Common Core promoting Islam!!!!

GarfieldJL said:

So you're admitting that the school is promoting Islam in violation of the 1st Amendment?

Click to expand...

So's law.

You aren't providing evidence of the OP claim.

It may well turn out to be true, but we don't have evidence for anything other than some suspicion.

Apparently even mentioning Muhammad's name means it's a jihadist plot to take over . . . <insert country name here>

GarfieldJL said:

We have the evidence of them promoting Islam, if they could produce similar educational material involving other religions then this would go away. The fact they are unable to do so, speaks volumes.




It looks like it'd only be a scandal in your mind if they were promoting Christianity.

Click to expand...

Really. So admitting Mohammed was an astute businessman is promoting Islam?

Is my saying that Hitler was a remarkable public speaker promoting Nazism?

The Christians and Jews have no place to stand when it comes to their claims. Christianity and Judaism are not fitting subjects for vocabulary lessons at the High School level in the U.S.

Now if a Sikh, Hindu, Jain or even an atheist made the claim they would have a point.

From the Spokane Conservative article " . . .The school district even acknowledged concerns “related to the religious nature of sentences providing vocabulary words in context.”

“Our school system understands all concerns related to proselytizing, and there is no place for it in our instruction,” the district spokesman added in a statement to Starnes. “However, this particular lesson was one of many the students in this class have had and will have that expose them to the various religions and how they shape cultures throughout the world. . .” Perhaps you missed this in your speed to attack the stranger in your midst?

GarfieldJL said:

So you're admitting that the school is promoting Islam in violation of the 1st Amendment?

Click to expand...

So's Law!

And a non-sequitur to boot!

Bedford said:

The school not replying is not evidence.

Click to expand...

Actually, Bedford, it is.

Read up on your 5th Amendment procedural rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly hearsay exceptions.

Just speaking logically, however, the school was able to readily produce the alleged pro-Islam documents, stated that these documents were but one in a series of documents, and then "lawyered up" and refused comment on the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. documents or produce the rest of the series?

Hmmm... that's not suspicious at all.

Did you miss the part where the school made it clear they would be providing information about other religions? Let me help by providing it (again) for you.

" . . .From the Spokane Conservative article " . . .The school district even acknowledged concerns &#8220;related to the religious nature of sentences providing vocabulary words in context.&#8221;

&#8220;Our school system understands all concerns related to proselytizing, and there is no place for it in our instruction,&#8221; the district spokesman added in a statement to Starnes. &#8220;However, this particular lesson was one of many the students in this class have had and will have that expose them to the various religions and how they shape cultures throughout the world. . .&#8221;

kiwimac said:

Did you miss the part where the school made it clear they would be providing information about other religions? Let me help by providing it (again) for you.

Snip. .”


[/B][/COLOR][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Did you miss the part where the "vocabulary lesson" asserted Islamic doctrine?

“The zenith of any Muslim’s life is a trip to Mecca,” one sentence read. For “erratic,” the lesson included this statement: “The responses to Muhammad’s teachings were at first erratic. Some people responded favorably, while other resisted his claim that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad his Prophet.”

I asked the school district if there had been similar vocabulary assignments about Judaism, Christianity or other religions. I also asked for the exact dates of those assignments. Here’s the reply I received from the school district:

"The class recently finished reading Night by Elie Wiesel. As part of the study of this book, students were exposed to Judaism. I'm told that one of the next couple of lessons that will be taught in this class includes an examination of Psalm 23 as part of the lesson. Additionally, the workbook in question has another vocabulary lesson with words used in a passage about India's three great beliefs (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism). Keep in mind that this workbook is just one of numerous resources used in the course. Students are exposed to various cultures, values, and beliefs through the reading of multiple types of literature, but teachers certainly aren't advocating for any of them.”

There is a significant difference between statements of doctrine like "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet" and the rather graphic personal reflections of someone surviving the Holocaust.

Did you miss the fact that exposure to Christianity was not reported by school officials?

Don't you think that there might be some problem with using mostly positive words like zenith and astute for the introduction to Islam, and using the rather graphic and disturbing recollections of a Holocaust survivor to introduce Judaism?

Hi this is Islam, here are by and large positive things like being smart and travel. Hi this is Judaism where various nutjobs are going to deny your basic humanity, oppress you, torture you, and kill millions of you.

Yep, you're right. There's no way that a reasonable person could construe that as using State funds and power to prefer one religion over another.

By the by, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I just put on the market...

JohnLocke said:

Actually, Bedford, it is.

Read up on your 5th Amendment procedural rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly hearsay exceptions.

Click to expand...

Lying Todd Starnes and his opinion column for Fox News isn't a court of law however. And this isn't the first time Starnes has pulled the "they didn't respond to my demands so I'm going to conclude what I want". It's an old tactic of his.

While I reserve judgement on whether or not the Starnes article is accurate, it should be noted that there already are a few hundred legitimate reasons to reject Common Core -- that it allows nonsense like this to slip under the radar is only one more (assuming Starnes is telling the truth)

It's to be expected when you put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of education... as opposed to actual educators.

JohnLocke said:

Actually, Bedford, it is.

Read up on your 5th Amendment procedural rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly hearsay exceptions.

Just speaking logically, however, the school was able to readily produce the alleged pro-Islam documents, stated that these documents were but one in a series of documents, and then "lawyered up" and refused comment on the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. documents or produce the rest of the series?

Hmmm... that's not suspicious at all.

Click to expand...

Lol

TLK Valentine said:

While I reserve judgement on whether or not the Starnes article is accurate, it should be noted that there already are a few hundred legitimate reasons to reject Common Core -- that it allows nonsense like this to slip under the radar is only one more (assuming Starnes is telling the truth)

It's to be expected when you put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of education... as opposed to actual educators.

Click to expand...

I don\t know much about this Common Core.
I looked up the wiki article on it, and it was all about standards in math and english.

A common standard in such core subjects would be a worthwhile goal, and political structures would be a way of bringing this about-with educators developing the standards of course!

What the opening article points to is nothing about standards in English and Math, but everything about a political agenda being foisted into the classroom. This would be an example of political hacks disguised as educators hijacking a worthwhile program with the goal of standardizing core subjects for a purely political agenda.

<staff edit>

Bedford said:

The school not replying is not evidence.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. The Public School system is dominated by Progressives, people who on one hand scream separation of church and state at the mere mention of God, Christ, or Christianity, but promote and defend Islam because Bush, Cheney, Haliburton. The decision to include mentions of Mohammad in a vocabulary lesson was, of course, deliberate. It was designed to be subtle, propaganda at its best, to promote a positive image of Mohammad and thus Islam without the vast majority of the students realizing what was occurring.

If the school had worksheets promoting Christianity or Judaism all they would have had to do was produce them to deflect the controversy. They did not, which is clear evidence no such worksheets existed.

wing2000 said:

...another Todd Starnes "life is so unfair" for American Christians hit piece.

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

wing2000 said:

BTW, the quoted text is not promoting Islam.

Click to expand...

Of course it is. Suppose the worksheet said this:

"Mohammed, who was familiar with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, found solitude to be conducive to his practice of improper relations with twelve year old girls."

Do you think you would be so dismissive then?

GarfieldJL said:

There is no reason for the curriculum to have Mohammed mentioned in a vocabulary lesson.

Click to expand...

That is the point. There is absolutely no reason to include positive descriptions of Mohammad in a vocabulary lesson, other than an intentional but subtle effort to promote Islam.

This is typical Common Core methodology.

GarfieldJL said:

We already did, you just chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd like to establish.

Click to expand...

You have contributed, except you forget to bring any evidence.

GarfieldJL said:

I hate to break it to you, but if you want to claim that there are similar educational materials depicting Jewish or Christian religious figures, the burden of proof is on you to provide it.

Click to expand...

I never made the claim. You made the claim Jewish or Christian religious figures were not there - with no actual evidence. The burden is still on you.

GarfieldJL said:

I provided the evidence to prove my case, you're just trying to refute me without providing any evidence, claiming I haven't provided evidence when I did.

Click to expand...

You provided no evidence.