I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like “thoughts and prayers,” but real love, which comes with action.
It’s always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis’ buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being “indentured” and “learning valuable skills!” the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties’ plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I’m telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I’m teaching these things, in the back of my head I’m thinking “This is surprising… Isn’t this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?”
Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you’d swear it was the second coming of the führer.
I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
Oh I got to cover the “many came back” part too, in the form of the fugitive slave law. Thomas Sims for example, people just grabbed off the street in the north and dragged back south because the good ol’ boy system of the courts got some cash from detlaring any random black dude a runaway slave was also prominently taught. Again, NOT DEFENDING MY HOME STATE. Just wondering what the hell I’m missing.
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
gay marriage - I’ll even include polyamorous marriage (assuming consent)
drugs - any restrictions should merely protect those who don’t use it (e.g. BAC limits for driving)
prostitution
gambling
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
Love God
Love neighbor as yourself
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
tolerance - allow gay people in your church, but don’t do anything proactive about it
compassion - feel bad for gay people, and offer to help them overcome it
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
The problem there was that they were defiling his house, disturbing people who were there to worship. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with bad actors, it means not getting involved in things that don’t concern you. Someone else choosing a different religion or lifestyle doesn’t concern you, and the direction to love them still applies. Someone persecuting you does impact you, so righteous anger is justified.
Especially since radical doesn’t mean extremist, but seeking the root. You want to know what a radical Christian looks like? MLK. Arguing for equality to be achieved through peaceful means but a positive peace that includes justice.
The kkk are just positive Christians, but unwilling to call themselves that because that would imply that they might be g*rmans and they ain’t no stinking deutschbag
Yes. Yes they are. Also, I think a “radical Christian” would be the opposite of the KKK.
I guess I’m a radical Christian then.
I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like “thoughts and prayers,” but real love, which comes with action.
John Brown was a radical Christian, and he’s okay in my book.
Truly an American hero.
Pretty telling that he’s not mentioned in history books. I didn’t learn anything about him until well into adulthood.
It’s always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis’ buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being “indentured” and “learning valuable skills!” the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties’ plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I’m telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I’m teaching these things, in the back of my head I’m thinking “This is surprising… Isn’t this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?” Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you’d swear it was the second coming of the führer.
The people checking are too dumb to have him tagged as someone to remove? That has to be the reason.
I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
Oh I got to cover the “many came back” part too, in the form of the fugitive slave law. Thomas Sims for example, people just grabbed off the street in the north and dragged back south because the good ol’ boy system of the courts got some cash from detlaring any random black dude a runaway slave was also prominently taught. Again, NOT DEFENDING MY HOME STATE. Just wondering what the hell I’m missing.
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
Yeahhhh that’s definitely more than a little fucked
Same. The dude should have a statue in DC and probably a holiday.
Naa, one in Harper’s Ferry. Near where the armory was (is?)
I grew up in Appalachia and he was covered a bit in our school history books, more than just mentioned.
I feel like “tolerance” is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for “compassion” you’d be closer to the mark.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Sure, but also “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Compassion still feels more appropriate.
True. I just want to point out that isn’t a quote from the Bible though, it’s from Saint Augustine.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
Tolerantly beat the fuck out of those money changers
Lol.
The problem there was that they were defiling his house, disturbing people who were there to worship. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with bad actors, it means not getting involved in things that don’t concern you. Someone else choosing a different religion or lifestyle doesn’t concern you, and the direction to love them still applies. Someone persecuting you does impact you, so righteous anger is justified.
Love is a verb
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
Yep the second part in the link you sent. But it appears as if some people don’t think love is something you have to do. I guess it just happens 🤦♂️
A millennium and a half of Christianity would say otherwise.
Just because you’re white european doesn’t mean you’re a Christian
Statistically, you’re probably not a Scotsman, either.
Well, no one can really be a True Scotsman
Yeah they are reactionary christians. A radical christian would be like the Catholic Workers and Dorothy Day, or the Fasci Siciliani, or Leo Tolstoy
Especially since radical doesn’t mean extremist, but seeking the root. You want to know what a radical Christian looks like? MLK. Arguing for equality to be achieved through peaceful means but a positive peace that includes justice.
The kkk are just positive Christians, but unwilling to call themselves that because that would imply that they might be g*rmans and they ain’t no stinking deutschbag