Why are we not taught about Jesus & God in World History?

[Cieza]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes? I know it's easy to say because of separation of church & state. But if a man rising from the dead and how the universe came into existence are so well documented and so important, then why do they fall under "church" and not "state" when it comes to determining if they should be taught about in public school?

 

[joey_downunder]

My 10 year old boy who goes to a public school asked me the same question. Here in Australia in effect atheists have successfully convinced the education system - or atheists in charge of general curriculum to remove any mention of Christianity. That leaves out huge chunks of history and/or reasons for why western cultures have certain values and other cultures do not. But that does not matter.... if children hear something about Christianity then *shock horror* they might want to learn more and they can't allow that!

What if atheists, or Muslims or Hindus have their faith challenged by historical facts? How politically incorrect! What if children learn to tell the difference right and wrong - they might realise some groups or family members are immoral and "unfairly" display judgemental attitudes towards them! What if children actually start to understand the commandment "love your neighbour as yourself" and change their behaviour accordingly? How unnatural for the law of the jungle to no longer rule the playground or classroom ..... I think you get my drift by now. It is personal values/beliefs of the education system and fears of offending minority groups (including atheists) that has removed Christianity from the Australian classroom, not whether Christianity is true or not.

 

[s_s]

^ What he said. I think it was about 1963 that evolution was first introduced into UK cirriculum, and since then Christianity has been steadily pushed out.

For what it's worth, how the universe came about is taught in schools, it's just that it's taught completely wrongly!

 

[AlexBP]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes? I know it's easy to say because of separation of church & state. But if a man rising from the dead and how the universe came into existence are so well documented and so important, then why do they fall under "church" and not "state" when it comes to determining if they should be taught about in public school?

The choice of curriculum for public schools in the United States is controlled by government entities and heavily influenced by special-interest groups. Most, thought not all, of these groups are militantly left-wing and anti-religious, hence they choose a highly biased curriculum. You seem to be making the assumption that anything well-documented and important will be taught in public schools. That assumption is incorrect. For example, it's well documented and important that Muslims invaded Christian Europe on scores of occasions over the past fifteen hundred years. However, Muslim special interest groups find this truth inconvenient, so it's been removed from most public school curricula. It was certainly never mentioned during my education.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The same reason we don't teach medical ethics in a high school biology course. If you're asking this on a high school or junior high level, the reason is pretty self evident: people don't absolutely need to know this beyond what churches would tell them through evangelism and mission efforts. Heck, I probably would've learned it even if I was raised pretty much neutral to all religions, which I wasn't. I grew up in the South, I would've gone to a bible school or a youth outreach trip, both of which I did for years without realizing there were other options.

There is no reason to presume schools don't teach about Jesus explicitly in history because of anti religious sentiment. At best, the reason history is very basic in high school is because there is a focus more on U.S. History than world history, which is emphasized for various reasons. But there were things taught about people like Siddhartha Gautama and Laozi, so Jesus was mentioned as well, if I remember right. It just wasn't made important that he was believed to have been resurrected and such. His historical significance is still implied anyway and people can ask their pastors about Jesus in more detail if they want. Isn't that what the church's business is anyway?

High school children need to learn fundamentals of history, etc, not the details they will no doubt investigate further in college level courses. Why complicate a basic and practical system that we have?

 

[ebia]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes?

the universe coming into existence is the domain of science, not history.

The resurrection of Jesus is not historically verifiable in the terms of the historical method.

What history classes should deal with is the impact of Jesus and Christianity on the period and aspect being discussed - but that should be in a faith- neutral way.

 

[ebia]

My 10 year old boy who goes to a public school asked me the same question. Here in Australia in effect atheists have successfully convinced the education system - or atheists in charge of general curriculum to remove any mention of Christianity. That leaves out huge chunks of history and/or reasons for why western cultures have certain values and other cultures do not. But that does not matter.... if children hear something about Christianity then *shock horror* they might want to learn more and they can't allow that!

What if atheists, or Muslims or Hindus have their faith challenged by historical facts? How politically incorrect! What if children learn to tell the difference right and wrong - they might realise some groups or family members are immoral and "unfairly" display judgemental attitudes towards them! What if children actually start to understand the commandment "love your neighbour as yourself" and change their behaviour accordingly? How unnatural for the law of the jungle to no longer rule the playground or classroom ..... I think you get my drift by now. It is personal values/beliefs of the education system and fears of offending minority groups (including atheists) that has removed Christianity from the Australian classroom, not whether Christianity is true or not.

The Australian state school system is fairly secular - but then we have some of the best funding for faith schools anywhere in the western world.

 

[ebia]

^ What he said. I think it was about 1963 that evolution was first introduced into UK cirriculum, and since then Christianity has been steadily pushed out.

For what it's worth, how the universe came about is taught in schools, it's just that it's taught completely wrongly!

Most Christians have no problem with evolution.

England is unusual in the west in having religion as part of the national curriculum, and while that must in a state system take an objective perspective it still is required to prioritize Christianity and is better taught than it was 30 years ago.

 

[drich0150]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes? I know it's easy to say because of separation of church & state. But if a man rising from the dead and how the universe came into existence are so well documented and so important, then why do they fall under "church" and not "state" when it comes to determining if they should be taught about in public school?

It was taught in our schools since "we" had schools right Up untill popular culture turned on God.

 

[American Routes]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes? I know it's easy to say because of separation of church & state. But if a man rising from the dead and how the universe came into existence are so well documented and so important, then why do they fall under "church" and not "state" when it comes to determining if they should be taught about in public school?

Because one is science and the other religion, while history usually deals with the development of society and the evolution of various political systems.

Western Civ does teach, or should teach, about Judaism and Christianity.

There are a great many aspects of history that are not commonly taught. We don't even teach American history in America.

 

[Cieza]

the universe coming into existence is the domain of science, not history.

The resurrection of Jesus is not historically verifiable in the terms of the historical method.

What history classes should deal with is the impact of Jesus and Christianity on the period and aspect being discussed - but that should be in a faith- neutral way.

If the resurrection of Jesus is not historically verifiable, then why is the Bible considered an important part of history? Aren't the gospels of Mark, Matthew & Luke meant at least in part to be a historical account of Jesus' time on Earth?

 

[ebia]

If the resurrection of Jesus is not historically verifiable, then why is the Bible considered an important part of history? Aren't the gospels of Mark, Matthew & Luke meant at least in part to be a historical account of Jesus' time on Earth?

Any ancient document is part of history; certainly one's as widely read as the gospels. But that does not make every event they report historically verified.

Even a first rate Christian historian closely studying the history surrounding the resurrection such as NT Wright or John Dickson will stop short of saying the resurrection is historically verifiable. Wright has written more than 1000 pages on it, laying out the data, showing that all the alternative explanations have big problems, etc. But ultimately the historian acting as historian cannot say "the resurrection is verifiable by the historical method". The exceptional nature of the event puts it beyond that.

 

[Cieza]

Because one is science and the other religion, while history usually deals with the development of society and the evolution of various political systems.

Western Civ does teach, or should teach, about Judaism and Christianity.

There are a great many aspects of history that are not commonly taught. We don't even teach American history in America.

Why is the rising of the dead of a man considered religion and not science?

 

[ebia]

Why is the rising of the dead of a man considered religion and not science?

Because there's nothing we can test about it by the scientific method, and because it is (pretty much by definition) ultimately exceptional.

 

[s_s]

Most Christians have no problem with evolution.

Then they ought to read their Bible better.

England is unusual in the west in having religion as part of the national curriculum, and while that must in a state system take an objective perspective it still is required to prioritize Christianity and is better taught than it was 30 years ago.

In most English councils, Christianity is all but outlawed in education. In some areas, it already is. Teachers are and have been taken to court for praying in school. Prayers at assembly are banned.

Because there's nothing we can test about it by the scientific method, and because it is (pretty much by definition) ultimately exceptional.

A guy about my age died last year on the hospital theatre bed.
The doctors pronounced.
Later that same day he woke up.
There's nothing exclusive about it.

This story is verifiable. It was in a national (secular) newspaper, and all of the local ones, and the doctors testified to it.

 

[ebia]

Then they ought to read their Bible better.

They do.

In most English councils, Christianity is all but outlawed in education. In some areas, it already is. Teachers are and have been taken to court for praying in school. Prayers at assembly are banned.

Religious Education is still part of the national curriculum, and that national curriculum is still officially and explicitly slanted to study of Christianity.

A guy about my age died last year on the hospital theatre bed.
The doctors pronounced.
Later that same day he woke up.
There's nothing exclusive about it.

Sorry - I thought you were talking about resurrection.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a thread clean up.

Please note this thread:
Exploring Christianity FSG's - PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING!!

The ONLY nonChristian that can post in a thread in this section is the OP
​

 

[Cieza]

Because there's nothing we can test about it by the scientific method, and because it is (pretty much by definition) ultimately exceptional.

So if I'm thinking about the color green, then whether or not you believe me is religion.

 

[ebia]

So if I'm thinking about the color green, then whether or not you believe me is religion.

I was really answering the question "why is it not science", not giving a complete and sufficient definition of religion.

 

[lesliedellow]

If the rising from the dead of a man and how the universe came into existence are such important parts of history, then why aren't we taught about these things in World History classes? I know it's easy to say because of separation of church & state. But if a man rising from the dead and how the universe came into existence are so well documented and so important, then why do they fall under "church" and not "state" when it comes to determining if they should be taught about in public school?

Because the doctrine that God created the universe is not something a historian can investigate.

Although a historian can investigate evidence for the resurrection, any historical reconstruction is more or less speculative, and, the further removed from us it is in time, the more speculative it becomes. Some things are really not in dispute amongst historians, such as the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, but the Resurrection is intimately tied up with Christian faith, and any reconstruction is likely to be heavily coloured by the historian's religious presuppositions - whether they are theist, specifically Christian theism, or atheist. To teach it as incontrovertible fact would be hugely controversial.