3 ms·
To be fair. They said teach the Bible NOT Christianity. We should most definitely teach the Bible in its historical context starting with: - the genocide of
by jollofricepeas 2y ago
To be fair.
They said teach the Bible NOT Christianity.
We should most definitely teach the Bible in its historical context starting with:
- the genocide of indigenous peoples particularly the California Genocide from 1846-1873
- slavery and corporate interests (160?-1865)
- manifest destiny
- lynching in a Christian country (1860-1950)
- the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- civil rights movement (1950-1968)
- the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals
- Christian Zionism, corporate interests and apartheid in the Middle East
- krapp 2y agoIf you really want to be fair, they said "teach from the Bible," not teach about the Bible.
- noworriesnate 2y agoThis is a good list, but why start there? We should start with the genocides in the Bible itself. There are so many, it's hard to pick just one, but I think my favorite is where David, a man after God's own heart, killed all the males in Edom. Who said that feminism has no place in the church? /s
- jollofricepeas 2y agoGood point. Seems like a good place to start to answer… “How did genocide and murder in the Bible influence government and church sanctioned violence in the so called New World?”
- TeaBrain 2y agoSome of what you listed might be appropriate if the class were a Christianity focused social studies class. By teaching the bible, they would be meaning the teaching of the text of the bible. I'd assume this would be more like a literature class where only the overall text and passages are evaluated, not the influence of the text on other people. That said, this is very arguably a violation of the establishment clause.
- yawpitch 2y agoThey’re not actually interested in teaching the text of the Bible, too much incest and rape and incestuous rape for the young minds to bear.