If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Second grade class learning about the Crusades hangs poster showing Jesus pointing at the viewer like Uncle Sam and demanding 'I want you to kill all infidels'...which may not have been a good idea   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 168
    More: Fail, Fresno's Hamilton Elementary School, Uncle Sam, religious wars, religious studies, Black Death, Muslim Population, Magna Carta, elementary schools  
•       •       •

10916 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jun 2012 at 12:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



168 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-10 12:54:50 PM

DicksWii: Would he have gotten more historically accurate points if he used a Pope?


No - the US version of the poster doesn't have Woodrow Wilson.
 
2012-06-10 12:54:57 PM

FloydA: Mugato: Other than the fact that the Church would have commissioned a little more experienced artist, I don't see what's so inaccurate about that picture.

Well, I doubt that Jesus would have worn that particular necklace.


Speaking English is cool, though. Right?
 
2012-06-10 12:55:44 PM
'The picture itself I feel goes against everything Christianity stands for,' said an angry Christopher Alfaro to ABC.

well so did the crusades, and maybe they'll learn that using religion to go to war has happened throughout history and will be better able to see it happen in their lives. god forbid kids learn to think!
 
2012-06-10 12:56:27 PM

InternetSecurityGuard: Christians are always trying to increase their numbers by conversion. That's why they evangelize proselytize.


FTFY
 
2012-06-10 12:57:27 PM
Christopher Alfaro, pictured, says the poster depicting Jesus is sacrilege

Yeah, well what's the punishment for that? I think Jesus is waiting for you to get off your massive butt and burn this seven-year-old kid at the stake.
 
2012-06-10 12:57:35 PM
Apparently, the truth offends some people.

Great job kid!

In all honesty, if there was a help wanted poster back then for recruiting crusaders, it probably looked exactly like that.
 
2012-06-10 12:57:59 PM
You know if that had been a pic of Mohamed it would have been torn down in a heart beat.

THIS
 
2012-06-10 12:58:46 PM
Sounds like the kids learned the nature of the Crusades pretty well. Isn't that just a good job done by the school? A more nuanced summary would be, "The Holy Land belongs in the hands of the Holy People, that being us of course, and God wants us to kill any non-holy people who happen to be in the way," but for elementary school, I think they got it close enough.

My German professor in college told me that her primary school history classes ended up behind schedule every year and finished right after World War I. Every year. From elementary school through high school. Presumably to avoid embarrassing situations like this one like this one.
 
2012-06-10 12:58:46 PM
So they appear to be teaching the evils of the Christians during the crusades, but not about the evils that led to it? While the poster is actually fairly accurate as to what was being done by the RC church back then, it is terribly one sided.

The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing, though the article is silent on whether the course teaches that. But since it is about the 'Crusades' I suspect it depicts the Muslim side as victims.

The fact both sides were killing in the name of their various gods seems to mean nothing.

When teaching about a war or a military conflict, teach about all sides. We do not teach about only one side in other conflicts, though we could do better. Humans commit atrocities on all sides in war, it is rare where one side is a complete victim. Usually all sides contribute to the escalation of problems that lead to war. If you teach the Crusades, you should teach what led up to them and the causes.
 
2012-06-10 01:00:14 PM

tomWright: The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing


It quite literally did mean nothing in the context of the Crusades, since that conquest happened literally three hundred fifty years earlier.
 
2012-06-10 01:01:08 PM
Christians... Someone should sell tickets
 
2012-06-10 01:01:20 PM

mark12A: You know if that had been a pic of Mohamed it would have been torn down in a heart beat.

THIS


that would be a great poster saying the same thing to hang right next to it.
 
2012-06-10 01:01:23 PM

DamnYankees: tomWright: The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing

It quite literally did mean nothing in the context of the Crusades, since that conquest happened literally three four hundred fifty years earlier.


FTFM
 
2012-06-10 01:02:15 PM

tomWright: So they appear to be teaching the evils of the Christians during the crusades, but not about the evils that led to it? While the poster is actually fairly accurate as to what was being done by the RC church back then, it is terribly one sided.

The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing, though the article is silent on whether the course teaches that. But since it is about the 'Crusades' I suspect it depicts the Muslim side as victims.

The fact both sides were killing in the name of their various gods seems to mean nothing.

When teaching about a war or a military conflict, teach about all sides. We do not teach about only one side in other conflicts, though we could do better. Humans commit atrocities on all sides in war, it is rare where one side is a complete victim. Usually all sides contribute to the escalation of problems that lead to war. If you teach the Crusades, you should teach what led up to them and the causes.


And you know they weren't teaching all sides.... how exactly? Using your remote viewing DVD's again?
 
2012-06-10 01:05:00 PM

mark12A: You know if that had been a pic of Mohamed it would have been torn down in a heart beat.

THIS


Probably because it was those following christ charging into the middle east and killing those following mohammed. If it was of him it would be historically inaccurate so it would not remain up, you are correct. Take your christian persecution complex somewhere else. Just because you can't handle that christianity has been used like almost every other religion to pillage and rape is no reason to feel that noble, self serving, ego trip you call 'persecution'.
 
2012-06-10 01:06:03 PM

tomWright: So they appear to be teaching the evils of the Christians during the crusades, but not about the evils that led to it? While the poster is actually fairly accurate as to what was being done by the RC church back then, it is terribly one sided.

The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing, though the article is silent on whether the course teaches that. But since it is about the 'Crusades' I suspect it depicts the Muslim side as victims.

The fact both sides were killing in the name of their various gods seems to mean nothing.

When teaching about a war or a military conflict, teach about all sides. We do not teach about only one side in other conflicts, though we could do better. Humans commit atrocities on all sides in war, it is rare where one side is a complete victim. Usually all sides contribute to the escalation of problems that lead to war. If you teach the Crusades, you should teach what led up to them and the causes.


t.qkme.me
 
2012-06-10 01:06:24 PM
"And one family from the area says the poster depicting Jesus is more than just a history lesson - it's sacrilege."

Nice. They couldn't care less about the message of religious genocide, they just don't want a crayola Jesus mug on the wall.
 
2012-06-10 01:07:34 PM

truthseeker2083: mark12A: You know if that had been a pic of Mohamed it would have been torn down in a heart beat.

THIS

Probably because it was those following christ charging into the middle east and killing those following mohammed. If it was of him it would be historically inaccurate so it would not remain up, you are correct. Take your christian persecution complex somewhere else. Just because you can't handle that christianity has been used like almost every other religion to pillage and rape is no reason to feel that noble, self serving, ego trip you call 'persecution'.


from wiki: "The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off Christian access to Jerusalem, and were also sparked by the destruction of many Christian sacred sites and the persecution of Christians under the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim."

it's not like it wasn't provoked.

/both sides did shiat
 
2012-06-10 01:08:03 PM

InternetSecurityGuard: OK, I lifted this definition off of dictionary.reference.com:

infidel

noun
1. Religion .
a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, especially Christianity.
b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, especially a Muslim.
c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.
2. a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.
3.(loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.

Christians are always trying to increase their numbers by conversion. That's why they evangelize. You don't increase your numbers by killing potential conversions. So the poster fails.

But it's still amusing.


No Christianity just grew out of it. The nobles eventually got tired of this shiat and rallied around Luther when he separated. It was not that the nobles thought he was right, it was an opportunity for the nobles to tell the Pope to GTFO of my lands and stop sending my sons to kill teh mooslim. Now Christians evangelize, but it was not always so.

/Lutheran
// Believes the Catholics and the Born Agains are the reason we have as many issues as we do with Muslims.
///Thinks we should open Walmarts and Victoria Secrets in the Middle East instead of dropping bombs. Few problems some capitalism and lingerie can't solve.
 
2012-06-10 01:08:10 PM
Wonder if they are also teaching why the Crusades came about, not just how the church recruited its armies. That would make it far more interesting and wouldn't make one side look persecuted or the other like invaders.
Hate when "educators" cherry pick events out of the past to make a point.
Without context it's no different than a religious person quoting select scripture as needed to win an argument or a liberal acting as if every thought they have is original.
 
2012-06-10 01:10:13 PM

tomWright: So they appear to be teaching the evils of the Christians during the crusades, but not about the evils that led to it? While the poster is actually fairly accurate as to what was being done by the RC church back then, it is terribly one sided.

The military conquest and slaughter perpetrated by Muslims as they expanded out of Arabia into the rest of the Levant seems to mean nothing, though the article is silent on whether the course teaches that. But since it is about the 'Crusades' I suspect it depicts the Muslim side as victims.

The fact both sides were killing in the name of their various gods seems to mean nothing.

When teaching about a war or a military conflict, teach about all sides. We do not teach about only one side in other conflicts, though we could do better. Humans commit atrocities on all sides in war, it is rare where one side is a complete victim. Usually all sides contribute to the escalation of problems that lead to war. If you teach the Crusades, you should teach what led up to them and the causes.

"Students at Hamilton were assigned to create a help wanted poster for soldiers needed to fight in the crusades..."


They might well have taught both sides, but the assignment was to create a recruitment poster. How does one make one of those that is fair to both sides?
 
2012-06-10 01:12:00 PM

stuffy: You know if that had been a pic of Mohamed it would have been torn down in a heart beat.


Also true, and ironic, considering he was actually a general and did participate in armed conflict.
 
2012-06-10 01:14:26 PM
When I was in catholic boarding school they taught us about the Children's Crusade, and the message was pretty clear; "your parents have authorised us to sell you into slavery."
 
2012-06-10 01:15:19 PM

BlippityBleep: from wiki: "The Crusades were originally launched in response to a call from the leaders of the Byzantine Empire for help to fight the expansion into Anatolia of Muslim Seljuk Turks who had cut off Christian access to Jerusalem, and were also sparked by the destruction of many Christian sacred sites and the persecution of Christians under the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim."

it's not like it wasn't provoked.

/both sides did shiat


True, but the motivation for the Muslim side was slightly different. This was a period when the north African Muslims were essentially separate from Muslims in the Middle East. The Middle East Muslims were trying to expand west and reclaim north Africa to reunite the Caliphate. Taking over Jerusalem was basically a side trip to their main goal. So killing infidels wasn't their primary concern. However if Jesus is Uncle Sam a Muslim poster with the equivalent of "Reclaim the Sudetenland" would actually be a lot more accurate.
 
2012-06-10 01:16:06 PM

Mock26: 2. Teacher should be slapped for allowing the picture to go up. Not because it has jesus on it, but because jesus had nothing to do with the crusades. The popes were the ones who ordered the crusades.


Right, because Jesus was only a historical figure, never a symbol used by Christians throughout the last two thousand years to explain their beliefs and/or justify their shiat.
 
2012-06-10 01:17:15 PM
Count me in as another christian who thought the work was brilliant!

Good job kid!

/would lol again
 
2012-06-10 01:25:04 PM
i made theis sine
and i was smokign weed

thanks ofr viewing FARL!!!
 
2012-06-10 01:25:51 PM
The wiki article is a good starting point:
The main series of Crusades, primarily against Muslims in the Levant, occurred between 1095 and 1291.

And you are right that it was first conquered by Muslims close to 400 years prior.

But Christians still had access. The crusades were in response to not just the Muslim conquest, but to the denial of access and attacks on christian pilgrims.

This was a war, drawn out over centuries, between Abrahamic religions. To say only one side was the aggressor is incorrect.

As an atheist I do not have a religious preference in that fight. I just want history to be presented with all sides represented. The story of the crusades is far more complicated than "Christians bad, Muslims good" presented currently by the left, or the "Those dirty pagans took our Jerusalem" that is presented by the right. Yes both are huge simplifications, but I am not writing a dissertation here either.

The history of that area, especially after the fracture of the Roman Empire and the decline of the Western Empire, is far more complicated than the simplistic depictions presented to students in courses like this.
 
2012-06-10 01:26:41 PM
Man, fark this guy:
image.gamespotcdn.net

Between making me go on crusades when I clearly didn't have the resources for it, and pulling this shiat:
media.monstersandcritics.com
When France attacked me first and took my territories, and I tried to get them back. You wait until France has siezed 3 territories from me, and you want to pull this 'peace' bullshiat the second I round up enough soldiers to get them back? Fark you pope.

So I had a solution. I sent my priest to far away lands to administer the gospel to the heathens. Once they were skilled enough they were promoted to the college of cardnials. I then had the pope assassinated and with majority control of the College, I had my own priest chosen as Pope. Things were good for a while. Then he got too big for his Pope hat, and started forgetting who his farking king was. Started ordering crusades here, and charity there, so I had him assassinated as well. My next guy in succession toed the line for a bit, but he clearly forgot what happened to the last guy to tried to buck up on me. Do you not know who the fark I am? I'm the king of the Holy Roman Farking Empire! I don't play! Guess what, lets see how you like half of the Papal states being annexed! Excommunication? Fine. Mr. Shadow is gonna pay you a little visit. Let's see how badly the next pope wishes to welcome me back into the fold.

/I went through a lot of popes.
 
2012-06-10 01:29:30 PM

FloydA: So now Christians don't want more Jesus in the public schools?

Make up your damned minds, people!


Some Christians exist only to be offended, and will only tolerate "their" Jesus in school, whatever that means.

I'm upset that Mr. Alfaro is offended. Does that mean that I can have him removed as well?
 
2012-06-10 01:32:13 PM
i911.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-10 01:32:44 PM

offmymeds: [i1136.photobucket.com image 300x375]

Is not amused.


Heck, I thought it was him.
 
2012-06-10 01:33:22 PM
i1125.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-10 01:34:36 PM
Maybe Mr. Alfaro should make a poster.
Of Jesus saying, "I WANT YOU--to stop making posters of me!"

Or maybe he should just go fnck himself.
 
2012-06-10 01:36:50 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: WTF is wrong with people. As a Christian, I think this poster is hilarious. As as 1/4 Arab: Even more hilarious.


Please have as many kids as you can afford, and teach them of your ways, goodly sir or madam.
 
2012-06-10 01:37:53 PM

MythDragon: Man, fark this guy:
[image.gamespotcdn.net image 633x448]

Between making me go on crusades when I clearly didn't have the resources for it, and pulling this shiat:

[lots of stuff]

/I went through a lot of popes.


That comment was full of win.
 
2012-06-10 01:37:59 PM
Yeah count me as an atheist who thinks the current way schools teach about the crusades is narrowminded. It takes a certain special kind of stupid to not see how the wars were largely defensive in nature. Of course the crusaders were assholes, if they weren't most of the mediterean would be part of western civilization right now. Right now women are being whipped for being in public and apostates are being executed in places that otherwise would have girls running around in bikinis and listening to techno music. Oh but let's not show muhammed in a bad light has his armies attacked Europe from all sides for centuries and sold their caputered prisoners into slavery.
 
2012-06-10 01:38:12 PM
As a product of the public school system, this sounds pretty normal for the way the crusades are covered. Christians = bad, muslims = poor innocent victims. No mention is made of Muslim conquest into europe, nor their shenanigans in the Balkans.

You've gotta start cultivating that white guilt at an early age.
 
2012-06-10 01:38:23 PM

JerseyTim: That is some darn good work by that kid. I like how Jesus is wearing a cross necklace.


Jesus was stuck up.
 
2012-06-10 01:38:48 PM

ChuDogg: It takes a certain special kind of stupid to not see how the wars were largely defensive in nature.


LOLWUT
 
2012-06-10 01:39:30 PM

tomWright: But Christians still had access. The crusades were in response to not just the Muslim conquest, but to the denial of access and attacks on christian pilgrims.

This was a war, drawn out over centuries, between Abrahamic religions. To say only one side was the aggressor is incorrect.


Then there were all the economic factors.

Plus, what the heck were all those European nobles to do with their extra sons? You had one to inherit, one to serve their boss, you sent one to the Church, and to deal with the rest you had to dream up the Crusades. Europe was enfoeffed and divided up about as much as it could be. They needed...to steal a phrase,,,lebensraum, and the East was the place to get it.


/Does that count as a Godwin?
 
2012-06-10 01:41:31 PM

MaxAwesome: JerseyTim: That is some darn good work by that kid. I like how Jesus is wearing a cross necklace.

Jesus was stuck up.


He was the first hipster. He's wearing it ironically.
 
2012-06-10 01:43:33 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: MythDragon: Man, fark this guy:
[image.gamespotcdn.net image 633x448]

Between making me go on crusades when I clearly didn't have the resources for it, and pulling this shiat:

[lots of stuff]

/I went through a lot of popes.

That comment was full of win.


seconded!
 
2012-06-10 01:45:38 PM

BlippityBleep: The Irresponsible Captain: MythDragon: Man, fark this guy:
[image.gamespotcdn.net image 633x448]

Between making me go on crusades when I clearly didn't have the resources for it, and pulling this shiat:

[lots of stuff]

/I went through a lot of popes.

That comment was full of win.

seconded!


What game is this?
 
2012-06-10 01:46:14 PM

MaxAwesome: JerseyTim: That is some darn good work by that kid. I like how Jesus is wearing a cross necklace.

Jesus was stuck up.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-10 01:47:01 PM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: WTF is wrong with people. As a Christian, I think this poster is hilarious. As as 1/4 Arab: Even more hilarious.


I'm not 1/4 Arab, but I am Christian and I laughed when I saw it. The kid who did it obviously understands history more than the parents.
 
2012-06-10 01:47:21 PM

DamnYankees: ChuDogg: It takes a certain special kind of stupid to not see how the wars were largely defensive in nature.

LOLWUT


Yes you are stupid, but we already knew that.

RTFT
 
2012-06-10 01:49:18 PM

DamnYankees: ChuDogg: It takes a certain special kind of stupid to not see how the wars were largely defensive in nature.

LOLWUT


There's a "Politically Incorrect" historical movement that tries to spin history in a right wing fashion. It's mostly poorly researched BS done by amateurs. For the Crusades, they think that Muslims took over Jerusalem as part of their master plan to take over Europe and defeat on their arch-nemesis, Christianity.

In reality when the Crusaders started coming over the response from Muslims in the Holy Lands was more along the lines of "Who the fark are these people? What's a Europa?" It isn't to say Muslims never did anything bad but Medieval Muslims were primarily concerned with killing other Medieval Muslims.
 
2012-06-10 01:53:28 PM

MaxAwesome


JerseyTim: That is some darn good work by that kid. I like how Jesus is wearing a cross necklace.

Jesus was stuck up.


You hit the nails on the head.
 
2012-06-10 01:55:01 PM

odinsposse: DamnYankees: ChuDogg: It takes a certain special kind of stupid to not see how the wars were largely defensive in nature.

LOLWUT

There's a "Politically Incorrect" historical movement that tries to spin history in a right wing fashion. It's mostly poorly researched BS done by amateurs. For the Crusades, they think that Muslims took over Jerusalem as part of their master plan to take over Europe and defeat on their arch-nemesis, Christianity.

In reality when the Crusaders started coming over the response from Muslims in the Holy Lands was more along the lines of "Who the fark are these people? What's a Europa?" It isn't to say Muslims never did anything bad but Medieval Muslims were primarily concerned with killing other Medieval Muslims.


The Muslim threat of taking over Europe ended at the Battle of Tours, more than 350 years before the First Crusade. The idea that the forces of Western Europe went on the First Crusade in order to protect themselves against the Muslim hordes in TURKEY is absurd.
 
Displayed 50 of 168 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report