used the preview button.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[LynnwoodRooster]

Great - so if Israel pulls out of the West Bank - it's already out of Gaza - then the PLO and Hamas will stop the attacks? If Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders - set up by the Left's favorite institution, the UN - then Iran will make peace with Israel? Jews will be allowed to travel inside Saudi Arabia?

Having been over there - on BOTH sides - a few times, I damn well feel a lot more free and welcomed in Israel than I do in SA or Jordan.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

I am Lebanese too, and yes the food is AWESOME. Jewish food is just as AWESOME in my opinion (I LOVE MATZAH). I agree that radical islam is dangerous, however the United States and Britain want to solve those problems with violence and it is only making it easier for radical islam to recruit. If people are educated about the history of the region and the culture and realize that there is prejudice and racism on both sides then we can take the steps to fix these problems. I want Israeli children to be able to get on the bus without a bomb going off, and I want Palestenians to have human rights, access to water, And a chance at a decent economy. But none of that will be possible unless people realize what happend in the past and make steps to correct these injustices.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Seebert" sounds Armenian? LOL.

Dutch, maybe. North German, maybe. It's pretty Baltic!

You found a loony - who thinks that is similar to "Sebarovian".

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

Gee, that was easy. Enough hits for you? Most of them refer to this event.

Now, my turn. On May 10th, Maha Katouni, a 30 year old woman, was in her 7th month of pregnancy. Rising in the middle of the night to confort her children as the IDF assaulted Nablus, she was shot in the abdomen by soldiers of the Nahal patrol battalion, stationed on the roofs of adjacent buildings. Her unborn son, who she planned to name Daoud (after an uncle who had been killed by the IDF), was killed as the bullet passed through her intestines, his brain, and exited out her back. After a 45 minute wait for the ambulance to be allowed permission to approach, she was rushed to the Rafidiya government hospital in Nablus -- a 168 bed hospital with 380 staff members, of which only about 20 beds are filled and a third of the staff present due to the checkpoints and economic boycotts. The ambulance was stopped by soldiers twice on the way back to the hospital. She barely survived.

How many articles do you find on her?

Oh, wait, let me guess. She was really a terrorist, and she was arming her fetus. No, wait, even better: despite the IDF controlling the rooftops around her, some secret terrorists groups snuck up behind them and shot past them to hit her, right? Or even better.... she shot *herself* to frame the IDF, right?

By the way -- I realize that *you* may not make such silly claims; however, I've heard even worse by people who ridiculously out of their way to defend the IDF against all responsibility.

...applied elsewhere...

[Xodmoe]

How many US schools teach the full history of the US army genocide of native american indians? Do they talk about how the cavilry would ride in to an indian village and shoot anyone they saw, women and children preferably? Burn whole villages? Slaughtering whole nations? Round up the rest and put them in concentration camps (called reservations)? The history has been toned down A LOT in most US schools, to the extent that if it is mentioned at all, it's just Custer's last stand.

Compare the above with the treatment (mis-treatment) of Britons and Picts by the Romans and later by the English when they occupied a portion of Britain.

...or that of the English et al when the Normans took over after Hastings.

...insert your own comments regarding the Battle of The Boyne here.

History really does repeat itself in rhythm.

As for US schools in my own experience, they didn't get to the part about slaughtering nations or burning villages until after high school. ...too busy taking all those test prep courses.

Can we get along...? - Rodney King

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

how about the The New York Times, or do you not consider NYT a "non-Israeli" newspaper? The The San Francisco Gate picked up the same article.

What the hell was your point?

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Close. I don't remember his name now- but he was so famous on usenet he had his own alt.fan group.

He was a real looney- most of the e-mails I got were carbon copies of one another.

Re:Flame Bait (Bring it on!)

[Bloke down the pub]

But if a muslim asks that a historically factual event be removed because they "don't believe" it ever happens, we comply! Where's the ACLU on that?

On the wrong side of the Atlantic, old boy.

-1 Moderator didn't get it

[Lord Bitman]

I've personally always found it fascinating that the people who deny the holocaust seem to the ones most likely to be in favor of it.
I see their reasoning as probably being along the lines of "I refuse to believe that somebody killed all those jews and didn't make damn sure they finished the job!"

Maybe it's: "Jewish people say it happened, all jews are liars, therefor it must not have."

I don't know, I never understand people. Can anyone explain it to me?

Re:-1 Moderator didn't get it

[Lord Bitman]

Do I believe that every story about the Holocaust is true? Of course not.
Does that mean "A thing which has the label 'holocaust' did not occur"? Of course not.

I like to think that I've given both sides equal amounts of not-much-time, and I still think putting jews into camps and working/starving them to death is bad, specific "omg! they killed him and then did what to the body!?" veracity not being important enough to look into.

Re:teaching the Holocaust is being made *compulsor

[MightyMartian]

Slavery is a separate crime from genocide. I'm not saying it's better or worse, but the analogy is faulty, and I simply don't accept the conclusions you draw from it. And yes, I think both slavery and the Holocaust ought to be taught in schools, if for no other reason than to inform students of the kinds of depravity that humans can practice, and how they can rationalize those depravities, and how we all can recognize when similar rationalizations are used to defend the indefensible.

Or, in short, to teach the *lessons* of history.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

If Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders recognizes east Jerusalem as its capital, and works with the Palestinian government to return refugees back to Palestine and compensate those that were living in Israel proper and with the help of the world establishes a self sustaining economy in that nation then YES. I know it is a lot, but great changes for world peace and progress never are easy.

Radical Islam picks up the Palestenian agenda because it is an easy way to garner recruits, funding etc. Take away Palestenian cause and Radical islam will lose A LOT of steam, and the U.S. relations would dramatically improve if the U.S. is agressively working with the Palestenian goverment to achieve financial stability.

Enemies are only seen as enemies when they have hostile tendencies. To Arabs: America, Britain, and Israel look like Bullies attacking the Arab world. The Palestenian Crisis, The Israeli-Lebanon War, The War in Iraq, Afghanistan, Talk now of attacking Iran/Syria. It looks as though the U.S. and Britain want to kill all Arabs. Even before Sept. 11th Arabs felt that the U.S. was biast and racist. The recent U.S. policies in the Middle East have only reenforced that belief, and sadly fueled the flames for radical islam.

I am sorry that you didn't feel welcome in SA or Jordan. Biast and Racism go both ways, and hopefully if enough education is brought over to the states and they take the first step in repairing the damage we can start to unravel this mess.

The first step is Palestine.

The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian had story

[Raisey-raison]

The allegations were already repeated in The Times in April. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education /article1600686.ece
The Guardian also reported it: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2 048161,00.html
They were also repeated in the Telegraph in April http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2007/04/02/nschools02.xml
Look also at the Evening Standard in April http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2339118 8-details/Teachers+drop+the+Holocaust+to+avoid+off ending+Muslims/article.do
The BBC also report on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/65173 59.stm

The purpose of teaching about the Holocaust is not to let it happen again. It is precisely those who have antisemitic cultural influences (some Muslims) who need to know about it the most. It's precisely the people who get the most offended who need to hear about it the most. Secondly, history is about learning uncomfortable truths - indeed this is part of what it means to receive an education. If you never feel uncomfortable while learning, you probably aren't doing it.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Ahhhh.... Google Groups:

Serdar Argic

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thanks- yes, Serdar Argic. Boy that's a long time ago that I wrote that- and my standard defense of the Crusades hasn't changed to this day (that post was written *before* I realized what date he was talking about).

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[bob.appleyard]

No Semites to speak of in Khazakstan, (mostly Turkic) but your point still kind of stands.

A brief discourse

[hey!]

on various forms of ad hominen fallacies.

All of the various forms of ad hominem fallacies are fallacies of distraction. So if the Daily Mail says "Muslim girls should not be allowed to wear head scarves," it would be a distraction to reply, "Well, that's just a hate mongering, right wing rag." Because the hate mongering, right wing nature of the Daily Mail has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether muslim girls should, or should not wear the hejab.

On the other hand, if we are evaluating the credibilty of a factual assertion made by the Daily Mail, the character of that source is in fact relevant. If the source has a demonstrable bias, or as in this case a stated intention to present information in a biased manner, then this is highly relevant to the question.

So, to sum up:
(1) It is invalid thinking to dismiss a conclusion based on the character of some person holding it, but
(2) It is prefectly valid to question facts or evidence cited by a source with a known bias.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Hey, don't forget speedbump, or Grubor.

Interesting

[Malevolyn]

What about Christian students and the Big Bang?

We...

[wpiman]

deny the genocide taking place currently in Palestine, why is that any worse than denying on that happened 65 years ago?

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[masterhibb]

Now if a white person painted himself black and went around doing movie about how "Crackas are takin' over, why can't a black man get a job etc. etc.". What do you think the reaction would be in the states?

Really, I don't think that has to do so much with a devaluation or demonization of Arabs, so much as the eggshells Americans must walk on when discussing Black people and culture. I guess you could say Blacks are just a "more protected" class.

If you need an example, check out Dave Chapelle. He often dresses in "whiteface" on national television for his comedy routines, and he enjoys a quite favorable reputation in the public eye. Meanwhile, white students are expelled from their schools for dressing in blackface at private parties.

I understand what you're saying, but America's full of double standards. I'm not sure that's the best analogy.

Re:teaching the Holocaust is being made *compulsor

[MightyMartian]

I don't agree with that. Early on in the anti-Semitic campaign, the Nazis were using Jews as slave labor, but where the Holocaust and American slavery depart is what happened late in the game. Slavery's face didn't change all that much, save that as the British Empire clapped down on the international aspects of the trade, slave economies in the Americas no longer had a new supply. The Holocaust changed drastically after WWII began. Before the war, it was the segregation, enslavement and negligent behavior of the Jews under Nazi Germanies control, but after that it became a campaign of directed, thoughtful, planned murder with the central theme not being the enslavement of Jews or their mass deportation, but to wipe out European Jewry down to the very last man, woman and child.

Most historians and sociologists that I've read agree on this critical point. It wasn't that lots of members of a specific ethnic group were mass relocated or ultimately murdered that set the Holocaust apart. There were historical precedents (and probably even inspirations for the Nazis). The African-American slave trade, the genocide of the American Indians (though it's still debated how much was intentional as opposed to being the product of other policies on colonizing the Americas) and the very clearly similar genocide of Turkish Armenians during WWI all come to mind as large-scale crimes. From what I've read, and the opinion I've formed, what sets the Holocaust apart was the sheer amount of planning and bureaucratic effort put into the campaign against the Jews. The Nazi propaganda machine took what was really a disjointed series of notions, some very old prejudices (the stereotypical Jewish money-lender aka Shylock), some newer pseudo-scientific (19th century race theories) and political notions (anti-Zionism, the Jew as a traitor to his fellow countrymen) and truly united them into a single comprehensive form of anti-Semitism. From that was drawn both the propaganda and ultimately a bureaucratic machine whose sole purpose was to kill every Jew within the Nazi sphere of influence. It was planned with the same efficiency and regard to detail that one would find in Nazi economic planning. History simply does not have a lot of examples of this kind of mass-murder. It's not quite unique, and yet it's not quite like anything seen before.

You are under the thumb though

[Snaller]

Given way to religious fanatics far to many times.

Repression vs. Submission

[LionMage]

Maybe it's just that you don't know about repression (english translation of the arabic word "islam").

Far be it from me to defend anything about Islam, but... my understanding is that "Islam" means "submission," as in "submission to God's will." Of course, this is unpalatable to me for several reasons (not the least of which is the implication that the relationship between God and Man is one of Master and slave), but "repression" and "submission" are two different things.

Repression is what someone in a position of authority does to you (whether that's secular authority or religious authority; even self-imposed repression is typically carried out in service to someone else's ideology), and submission is something that you do yourself (whether that submission is voluntary or externally forced). Of course, one can lead to the other.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[CommunistHamster]

and why "Save the Jews" was never a rallying cry for the war, to say the least.

The other reason for this is that, during WWI, the British government used "Save the french/dutch/etc nuns" with graphic stories and posters about the vile Hun raping and killing the nuns. After the war, this was found to be a lie, and so further use of the tactic for recruitment during WW2 would have been met with "Yeah, sure the Jews are being gassed"

"Holocaust denial" a "belief" ?

[unity100]

Get real.

those muslim kids are not doing it out of "belief" but out of brainwashing done by middle eastern sourced radical islamist movements and even middle eastern countries themselves out of hatred for jews. and thats that. no need to mention one of them goes as far as to call the israel state a state to be exterminated, and jew people as source of evil and so on. rest are not too different.

so how come that is a "belief" ? there was no "holocaust" subject or order in islam in year 580AD, neither there was anything even at the time mohammad died.

so thats a new, political thing and should not be tolerated. noone can tolerate choosing to "believe" burning of 3.5 people in furnaces after being poisoned as "nonexistent". no one.

Re:Not effective in Africa?

[Vicissidude]

The closest example of colonization in Africa was what, South Africa? Even today, that country is 79% black African and 9.6% white. The indigenous people rule and are the vast majority. That's hardly the same as what happened in the Americas or Australia, which were both geographically isolated.

The UK government sucks. Dont we know this already

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Its no surprise. This is where America is heading as well. We'll soon become the police state that is England.

We're well on our way.

Fuck muslims, and Fuck Jews. Fuck Condy Rice in her black ass, and Fuck George W Bush for being a white rich son of a bitch, and Fuck Jesus for letting GW use his name.

Fuck us all. We're too stupid to realize that we do it to ourselves.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[myowntrueself]

They weren't kickout out of their homes, you ignoramus. They left of their own accord because they couldn't stand the thought of living in a Jewish state.

Slightly disengenuous...

Had they stayed in Israel they would have had to give up any claim to being a people -- officially (in Israel) the line goes something like this:

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian; they are *Arabs* and should be happy to live anywhere in the Arab world. Since Israel isn't part of the Arab world they arn't happy to live there..."

There are no Palestinians living legally in Israel as citizens -- only Israeli *Arabs*.

Its a very subtle and insidious form of genocide; pretend that an entire people simply does not exist.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[ccmay]

To Arabs: America, Britain, and Israel look like Bullies attacking the Arab world.

So why don't we get any credit when we attack Christian Serbs to protect Muslim Albanians?

Why do we get no kudos for resisting Russian aggression in Afghanistan (and potentially Turkey and Iran and Pakistan too) during the Cold War?

Why does nobody in the Arab world seem to think it was worthwhile to remove Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the death of more Arabs than any other single leader in all of history?

Why do the Saudis and Kuwaitis give us no love for saving them from Hussein?

Why do the Somalis turn on us when we spill out our blood and treasure to help them restore peace and order to their shitty little country, where we have absolutely no economic or strategic interests worth mentioning?

Why is there no respect for the positive role America played in the Suez crisis? Or the Camp David agreements? Or Oslo?

Really, there is some dark and paranoid corner of the Arab mind that seems to remember only insults and grudges. I wonder if this can ever be overcome.

-ccm

Re:Maha Katouni

[joshzweig]

However unfortunate that is, when terrorists operate out of densely packed civilian areas, things like this are bound to happen, at which point the Israelis are condemned as monsters. If the Palestinians ceased their activities of launching Qassam rockets at Israeli civilians from their heavily populated towns, they would not be putting their own civilians at risk when the IDF retaliates to ensure their own people's protection.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[cjdkoh]

Perhaps the logic is that if we don't teach it, then we cannot possible repeat it?

Re:teach both..

[Omestes]

What is 'fact' depends a lot on your perspective. To some, Iraq is being liberated. To others, the infidels have moved in, and are performing atrocities. The truth lies somewhere between.

You misuse the term 'fact' here, what you mean instead is 'interpretation of fact', the fact is that the American military is involved in Iraq, the interpretation can be "atrocity" or "liberation". The fact that we are in Iraq is not open to interpretation, you cannot say that we are not, but you can say what this means. Facts are data points backed by evidence, thats it, or more so "true statements about the world".

My grandfather was at Auschwitz (as an American soldier), and I trust him. Many survivors are still alive today, who saw attrocities. There is documentary proof (videos from the liberation, contemporary statements by witnesses and survivors, etc...), taken all together you can make a damn strong inductive claim that the holocaust was indeed a fact.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I never ran into them personally- but the only person as bad as Serdar I ever ran into was Carlos, the dispensationalist self-racist hater. He was always posting on the Catholic groups about how the King James Bible was all you needed for salvation- and how his own "mud race" was so evil to be Catholic.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

I agree my example might not be the best one, and the Dave Chappelle analogy you cited is good. You obviously get what I am saying.

Perhaps the real problem is that there are no positive Arab roll models to counter balance how Arabs are portrayed. I guess maybe Aladin is all we got. oh yeah Tony Shalhoub.. So Tony Shalhoub and Aladin. A ten year old disney movie and a comedy on USA. Well there is hope at least. I am just very concerned about the portrayal of Arabs in the American media, and that it will start to influence the social schemas of Americans into thinking Arabs are "evil"/bad.

As an Arab american it just is really disheartening to see the only pictures of Arabs in the media are terrorist videos, Arabs after a military attack, and terrorist characters on shows like 24. And no I don't think there is this "Jewish media conspiracy" just a media that doesn't realize the effects this is having on people.

Matussek: German-British relations

[harmonica]

Exactly. The man's name is Thomas Matussek, here's a text of his: http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/storyid.aspx?Sto ryId=3315
More stories on the topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,17811 40,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/wunderbar/0,1518, 359568,00.html (in German)

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[spuzzzzzzz]

it's amazing the zionist racism that has gone on in Bethleham of all places.

Can you give any references? IIRC, Bethlehem has been under Palestinian Authority control since the Oslo Accords. From a quick search on google, the only evidence of religious strife I can find is a tension between the local Christian and Muslim communities (which has seen the Christian population drop from ~80% to ~15% in 60 years).

incredibly sad...

[EdelFactor19]

I wasn't aware that a pure fact could be offensive. No one is asking them to like it, they have to learn it. England isn't an Islamic country, and should stand up for its own sense of pride and history. It starts with one European power falling and then the rest...

i feel like being in england, they were close enough to the war to know that for a fact it happened. Not teaching for fear of offending them is stupid and shortsighted. What if someone's beliefs include that 2+2 != 4; can you no longer teach math because they find it offensive?

Furthermore they have no stake to be offended by the holocaust because they had no involvement in it. The crusades should definitely be covered as well, its part of the history of the country and region. Just present both sides. Frankly I was unaware that Muslims made a practice of denying the holocaust, but the fact that your fear of offending them by presenting the truth causes you to not present the information frightens and offends me.

Furthermore the lack of explaining the holocaust gives them one more reason to validly say "so why in the world did you need to give the jews israel" They don't have to like the truth but they need to accept it.

Personally the logic is clear on their part. Deny it happened, make it stop being talked about, prevent others from learning about it, destroy all record. Then go ahead and do it again yourself and wipeout the jews. Sorta scary. Note to self, england just got removed from places I will live and send my kids to school.

this just really bugs me; I thought the European countries were supposed to be smarter than this. You have no excuse it happened a little over 50 years ago right over there. What next?

Re:UK Schools?!!?

[Ltar]

Question- why was parent modded -1 Troll? He was obviously indicating the absurdity of denying the holocaust, with an equally absurd statement denying the existence of a real thing - UK schools. I modded +1 funny, but he was still 0 Troll, so I think justice can better be served by me EXPLAINING the joke to people who read mod points instead of comments.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[ninjagin]

Herzl actually never made any assertions that Jews had to establish a homeland in the middle east. When he first discussed the idea of a Jewish homeland, in a pamphlet (if recollection serves, it was "The Jewish Sate"), he was thinking about South America (thought it was Argentina, but I could be wrong), and that the land should be purchased, legitimately, so that no assertions of thievery could be made.

The problem is that in the early part of the 20th century, a number of movements (some linked with socialism) adopted Herzl's zionism as the cause for the re-establishment of the biblical Jewish homeland in what was then called Palestine. There's a bunch of Jewish theological commentaries and arguments about the notion of returning to the holy land, and some traditions in burial and at passover time to symbolically create the link to the biblical homeland. Different Jewish sects see the call to return to the biblical homeland differently, and have different traditions for it. These differences are the sources of endless, bitter controversy among the worldwide Jewish community

What gets lost on the enemies of zionism as we know it today (and you sum it up pretty well, even though you distort it a little bit with the "displacement" assertion), is that the Jewish people are, and have almost always been, a people of the diaspora -- without a religious home. The people that come to Israel (planeloads every day), come because they are shunned and persecuted where they lived elsewhere in the world, for the most part. Sure, there are spiritual zionists that come not to flee persecution but to fulfill the spiritual mission of returning to the holy land, but for the most part, these spiritual zionists do not come to stay in Israel for the rest of their lives. Some do come to stay, though.

As to "displacement"... when Great Britain ceded Palestine to become the Jewish state of Israel, the Arab and Palestinian inhabitants were pretty much glad to be rid of the British, and there have always been Jewish communities in Palestine, so Israel wasn't seen so much as a threat. It was cautious, and even skeptical, optimism on their part that allowed the state to be created. The Jewish government in Israel didn't do a very good job of making good on their promise to include Palestinian tribes and ethnic groups as they took the reins of power. The "displacement" that is at the core of many Palestinian complaints came as a result of the 6 day war, when Palestinians in Israel and what are now the occupied territories deserted their lands and fled as they saw Nasser's armies (and Syria's and Jordan's) poised to sweep though Israel. The Israeli army occupied all the lands that Syria and Jordan and Egypt had been using to threaten Israel.

Honestly, I understand the Israeli perspective -- that is, if the people who threaten you either flee their lands when you attack or host foreign armies to threaten you, they lose their land. That's it. No give-backs. If a people does not have the courage to stay and fight for their land, then the land must not mean much to them. At the same time, I think that Palestinians got a really sucky deal from Israel from the time it was created. Sure, the rhetoric at the time was "we can all live together peacefully", but the practice of Israeli rule really gave Palestinians the short shrift -- they didn't get the same level of access to government services & contracting opportunities, the courts were stacked against them, water rights were not honored, and the Israeli army defended the taking of land by Israeli settlers when they should not have.

Personally, as a Jew, I hope one day to visit Israel before I die. At the same time, I've met a lot of Arabs and Muslims and Druse who have a mixed story to tell of their time in Israel and of being second-class citizens, not very much unlike black folks here in the states, and I have great sympathy for that. I've never been a fan of the occupation, but I also see the unilateral pullout from Gaza as having been a disaster. The war

Re:Not effective in Africa?

[Vicissidude]

South America still native? I'd hardly call it that. Let's look at the actual statistics. From https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/index.html

Argentina, 40,301,927 people: 97% white (mostly Spanish and Italian), 3% mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups

Brazil, 190,010,647 people: 53.7% white, 38.5% mulatto (mixed white and black), 6.2% black, 0.9% other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian)

Columbia, 44,379,598 people: 58% mestizo (mixes Amerindian and white), 20% white, 14% mulatto, 4% black, 3% mixed black-Amerindian, 1% Amerindian

Peru, 28,674,757 people: 45% Amerindian, 37% mestizo (mixes Amerindian and white), 15% white, 3% other (includes black, Japanese, Chinese)

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[greenbird]

According to zionists, the uniqueness of the European holocaust must not be considered - and is the defining, central theme of the Second World War.

Yeah, because we all know there has never been another period or place where Jews were oppressed even to the point of advocated murder. I don't know, but in my humble opinion the attempted systematic slaughter of an entire race of people whether unique or not is a pretty important theme. It's even more so since this objective was taken up by a modern industrialize nation in a period of time in which this kind of thing is frowned upon as rather barbaric at best.

Israeli colonial oppression today?

You know, I read a recent Reuters article on the latest Israeli incursion into the Golan. It was a three page article explaining in minute detail the actions of the Israeli and consequences to the Golan Palestinians. It wasn't until the second to the last paragraph on the third page that there was one sentence explaining that the incursion was in response to dozens of rockets fired at Israeli settlements that had injured several Israelis. What do you think France's response would be to a group in Luxemburg continuously firing rockets at Thionville and injuring several French citizens (I know, I know surrender, ha, ha) and not only will the Luxemburg government not stop them but it actually supports them? Somehow I don't think negotiations wouldn't high on the list for long and a few collateral casualties incurred wouldn't be much of a deterrent to France using force to stop them.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[spuzzzzzzz]

Calling people names will never do anything to advance your argument. Furthermore, your view of history is clearly unbalanced. There is evidence that Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes (and also evidence that many left of their own accord). Your statement "They left of their own accord because they couldn't stand the thought of living in a Jewish state" implies that 100% of the Palestinian population left for racist reasons rather than, for example, to ensure the security of their families. That sort of blanket statement does nothing to improve the quality of a debate.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[spuzzzzzzz]

This is a silly argument. They live in a country called Israel; therefore they are Israelis. If they lived in the (not yet country, but hopefully soon) of Palestine, they would be called Palestinians. When Czechloslovakia broke up, the people living in it ceased to become Czechloslovakians. Does that mean there was a genocide?

This is old new already

[Yamagami]

This is old news already. And the UK government has already issued a statement that this will not be possible/allowed for schools to drop. They might get freedom to choose their subject, but certain subjects cannot be dropped. I live in the UK. I'm Jewish. It kinda got my interest when this item was 'current' news.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Can you give any references? IIRC, Bethlehem has been under Palestinian Authority control since the Oslo Accords. From a quick search on google, the only evidence of religious strife I can find is a tension between the local Christian and Muslim communities (which has seen the Christian population drop from ~80% to ~15% in 60 years).

I only have talks with people my priest invited to our church- Christians who have been not allowed to work in Israel thanks to the Zionists OR in Palestine thanks to the Muslims, who run a small olivewood tourist trinket industry out of Bethleham.

"Palestinian Authority"- a non government created to keep the non-Jews in line. Do you really think the Christians, who have lived in Bethleham since soon after the time of Christ, would have had these problems if Israel hadn't been kicking people out of their homes and making small communities like that one into ghettos? I don't, after talking to these people who have seen many of the ounger generation move away over the past 60 years. Bethleham is in walking distance of Jerusalem- but they're not allowed to cross the border to get jobs in Israel.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[myowntrueself]

Palestinian is an ethnic identity which Israel seems set on exterminating.

I'm not complaining about the nation of Palestine (which, legally, never existed), I'm talking about the Palestinian *people* as a self-identifying group who are (in effect) not permitted to be citizens of a certain nation. A certain nation which denys their very existance.

They are not allowed to call themselves "Israeli Palestinians".

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[greenbird]

I can go into more detail with more modern history if you'd like, but you're probably well aware of the world (outside America)'s increasing dissatisfaction with Israel's foreign policy.

I would be curious to here your opinion of what type of foreign policy you think Israel should be pursuing. Looking at it from the Israeli view, from a historical perspective I would say Israeli foreign policy has been pretty damn successful over the past 50 years. Your own description of the worldwide change in attitude towards Jews seems to also support this. They've gone from a scattered group that were hated oppressed scapegoats for all the worlds woes to a respected, if not liked by all, nation. Although a number of nations still profess it as an objective, the destruction of Israel is no longer looked upon as a realistic threat by those who experience reality (this excludes Iran). This wasn't the case as recent as 30 years ago. Graph the number of human torpedoes directed at Israel over the last 10 years. It would seem to point to success also. Except for a few mistakes that were fairly quickly corrected I don't see much negative coming from Israeli foreign policy looking at it from an Israeli point of view.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

"So why don't we get any credit when we attack Christian Serbs to protect Muslim Albanians?"

Well the muslims you are talking about are Bosniaks, and only 40% of Bozniaks are actaully Muslims so it wasn't about being muslim, but about being bosnian. So Arabs really didn't pay too much attention to it. Plus they aren't Arabs.

"Why do we get no kudos for resisting Russian aggression in Afghanistan (and potentially Turkey and Iran and Pakistan too) during the Cold War?"

The U.S. aided Afghanistan rebels in combating Russia, however the U.S. bailed After Soviet Withdrawl and they have been fighting a civil war ever since. Many see it as a way for the U.S. to meddle with Soviet Russia at the expense of the Arab population there.

Why does nobody in the Arab world seem to think it was worthwhile to remove Saddam Hussein

  Arabs did want Saddam (Sunni) out. Shi'ites (Iraq's majority) wanted him gone. And rised up against him after the first gulf war and asked for American Support to overthrow him. The U.S. said no and the rebellion was brutally smashed by Saddam. Iran (A shi'ite majority country) also wanted Saddam gone. But the reason he wasn't removed was Saudi.
  Saudi's gov't is a Sunni gov't and they wanted a Sunni leader in the region to offset Iran. Mainly due to fear that if a shi'ite majority controlled iraq as well as Iran there monarchy would be ousted next.
So the U.S. left Sadam in place at the Saudi's request. Arabs don't like the removal of Sadam because it started a Civil War. One which the U.S. is trying not to take sides because the Saudi's want a Sunni in power and the majority shi'ite want a shi'ite. So if the U.S. supports the Shi'ites they are worried about an Iran/Iraq alliance and Saudi will be scared. If a Sunni takes over then you are in the same boat as before. So it has further escalated the problem and costs hundreds of thousands of lives.

"who was responsible for the death of more Arabs than any other single leader in all of history?"

Currently it looks as though George W. Bush is both directly and indirectly is trying to break that record

Why do the Saudis and Kuwaitis give us no love for saving them from Hussein?

See my answer above. Because he was a Sunni and the Sunni Minority wants to keep its control over the Shi'ite majority.

Why do the Somalis turn on us when we spill out our blood and treasure to help them restore peace and order to their shitty little country, where we have absolutely no economic or strategic interests worth mentioning?

I have no idea about that. You'll have to ask them

"Why is there no respect for the positive role America played in the Suez crisis? Or the Camp David agreements? Or Oslo?"

The U.S. WAS instrumental in the Suez crisis. And it has been forgotten, but also this incident helped shape America's stance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

The Camp David agreements haven't been uphelp like many many U.N. resolutions. Arabs see it as false promises.

"Really, there is some dark and paranoid corner of the Arab mind that seems to remember only insults and grudges."I wonder if this can ever be overcome.

You say insult and grudges. truthfully its called history.

Here are some interesting facts that are never talked about

If Americans realize that they can make a positive difference by not attacking Arabs and helping the Palestenians than yes it can be. But if the U.S. continues its course of action it will just get worse and worse. It already has.

But if you want to know why the U.S. is in Iraq. It has NOTHING to do with Terrorists. or WMD's. But the U.S. economy. See the U.S. doesn't care about "spreading democracy" they care about money and economic supremacy. and they will kill arab children to get it.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article4398.html

And that is why Arabs distrust the U.S.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[spuzzzzzzz]

Millions of other Palestinians live as refugees in other Arab countries (as well as one million in Israel proper)

I would question your labelling of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel as "refugees." I am not aware that the UN considers them to be refugees. It is true that they are treated as second-class citizens in Israel, but this is a civil rights issue, not a refugee issue (and the Israeli Supreme Court has upheld their rights on several occasions).

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) and subsequent resolutions, these refugees have the right to return to their homes, or to be compensated for their losses.

Over the last few years, I have increasingly become of the opinion that Resolution 194 and particularly Article 11 should be forgotten. I support the compensation of refugees, but I do not think they should return home (I feel the same way about the ~800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries to which Article 11 also applies). The only possible effect of a mass return of Palestinian refugees would be to further inflame racial and religious tensions. I believe that the way to a peaceful solution is a two-state solution. If the Jews and the Arabs can live in peace in neighbouring countries for a few generations, the hate between them may subside to the point where they can live as neighbours in the same country.

It's worth mentioning, by the way, that the text of Article 11 could be interpreted mean exactly what I say above. In particular, the text "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date" supports my opinion if you allow some leniency in the "earliest practicable date."

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[spuzzzzzzz]

They are not allowed to call themselves "Israeli Palestinians".

In what sense are they "not allowed" to call themselves Israeli Palestinians? Does the Mossad break down their doors if they do? It's true that the mainstream Israeli press refers to them as Arabs, but I'm afraid that most of your comments come accross as hyperbole. Searching on Google, for example, turns up plenty of results for the phrase "israeli palestinians."

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

The United Nations definition of a "Palestinian refugee" is a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." "UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948" [3] regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as "refugee camps" or in established, permanent communities.[4] Based on this definition the number of Palestinian refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950[5] to over four million registered with the UN in 2002.

I couldn't agree with you more concerning Jews and Palestinians returning home. Too much time has elapsed. A dual nation solution seems to be the only hope for peace. But that would require Israel to give concessions and the U.S. to not be be bias. It's going to be hard, but I believe it can be a reality. Israeli children need to be able to get on a bus without fear of it blowing up, and Palestinian children need to grow up in a real city with working plumbing and access to water. If the U.S. completely supported the Palestinian cause a LOT of wind would be taken out of Islamic Radicals. The Palestinian cause is one of the EASIEST ways for radicals to recruit members number 1 is the current iraq war.

we expect Germany to be civilized, Africa savage

[r00t]

We think we're civilized. We think Europe is civilized. When a bunch of Europeans go slaughtering a group of people as if killing cockroaches, it freaks us out. It makes us worry that we ourselves could be that evil.

Africa is where we expect people in loincloths to throw spears at each other. It's one small step above cavemen. If they kill each other, we don't blink an eye. That always happens in uncivilized places. It's not as if we could tell a Hutu from a Tootsie anyway; they all look the same.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[malkir]

"According to eyewitnesses, one of the soldiers' stray, indiscriminate bullets found its way at Katouni's back just to hit the head of the unborn baby boy." -source So of course it's time to label Israel as baby-hating anti-civilian murderers. Let's just completely ignore the fact that radical Islamists were firing indiscriminate missiles into Israel for the sole purpose of killing as many CIVILIANS as possible. Let's also ignore the fact that eeeevil Israel is the country that those people want to go to when they're injured, sick, etc. Israel supplies its surrounding enemy countries with food and medical supplies, and in turn they are ridiculed, hated, and attacked. Your entire post was spoken like a true news junkie, it doesn't seem like you have a very open-minded idea of whats going on in the middle east. I traveled to Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine last year and the trip changed my whole perspective on the situation. Israel is the only sane country in the middle east, the rest have been hijacked by radical Islamists, and it's an unfortunate fact of life that civilian casualties will never be 100% deterred. And if you do actually know what your talking about, then you seem to be one of those stereotypical anti-zionists. Most muslims know nothing of their own history, the religion has been hijacked in the middle east by radical islamists who have effectively brainwashed and reprogrammed their youth into Israel and America hating, anti-Semites and anti-Christians. Islam has produces nothing in the last 600 years after the fall of their entire society, it's not the 'pro-science' 'peaceful' religion left-wing media portrays it to be. It's a religion of violence, conquering, and inhumane acts. I sympathize for Maha Katouni and her unborn son, I wish it had never happened. But your Jack Thompson-style approach of making media out of tragedy is getting old. Random info to avoid too much flaming: I'm agnostic, I've never been religious, but I've not only listened but witnessed what's going on in the middle east. I spoke with the locals, I stayed a few days with Druids. America doesn't belong in the middle east, but Israel does.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[ChromeAeonium]

There are legitimate complaints about the very concept of Zionism (the argument that Jews should immigrate to the Middle East to form a homeland, even if it means displacing the locals). They have made themselves a homeland in the Middle East. Now, people are being born there, and have set up homes there. Wanting them to leave now is like wanting everyone who's been born in America, who's not an Americian Idian, to leave.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[Copid]

Arabs did want Saddam (Sunni) out. Shi'ites (Iraq's majority) wanted him gone. And rised up against him after the first gulf war and asked for American Support to overthrow him. The U.S. said no and the rebellion was brutally smashed by Saddam.

Actually, as I understand it, the US basically said, "Go ahead and rise up. We've got your back," and then bailed, leaving the rebels to be slaughtered. No so great for the whole credibility thing, and definitely not so good if you want to try it again and get the locals to trust that you won't leave them hanging if they help you rebuild their country.

Re:just to pick a single point

[MrNaz]

It's the requirement in the Koran that Muslims subdue, by murder if necessary, other religious thought (which includes atheism of course).

It is simply not true that the Koran says anything of the sort. That verse you point to, 9, refers to defense. To summarize, that verse says "do not attack anyone who makes peace with you, as during times of treaty you are forbidden from war with them. But if they break the peace, the forbidden time is over and they are to be attacked.

Here's the full translation of that verse if you like. You'll find that Muslims are totally forbidden from attacking anyone with whom there is any form of treaty, peace agreement or mutual understanding. Only those who break these agreements and are hostile may be attacked out of self defense. In fact the very first line of that surah is "A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:".

Later it says: "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous". In other words, we are commanded to be true to any arrangements, unless it is broken by the other side first.

Even in your quote it says that even after they have broken an agreement, if they later apologize, they are to be forgiven. Vengefulness and vindictive behavior are forbidden.

Taking a single line out of context is a a good way to demonstrate one's ignorance of the truth. It is often done, though, by people determined to spread FUD.

Oh, and here's a bonus one: you don't hate "the west" but you hate Saudi Arabi's king for consorting with "the west"??

This is such a dramatic misunderstanding of my point that I'm going to assume it is deliberate and ignore it.

I know quite a few muslims. Thankfully none are true adherents of their creed (the koran) or I'd be a dead man, as I follow Jesus and believe that Mohammed was one of those that the new testament warns about receiving a false gospel from (eg Galatians 1).

Actually, the Bible foretells (if you believe that anyway) of the coming of prophet Mohamed. But don't take my word for it, go ask your local priest.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[eli pabst]

There is some truth to that, but the reason that the US didn't overthrow Saddam in Gulf War I was because the UN and members of the coalition threatened to pull support if it became about toppling Saddam instead of liberating Kuwait.

let's look at the scoreboard

[weighn]

it was 6 million Jews and 5-6 million non-Jews.(I don't have the ethnic breakdown jfgi if you want) oh fuck yes, I've been waiting for this, lets start a scoreboard.

The Holodomor (the Ukrainian famine engineered by Stalin 1932-1933), 10 million dead
Holocaust - 6 million
1971 Bangladesh atrocities - 3 million
Khmer Rouge - 3 million
Philippine-American War - 1 million
Darfur conflict - 400,000

and what does this prove? "My people have suffered more than YOUR people and deserve to be remembered and respected and recompensed, blah blah etc".

You are just perpetuating the hate and ensuring (in a small yet significant, memetic way) that it happens again and again.

We are discussing the murder of millions of people. How about we show some fucking solemnity and maturity.

Re:let's look at the scoreboard

[Lehk228]

what the hell are you talking about?

Re:let's look at the scoreboard

[nahdude812]

Noone says, "The holocaust happened so these other mass-murders are meaningless."

But if you want to work on that scoreboard, lets do so.

10M Eastern Slavs
6M in concentration camps (presumably mostly Jews)
3M prisoners of War
2M forced laborers
Thats ~21M civilians from the Holocaust and related activity

Your numbers add up to ~18 million. I'm not saying that 18 million people mass murdered should be dismissed, but I sure as hell am saying that 21 million people mass murdered should not be dismissed.

Good day sir.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[iminplaya]

There is a legitimate argument to be made that Zionism has, quite contrary to its intent, encouraged a new round of antisemitism...

Contrary to its intent? Maybe it's possible that it's exactly its intent. The Zionists could be the anti-Semites. Anything is possible, and stranger things have happened. I have no idea what their real intent is, but their actions are most definitely in conflict with their stated intent. There is a strong aroma of aquatic creatures. It does make it clear that knowing who the messenger is can be very important. No matter how much I may attempt to deny it, it would be a mistake in this case. It would be similar to a closeted gay legislator being against gay rights.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[myowntrueself]

Does the Mossad break down their doors if they do?

You know, from what I've heard, if you are a non-Jewish semite living in Israel, yes you can expect Mossad to break down your doors for pretty much anything at all.

I've known many Israelis who talk in a way that I'd have expected from some fanatical blonde, blue-eyed member of a certain self-declared 'master race' from Germany of the 1930s/40s. Seriously.

My grandfather was, and we're not refugees now.

[Trepidity]

My family is Pontian Greek, from what used to be a Greek area on the Black Sea, and is now northeastern Turkey (near Trabzon, if you care). My grandfather was a refugee from that area. Was he still living in a refugee camp 50 years later? No, he was given Greek citizenship and taken in, learned standard Greek (he spoke Pontian Greek before, a non-mutually-intelligible dialect), and is now basically a Greek of Pontian descent. Why? Because the citizens of Greece saw it as a moral obligation to take in the refugees, rather than to keep them in camps as a way to maintain irredentist sentiment.

Have the neighboring Arabs treated their Arab brethren nearly as nicely? It appears not, despite the fact that, unlike the case with the Pontians as compared to the Greeks, they even speak the same, mutually intelligible language.

Yeah, I can see why the Arabs want Jerusalem back; my family would be happy to have Trabzon back, not to mention Constantinople. And I'd like there to be a separate Pontian identity and community, with its own language and homeland. But is that worth keeping people in camps for years, prohibiting them from integrating and getting on with their lives, and stoking nationalist sentiment, terrorism, and wars without end? I don't think it is.

Re:My grandfather was, and we're not refugees now.

[JRGhaddar]

Yes well your grandfather is Pontian Greek and not Palestinian. Palestinians DON'T want to be Lebanese citizens. At least a prevailing majority of them don't. They want to be Palestinians in Palestine. That is what they are fighting for. And they will never stop until they get it.

Greece is a great country but it didn't repatriate the decendants of the 130,000 greeks who fled the greek civil war of 47-49 until 1982. 33 years these people lived in exhile, and actually the total granted citizenship was 30k 1/5th of the original refugees. I applaud greece for talking the necessary steps to right social injustices, and on an unrelated note for being awesome hosts for the champions league cup.

I just looked at Trabzon. Wow that is an amazing part of the world.

The issue stems from this key point.

If Jew's are allowed a homeland Why is it at the expense of the Palestinians?

and why do they not have a homeland?

To force them to assimilate into neighboring countries is forcing them to erase there history, erase there identity and concede that Jews are more deserving than Palestinians. That is something they will never do. and they shouldn't have to.

I am dedicating my life to facilitating a solution, and probably this conflict will go on longer than I will live, but I can't stand by and do nothing. I am not Palestinian, but just a person who believes that they are just as deserving as Israeli's. I believe in a dual state state solution, however Israel must make concessions, and they never will unless they are pressured by the U.S. and Britain to do so. It really is in the best interest of everyone. But no ones wants to give up land for peace.

whitewashing; "It can get worse than that"

[Kalzus]

(start off-topic bits)
FDR's Executive Order 9066, among other things, was used to relocate people of Japanese ancestry, a number of whom were/are American citizens, away from the pacific home front during World War 2.

If I were an American citizen of Middle Eastern decent, I might be worried about measures being taken against myself based on my ethinicity without regard for my citizenship.
(end off-topic bits)

I'm not a subject of the crown, nor do I live in any United Kingdom territories. So I don't have any direct experience of what it is like to raise children in those areas. But to ignore any area of history (whether Germany's Final Solution or the Palestinian Troubles) would be curious. To encourage it via elimination from school would be disturbing. What does it say about a culture that chooses to whitewash history?

(Note: American citizen. Well aware that school ignored a whole bunch of stuff. Even more keenly aware that people don't like to discuss the troubles of the past. Try having a restaurant discussion of Rosa Parks somewhere outside of America's 10 largest cities.)

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

To begin with, unjustified suffering wins you sympathy. We've seen this throughout history, from Nero's overboard persecution of Christians leading Romans to change their view of Christianity from "creepy cult" to "respectable religion", to the surge in pro-American sentiment after 9/11 (which had essentially boiled off by the time Iraq was invaded, but was a resounding spike on polls until the Iraq buildup). Antisemitism was simply no longer acceptable in the west after the Holocaust. The images of the suffering of the European Jews made it so that witnessing future anti-semitic acts simply opened up that painful wound.

Israel's foreign policy has been successful only insofar as America has been their staunch defender: billions of dollars in annual aide, military discounts, low interest loans, and the blocking of UN resolution after UN resolution against Israel. So, yes, it has been "successful" from a military and economic standpoint, but only because they have one majorly loyal defender (us). At the same time, they've slowly been growing themselves the scorn of most of the rest of the world. This fuels what has been referred to as the "New Antisemitism". Peoples' distaste for Israeli foreign policy often boils over into outright antisemitism. This leads to a counterpunch of people who treat any anti-Israeli stance as antisemitism, which is likewise unfair.

Graph the number of human torpedoes directed at Israel over the last 10 years.

Suicide bombings were rare under Oslo. When the new Intifada broke out (triggered by many things indirectly, but directly by an incredibly stupid PR stunt by Sharon). Compare the past five years to the five before, and yes, suicide bombings have *greatly increased*.

Israel has gotten into some problematic situations. They have the power to essentially do whatever they wanted. They literally could commit genocide, and nobody would be able to stop them until afterwards. They could probably commit ethnic cleansing and still survive as a state, thanks to America's defense. They turn Palestinian villages into bantustans, annex land wherever they choose, invade with minimal causalties whenever the want, and so on. Israel has the power to do this. At the same time, they have to balance this against world reaction. Israel prides itself as a western state in the middle east. It has a european identity in terms of all but the most conservative cultural elements. It risks alienating itself from Europe in the same way that it is alienated from the rest of the Middle East when it takes things too far. Having ministers who refer to Palestinians as "vermin" and "a cancer" doesn't help the situation any.

Another problem Israel faces is the "demographic threat". Israel prides itself as being a liberal democracy in the midst of a sea of corrupt, oppressive regimes. And largely, this is true. However, they also pride themselves on being a Jewish state. These terms ("democracy" and "Jewish state") only remain non-contradictory so long as Jews are a majority in Israel, and therein lies the problem: not all Arab villages in what was to become Israel were ethnically cleansed during al-Nakhba, and thus Israel ended up with a small Arab population. This population, due to poverty and tradition, has a much higher birthrate than the more western-identified Jewish population. Israel has long struggled to encourage immigration, both out of ideology and to counter this "threat" -- going so far as to, for example, convert the majority of the population in several Peruvian villages and pay for them to come over to Israel. However, immigration is decreasing, but the Arab-Israeli birthrate is still high. Even without the Right of Return (a condition considered as essential to the Palestinians for lasting peace -- undoing al-Nakhba without changing 1960s borders, basically), Israel is looking to face an Arab majority at some point around the middle of this century.

If there were an Arab majority in Israel, and the state didn't sacrifice democracy

With regard to being real, a real question

[Kalzus]

...Given that there is no objective "history", do you feel there is no value in teaching anything about the past that cannot be experimentally demonstrated on an apparatus today?

Note that I don't mean to call you out; I would like to know your (and anyone else's) view of exposition of past events that includes its own "error factor", as it were.

Re:With regard to being real, a real question

[OpenSourced]

Interesting. Never gave much thought to that question. I suppose that, in my view of things, the best possible course would be to teach History more like Literature. You should teach the "History according to Gibson" one day, the next teach the same historic passage according to other source. In fact, you shouldn't "teach" it at all, but give books to read to the students, and let them draw their own conclusions. That way it would be clear that History is basically a kind of story-telling, based on some facts, many assumptions, and lots of bias. The topic should be re-branded "Comparative History" (That already exists in Universities, but make it the only way of teaching it), and make the students try to ascertain what are most likely facts and what not.

Not that it's going to happen, we like too much to impose our view of things on our next generation. We like to tell them that we are the descendants of heroes, not of bandits. And they like to be told that, too. You never go far trying to go against strong inclinations of the rest of the people.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[el_munkie]

What world have you been living in? Palestinian deaths tend to go almost completely unreported unless there are dozens at once

I think this would improve if they stopped strapping bombs to themselves and blowing them up in populated places. Honestly, I'm not all the surprise when another dies, since it is usually by his own hand or the hand of a fellow Palestinian. Ya know, if they adopted non-violent resistance, a la Gandhi, they would evoke much more sympathy from the world.

Re:What R those basic human rights EVERYONE deserv

[JRGhaddar]

"My religion requires, as a sacrament, the mocking of prophets. We deem the very idea of a human prophet to be blasphemous to God. The same for so called "holy" books, and "holy" men."

You are free to practice whatever you wish. Mocking other peoples religion will get you into trouble with those whom you mock. For example if you were to follow an african american around call them "nigger". You more than likely are going to invoke some kind of reaction. A reaction that YOU provoked. We are not just living in YOUR world.

"So, I assume you support my right to practice my religion, as my basic human right, correct?"

Absolutely. But if your religion is based on verbally/artisticly attacking other individuals YOU are the initator of the conflict and you will have to deal with the repercussions

"So if I put a bumper sticker on my car with a picture of the prophet of your religion being made fun of in some way, you'd be fully supportive of me, right?"

I would be supportive of your freedom of expression, however once again you are initiating confrontation, and ridiculing others because of there belief. Once again it is not just YOUR world.

"Or if, maybe, I dunno, some Danish guy made some cartoons or something...?"

Political Cartoons have been around for a long time, however the difference here is that this political cartoon involves a religious figure. This in effect wasn't a politcal commentary, but one on a specific religious group.
That evoked a response from that group.

I completely understand the point you are trying to make however it is important to realize that you are blurring lines of free speech and freedom of religion to include free speech that invokes ridicule on ones freedom of religion by protection of your own freedom of religion. A completely ridiculous example, and unrealistic to site. but I played along anyway.

Now as to those basic human rights everyone deserves those are easy.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Its definitely a good read. And as you go down the list ask if they apply to the Palestinians. You'll find that they don't have very few of them.

Re:just to pick a single point

[joemod]

I would like to add that if prophet Mohamed encouraged the attacking of other religions then he wouldn't issue an order of non-attack for st. Catherine's monastery at mount sinai. He also signed the order using his palm since he did not know to write. It's a great experience for the Christian s to pay a trip to this monastery and among other things see the order prementioned.

Re:just to pick a single point

[joemod]

and to add sources... http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IC 0609-3110 and a copy of prophet's order (courtesy of st. Catherine's monastery) http://www.sinaimonastery.com/photos/big/sina_t039 _f01_b.jpg

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[spuzzzzzzz]

Thanks for the official definition, but it doesn't answer my question: how many Palestinian Arabs living in Israel are considered as refugees under this definition? In your original post, you implied that the answer is 1 million (which would consist of practically the entire Arab population of Israel).

But that would require Israel to give concessions and the U.S. to not be be bias[ed].

The unfortunate thing is that the loudest opinions on this issue are along the lines of either "Israelis are evil zionist pigs" or "Palestinians are suicide-bomber terrorists." It makes it difficult for me to find a political group I feel comfortable backing. Witness the guy further down in this thread complaining that Israelis are performing genocide by calling Israeli-Arabs "Arabs" instead of "Palestinians" and insinuating that the Mossad breaks down Arab doors right and left. Whenever I'm feeling particularly cheerful, I go to Ha'aretz or al-Jazeera and read some of the talkback comments there; that usually brings me crashing back to earth.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[Cederic]

As someone that was educated in British schools, I'm very curious about where you formed these opinions.

I don't think arabs are animals, and I don't know anybody in the UK that does. I don't know anybody that thinks their blood has any different value to that of other people.

If you think that's a common viewpoint then it seems to me that someone is teaching you very badly. The people around me are very tolerant and accepting of other cultures. Are you?

Incidentally, no, we weren't taught much about Palestine at school. Then again, we weren't taught much about Irish politics either, despite the school being damaged by Irish bombs while I was there. Perhaps you'd like to build a case that all British people hate the Irish? It would be equally flawed, but don't let that stop you spreading hatred and misinformation.

Daily Schmail

[CheShACat]

For all the US/Global readers out there, I would like to point out that the Daily Mail has a very poor reputation in the UK as a sensationalist, trashy paper that disguises its self as a "real" newspaper in order to get a certain portion of Middle Class, Middle England wound up about essentially right wing topics like "the state of immigration" and such by tweaking just the right linguistic nerves such as "Holocaust denial". As soon as I saw TFA it was obvious to me the implied sentiment was more along these lines than an actual concern about Holocaust denial. It seems fairly obvious to me that the same course, when taught in different areas of England should be geared towards pupils being able to learn as much as possible from the course, and teaching a topic that collides directly with a deeply ingrained cultural beliefs isn't going to be productive whichever way you look at it. I'm not saying that it's OK for people to deny the Holocaust or whatever, but that is a separate issue which needs tackling at a much higher level. In most schools this isn't an issue, but in some areas where there is a predominant Muslim population, of course it is going to need addressing. Teacher's jobs in the UK (or anywhere) are already difficult; to expect one person to have to breach this kind of religious/cultural barrier (the kind that has been probably the most virulent source of violence and hatred among races for thousands of years) with 20, 30 or even 40 potentially boisterous youths at a time is both unreasonable and counter-productive in the challenge of creating a well-integrated, multi-cultural society.

Speaking of feces

[Loundry]

I call bullshit on this. There is nothing in your quote that implies this.

I personally thought that "beat her" implied "beat her", but your answer is rhetoric anyway. Let's get to your argument:

This passage outlines steps to be taken when a woman is motivated by "ill-will and nasty conduct".

Okay. Who is the judge of what is "ill-will and nasty conduct"? The husband is the judge! And if he decides that she is showing "ill will" and that her conduct is "nasty", then he is permitted to beat her if she does not obey. If a Muslim man beats his wife and then claims that she showed "ill-will and nasty conduct", was his behavior haram? This misogynistic religious abuse happens frequently in the Islamic world. Sad is the plight of the Muslim woman. This is on top of forcing her to be veiled so that she does not "corrupt men".

There are plenty of Bible passages that are equally incongruent in modern times.

Now it is my turn to call bullshit on you. Obviously you fail to mention any Bible passages that are "equally incongruent in modern times". Put up or shut up! Keep in mind that I am an EX-Christian and I am very, very knowledgable about the Bible. I know ALL of the "dirty verses" in the Bible and often employ them against Christian extremists myself. That's why I think it's bullshit that you think that the Bible is "just as bad" as the Koran, and that Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam. Christianity has a lot of warts. I'm a gay man, I should know. But Islam is far worse than Christianity, both in scope and in depth of malevolence.

Please answer me the following, as I think your honest answers will put to rest the false notion that Christianity, bad as it is, is "just as bad" as Islam:

1. How many battles did Jesus Christ participate in? By comparison, how many battles did the Muslim prophet Mohammed lead?

2. How many offensive battles did the Muslim prophet Mohammed conduct? By comparison how many defensive battles did the Muslim prophet Mohammed participate in?

3. Where does the Bible advocate conversion, subjugation, or warfare against ALL non-Christians for ALL time? (See also ALL of Sura 9, especially 9:29)

4. Where does the Bible give permission for husbands to beat their wives?

5. Did Jesus Christ screw a nine-year-old little girl like the Muslim prophet Mohammed did?

6. Is it true that Muslims regard their prophet Mohammad as a "perfect model of conduct" (Sura 33:21)?

simplistic as Reagan

[Tungbo]

Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

But I AM really curious where this 'clash of civilization' viewpoint come from?
Are we re-enacting the crusades? Why do you feel muslims are out to destroy
your civilization? Where are the evidences?
I'd really like to understand where these ideas come from.

Re:simplistic as Reagan

[Lord Ender]

If you read BinLaden's "Letter to America" he specifically says he wants to force the world to convert to Islam, and he wants us all to be under Sharia law. He wants to do away with modern economics (interest rates are evil!) and many other fundamentals of a modern society.

Such an event would be the end of Western civilization. BinLaden, and those who follow him, had declared war on all of the West.

Germ Theory not necessary

[Tungbo]

People knew enough during the plagues in the middle ages to quarantee the diseased and burn the deads. Even without germ theory, various naive forms of infection theories existed.

Since any epidemic can rebound on the colonizers, it is doubtful that they would spread it on purpose. But while we have no hard evidence of biological warfare having been waged, there are documents of British officers contemplating such tactics:

"According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.

On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.

On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.

We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity."

Re:Germ Theory not necessary

[Vicissidude]

You've basically repeated what the last two posters already said and which I already addressed. 1763 comes hundreds of years later than 1492 and hundreds of years later than the first mass deaths of native Americans.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Much of the influx of Jews to Israel was the 850,000 Jews kicked out of neighboring Arab states after Isreal was established. Nobody talks about THOSE refugees because they pulled themselves into a society.

There have indeed been injustices on both sides; nobody is saying that there haven't been. Certainly the betrayal of the UN that started the Six Days War was also Arab intiated. However:

Can't say that for the welfare sucking Palestinians.

They wouldn't be welfare sucking if they were allowed to have jobs, now would they? It is said in theological reasoning that perfect circles make for truth- certainly that's true in religious bigotry as well. The Palestinians are on welfare because they're not allowed to have jobs, and according to you, aren't allowed to have jobs because they're "welfare sucking Palestinians".

Of course, the objective problem with this is that you've divorced your reasoning from reality- mixing up cause and effect. Which is why SCIENCE calls circular reasoning a fallacy.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's because every other fucking person crosing the fence was wearing a bomb belt.

Justified racism is still racism. There are other ways around that problem, especially now that Princeton has invented a portable tricorder.

Israel has draconian border rules because they'd have long since been bombed into nonexistance without them.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that Christians in Bethleham are not being treated unjustly, only that the injustice has a reasonable cause.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Rei]

Being born in Israel is not being a Zionist.
"Zionism" has a very specific definition. Learn it.

It doesn't matter

[Fuzzums]

60 years later adults have shown to have learned jack from it...

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

You have raised a good question. There is much debate as to whether or not the Palestinians residing in Israel proper are refugee's under the cited definition. Palistinian rights activists due to the 1951-1967 convention that states

"A]ny person who: (2) owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,"

The Palestinians inside Israel proper are claiming that they are outside their country of nationality. Now this is kind of weak in my opinion, but than again they are from the British Mandate of Palestine which doesn't exist anymore. This is a complicated issue, and one that needs to be resolved. My hopes are that once a dual state solution is created. Those Palestinians will have the option to either Leave Israel Proper for Palestine, or Be granted citizenship status in Israel with full and equal civil rights.

That way they become a citizen of a nation of there chosing and can decide to leave if they want.

The unfortunate thing is that the loudest opinions on this issue are along the lines of either "Israelis are evil zionist pigs" or "Palestinians are suicide-bomber terrorists."

Yes these are exagerations of stereotypes, and are doing absolutely NOTHING to aid in the peace process.

"I go to Ha'aretz or al-Jazeera and read some of the talkback comments there; that usually brings me crashing back to earth."

The media in general across ALL countries is only fanning the flames. Everything is now about Polarization Blue States, Red States Israeli rights, Palestinian rights, Liberal, Conservative etc. etc. It is encouraging and reenforcing this polarization and subsequently breeding conflict. Fortunately there are those who realize this and know that its not just abot "one side of the story" but read a well rounded range of information and objective look come to there own conclusions.

I grew up with an American Southern Baptist Conservative Mother and a Sh'ite Muslim Father (still married 35 years). So I had to do this my entire childhood. (It was really Bizare but extremely educational growing up)

You seem very level headed in your approach on things which is nice to see. This world needs more level opinions. Maybe one day we can make a diffence.

We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't

[LynnwoodRooster]

So to sum up:

We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't.

We're hated for not continuing support of the Afghanistan government after the threat of the USSR went away, letting a civil war erupt.

We're hated because we're still in Iraq at the behest of their government to try to avoid a civil war.

We're hated for letting Saddam invade Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia.

We're hated for staying in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait after the first Gulf War to protect from Saddam repeating his invasion of Kuwait.

We're hated for having an official policy of regime change in Iraq.

We're hated for not helping the locals change the regime in Iraq.

We're hated for finally executing regime change in Iraq.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Seems to me that no matter what we do we're hated. That's the central thread we're dealing with - irrational hatred of anything "Western" or "non-Arabic Muslim". And when we abide by the customs of their country - women covered up, no alcohol, stop work 5 times a day, no images of people, even leaving Bibles at home - we're still hated as infidels and invaders.

As far as the whole Israel/Palestine conflict goes, why isn't the hatred directed at the UN? They set up Israel, and didn't follow through on setting up an Arab state of Palestine. Israel would NOT EVEN EXIST if it wasn't for the UN's resolutions. So why not direct their hatred at the UN, rather than Israel, or the US?

For example, when Ehud Barak offered as a STARTING POINT a full 95% of what the Palestinian appologists demanded, the PLO, Hamas, and most Arab states STILL REFUSED to even ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of Israel. One side is talking about leaving most of the disputed territories immediately, and complete withdrawals over a short time, going back to the pre-1967 borders, and the other side doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the first.

I think the wishful thinking that "if the US would just leave the Middle East all would be good!" is seriously flawed. We're hated for interfering by protecting mulsims in Bosnia and Somalia, and hated for not protecting muslims in Iraq or Kuwait.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Essentially, we're hated for not what we've done, but for what we are - we're not muslim. We have different values and a different culture. We have tolerance. We allow individual freedoms. We believe ALL men AND women - of every race and creed - are created equal. We represent what they despise. It's not our actions, it's our very NATURE that is the source of their hatred. The very freedoms that we take for granted - and are used every day by those protesting the US' current involvement in the Middle East - are the source of the hatred against the US.

Here we have parades celebrating the gay lifestyle. They stone not just gays, but if you're even raped by a gay man you're sentenced to that grisly death.

We allow people to live together ourside of marriage. They will stone a woman for simply talking to a man.

We have women heading up some of our largest corporations, leading countries. They forbid women from even opening a book.

We encourage families to share their values and go to church together - they force families apart, even in worship.

We allow you to choose your own path to spiritual enlightenment, even if that means no path. They will behead you if you do not submit to every written word of Mohammed.

We will let you make a movie criticizing religions, governments, companies, cultural values, even the legal system. They will kill you for simply drawing an image of Mohammed.

We protect and honor religious and cultural shrines, artwork, and buildings because of the history and knowledge they provide. They blow up anything from a different culture or religion.

We allow political dissent, free speech, and provide the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. They summarily execute any who speak against the leader

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[JRGhaddar]

"As someone that was educated in British schools, I'm very curious about where you formed these opinions."

These opinions are based on the historical arrangements made by the british government concerning the British Mandate of Palestine, and the lack of education on the topic as you stated in
"no, we weren't taught much about Palestine at school"

"I don't think arabs are animals, and I don't know anybody in the UK that does. I don't know anybody that thinks their blood has any different value to that of other people"

I am glad that you don't think Arabs are animals, however the British government's actions and middle east policies reflect a different sentiment. The Palestinian crisis, The Iraq War, The current Pro Iran war sentiment. Please inform all of the 655,000 dead Iraqi civilians and there families that Britain thinks they are equals. If you can tell me the name of ONE of the children killed in Iraq I would believe you, but you can't. Because they are just a statistic, and no longer are human in identity.

"If you think that's a common viewpoint then it seems to me that someone is teaching you very badly. The people around me are very tolerant and accepting of other cultures. Are you?"

To give you some background about me. I am an American Citizen. My father is an immmigrant Shi'ite Muslim from Lebanon (and American citizen) and my Mother is an Irish American Indian Southern Baptist. I am not just tolerant and accepting of other cultures, but am myself a living example. My parrents taught me to seek out answers; and in this world there just isn't one side of a story but a multitude of different opinions and expressions.

"Perhaps you'd like to build a case that all British people hate the Irish? It would be equally flawed, but don't let that stop you spreading hatred and misinformation."

I am not familiar with the British/Irish situation and can't make a comment on that, however that I hope that the two nations are able to work out there differences without violence. As to the second part of your comment "but don't let that stop you spreading hatred and misinformation.". You are confusing "hatred and misinformation" with the truth. I don't hate anyone. What I am trying to do is illustrate the bias sentiment against Arabs in British culture. And one only has to look at the British policies I mentioned earlier to see that evident bias. The Iraq war has been an enormous political disaster for not only Britain but the U.S. as well. There policies in the middle east have only fanned the flames for radical islam to recruit. If Britain wants to fix the situation they MUST change there stance in the Middle East and repair the damage caused by the palistinian crisis. It must pull out of Iraq and work with All countries in the region in securing some sort of peace for the iraqi people.

You may not be racist, but the british government who represents YOU will have a hard time proving otherwise.

Re:That Is Pathetic...There is more

[Cederic]

What I am trying to do is illustrate the bias sentiment against Arabs in British culture. And one only has to look at the British policies I mentioned earlier to see that evident bias. Please allow me to assure you that an anti-Arab bias does not exist in the general British public.

I strongly suspect that at Governmental level there's no institutional racism as such either. The war in Iraq was not motivated by religious or racial factors..

I do agree it was wrong and resent being represented by this particular UK government. Unfortunately, legally changing it is proving tricky.

I can't believe you posted this tripe.

[eastbayted]

I'm really disappointed that someone posted this completely baseless article (dated April 2, no less). It's been well-refuted. To quote the source, which is Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust in London: "... There is one particular line relating to Holocaust education which has been the focus of the press and various alarmed emails. It features in the section addressing why teachers avoid teaching certain subjects and states: '. A history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic (sic) sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'." Oh, and no one in Japan has mistaken a sheep for poodle, either, despite media reports to the contrary.

my grandfather didn't want to be Greek either

[Trepidity]

The Pontians wanted their homeland too, but eventually people decided going on fighting and killing people forever wasn't worth it. If the Palestinians want to keep fighting forever for their irredentist dream I suppose that's a position they can hold, but I think it's an immoral one.

Re:my grandfather didn't want to be Greek either

[JRGhaddar]

Well here is where the logic doesn't add up.

"irredentist dream" - Wasn't the Zionist movement and irredentist dream? And why was that granted? Without any compensation or respect for the Palestinians?

"a position they can hold, but it's an immoral one" - and taking the land away from them in the first place was moral? I know two wrongs don't make a right, but no one is taking the necessary steps to correct this problem. They feel like they have no one, and as Dr. King said - "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." These people need help, and there suffering effects us all. It is our responsibility to help them.

No, you're still wrong, and now you're a moron too

[dharbee]

"I didn't."

Yes, liar, you did.

"As you're so obviously an expert on grammar"

Nope never claimed that, stop lying.

Nothing else you posted is worth responding to. Next time you decide to make an idiotic point, do some research so you're not wrong like you were here.

But because you're obviously stupid, I NEVER SAID IT WAS THE BEST CHOICE, ONLY THAT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.

Now save yourself the trouble of responding so you don't look like a pompous imbecile again, because you'll be wrong then too.

The deprogramming of all jihadists

[psibrman]

How stupid religion makes us. How easly we forget.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[phozz bare]

I didn't ask for news stories, I asked for headlines. None of the headlines you showed me say that an Israeli woman was killed. Read it to yourself out loud if you need to: "Israeli air strikes kill 5 in Gaza; woman dies in rocket blast". Who's the woman?

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[Anonymous Westley]

It all started with the withdrowal from the Gaza strip. Although, come to think of it, it really did improve the peace process a lot: Since then, there have been around 90 cease-fire agreements in that area...

You are fed by blatant Arab propaganda

[NoName74]

feeding a deep wish to rewrite history. The Palestinians and the Arab countries refused to the UN General Assembly resolution 181 consisting of a plan to found a Jewish country and an Arab country in Palestine. The Jewish state, by the way, was supposed to be significantly smaller than what is nowadays called "The Green Line", or the "1967 borders". The Arab countries encouraged the Palestinians to flee from their homes, telling them that they could soon return and rule the entire land as the Jews would be made to disappear. As we know from history, this never happened, and the Jews cannot be blamed for it. Most of the Jewish people that arrived from Arab countries to Israel in the following years were also refugees. They fled their houses in Lybia, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq and many other Arab countries after withstanding endless pogroms leaving all their properties behind - lands, buildings, money and jewelery. There were many complexes somewhat similar to refugee camps in Israel - "ma'abarot". They did not exist in the 1960s because someone was willing to make it end. The Palestinians had bad luck because their fellow Arab brothers did not give the damn about them. This, however, is neither the Jews' or the Israelis' fault. To sum up, the Palestinians are champions in making the world pity them without taking any measures to help themselves, or even worse - taking measures that make their situation even worse. The first lesson they must learn is, to accept the fact that Israel there, and it is there to stay.

Re:Zionist Propaganda

[MikShapi]

And you think that your country's servicemen, when tasked with protecting their country in foreign land and faced with an enemy that cynically exploited your morals against you and deliberately operated out of populated areas (I'm guessing you're American so I may just mention Vietnam), did any better? That they had no accidents from (possibly justifiable, due to life-threatening conditions) itchy trigger fingers?

You think that YOU, placed with this grim, dirty, dangerous, life-threatening and disaster-prone task, on a daily basis for many years, would do any better? You think the IDF are trained to shoot pregnant women in basic training?

Bah.

I call bullshit and you a sorry hypocrite for judging the servicemen there. I served in the IDF, and I am an Israeli national. Not a single IDF serviceman I ever met with would deliberately shoot a pregnant woman on purpose. Israel puts people who do that in institutions and jails, just like any country in the world.
War sucks, lady. It sucks for ANY troops of ANY nation in ANY war. Sad accidents like this happened in every war that ever took place, and this one is not an exception.

The only thing you will get by taking whatever really happened in this or any similar situation in any other war and judging on insufficient or misinformation (have you heard the Nahal's debreif? do you know WHY soldiers were pointing arms at said building in the first place? What the risks in the mission were? Where hostile forces were supposed to be?)

I'm not justifying what happened. I'm displaying an ability you apparently can't: the ability to say "I don't know enough to pass judgement". In light of this, passing judgement anyway would only amount to pathetic self-serving rhetoric, overemotionalized in your case (I could do the same the other way easily enough).

The only thing I will suggest is that there is a DAMN GOOD REASON Palestinian life is cheap. Nobody believes them (they lied to one camera too many), when they claim to suffer on one hand but perpetually attempt to remain in a suffering state and do all required effort to remain there. When "10 civilians were killed" nobody really knows if this was 10 innocents or 10 provocative militants with guns (notice when a battle between IDF and palestinian forces always yields very few palestinian "combatant" deaths. Ever wonder why?)
There was a story about a boy who cried wolf, it applies here.

It's obvious to both you and me that a pregnant woman is not a combatant. However, the press and many people developed a numbness for palestinian casaulties simply because statistically, a high proportion of it is hyperbole, thus it gets underreported in its entirety, even in extreme cases such as this.
IMHO, the underreporting bit you can place squarely on the Palestinian's own plate. They brought it upon themselves by lying too much.