Should History Classes Teach That The HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED?

[Beetwasher]

If not, why should creationism (intelligent design) be taught in science class? There are idiots who make the argument that the holocaust never happened, and supposedly even back it up w/ "evidence". Therefore, should this version of history be taught schools? I mean after all, if they can find some flaws w/ what's being taught about the holocaust, they can just throw the whole "theory" about it happening out the window, right? :eyes:

[el_gato]

1. good point

[DrWeird]

2. Sometimes historical bigots can be just as insulting as Aryan bigots.

I think we all need to calm down and teach our children both theories and let them decide for themselves. Besides, I shouldn't have to pay taxes if schools are going to teach the theory of the holocaust. And it is a theory, you can't prove it.

:eyes:

[deep sea]

3. That is very very stupid.

^ million Jews did die. It happened. And that is history. Teaching both sides? Both sides of what? Are you smoking something? Do you really think it didn't happen?

[DrWeird]

4. Can't prove it.

Those photos were all photoshopped and those "victims" are lying and the locks were on the inside of the "gas chambers" and chemical analysis of the "chambers" shows there was no poisonous gas. It was a dry sauna.

*sarcasm*

[deep sea]

5. I read your post with it still scrolled down

You had me going....I didn't see the sarcasm thing until after a second......

On another note....."Both Sides"!!!!!!


WTF!!!

[Endangered Specie]

15. Welcome to DU!, and remember, alot of us do sarcasm

some of us dont bother to but a end sarcasm tag on it.

[gordianot]

25. I have met some of the survivors.

Yes sir they just had numbers tattooed in their arms for the way it looks. It is also an accident they did not have any family members left bad luck. 40 years ago I met some survivors saw the tattoo's, scars and saw the pictures in a school assembly. Also Mr. H who lived next door just made up those stories about what he saw in Germany in 1945 as a GI.

It is easy to be a revisionist now that these voices are passing away and are no longer here to defend themselves.

This is not a theory.

[DrWeird]

27. Your standard holocaust denier would just say...

the survivors are lying, they faked it, it's part of a conspiracy.

Just like Creationists with scientists.

[kayell]

6. Shhhh....don't give them ideas.

I hear they're considering reinstituting the earth as the center of the universe again too. After all, astronomy and physics were both totally debunked when they proved that the earth is only 6000 years old.

[Lerkfish]

7. It shouldn't be taught in science classes....however,

I object to characterizing "intelligent design" on the same level and denying the holocaust.
Tha'ts incendiary hyperbole that doesn't really help your point.

The ONLY way intelligent design should be discussed is in a social studies course, studying culturally the various politico-religious natures of the populace.

I'm a christian, but I disagree with the mixing of church and state.

However, to make the comparison you're making is reprehensible.

[K-W]

8. It is an entirely apt comparison, and it points to something important.

Intelligent Design is propaganda designed to obscure the obvious factual difference between creationism and science. By making a psuedoscientific presentation, they argue "both are theories, shouldnt people get to hear both?"

Holocaust revisionists do exactly the same thing, they have setup a psuedo-historical narrative that they present as an alternative theory, they could make the exact same argument as creationists.

What this comparison does is point out that strategy, because MANY americans cant see the difference with creationism, you need an example that will emphasize just how stupid the intelligent design argument is.

[Beetwasher]

9. No, It's Not Reprehensible

It's called making a rhetorical point by using an extreme.

[deep sea]

10. There was a Holcaust..

It should be taught..so as not to happen again..the humans who died during that dark time at least deserve that..

[Lerkfish]

19. What are you talking about?

this is the problem with the hyperbolic comparison made: now you've assumed falsely that I'm against teaching about the holocaust.

see how this works?

[DrWeird]

20. How is it hyperbolic?

When you weigh all the evidence, evolution is just as much a fact as the Holocaust, and "scientific creationism" is just as much baloney as holocaust denial.

[Lerkfish]

22. right. nothing hyperbolic there.

:eyes:

[DrWeird]

23. I'm completely serious.

Holocaust denial: Those photos are fakes.

Creationism: Those fossils were put there by the devil to trick us.

[China_cat]

30. Creationism: Those fossils were put there by the devil to trick us?

No. I've always heard it "those fossils were put there by god to test your faith".

But there's never any answer when you ask them "you mean god would lie?"

[Lerkfish]

53. I think there's a basic problem with labeling here...

I explained to another poster that I was wrongly thinking of intelligent design as accepting science but believing in an intelligent creator. That was MY misunderstanding.
I think the misunderstanding of you and others is that to believe in God is to do so to the degree of these deluded folk.

[DrWeird]

57. I've never made that allegation.

I haven't seen anybody else do so in these debates either.

[K-W]

26. A COMPARISON IS NOT AN EQUIVELENCE

I will say this until you understand.

NOBODY is saying that creationism and the holocaust are the same thing.

We are making a COMPARISON, which by definition involves two different things.

The point is that the relationship between the accepted history of the haulocaust and hauocaust revisionism is very similar to the relationship between the accepted theories surrounding the origin of species and intelligent design.

It is an apt comparison, it is not a hyperbole.

[K-W]

11. also A COMPARISON IS NOT AN EQUIVELANCE

Just wanted to clear that up for you.

[DrWeird]

12. It's a valid comparison.

The level of ignorance needed to believe Evolution never happened is the same level of ignorance needed to believe the holocaust never happened.

[Lerkfish]

21. Hmm..maybe you're misunderstanding "intelligent design" or I am...

my understanding was that intelligent design did not refute evolution, but rather says a divine being directed natural occurrences like evolution.

What is your understanding?

If I am correct, intelligent design is teaching a religious model for the causation of events that occurred (still should not be taught in science class), which is vastly different from denying historical events did not occur.

Unless you can better explain on what level they are a valid comparison, besides "ignorance"?

[DrWeird]

24. Your misunderstanding.

"Intelligent design" is the teaching of the literal Biblical version of Creation. The Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood, for example. It's propaganda code words like "family values" or "abstinence education." They might change there stance on some arguments in a debate "OK, OK, maybe the earth is a little more than 6,000 years old", "OK, OK maybe a few Jews were killed, but it definitely wasn't as bad as everyone says," but it's still the same bullshit.

[Lerkfish]

49. ahhhh...thanks. my bad.

being as I'm not an "intelligent design" proponent, I'd always assumed it merely accepted scientific findings as fact, but still said there was an intelligence behind it.

I did a google and see that I was wrong about that particular concept.

However, as I read it, the bible contains nothing which is directly counter to evolution, so saying the "literal biblical version of creation" is consistent with intelligent design, then that would be a difference of opinion. I believe evolution likely happened, but I also believe God created everything, my reading of the bible does not actually contradict that, if you read it with an open mind.

[DrWeird]

55. Well, sure, if you keep an open mind.

If you keep an open mind, you see the Bible as parables, with morals. If you're close-minded, you read the thing literally and insist that the world was literally created in seven days no ifs, ands or buts.

[Lerkfish]

58. well, thats two ends of the spectrum, the truth likely

is in the middle. The bible is part historical record from a specific perspective, parables, allegory, spiritually enlighening philosophy, treatise on ethics and morality, thought provoking proverbs and AN answer to some who search for the meaning of life.

Its a melange of meaning, and the mistake is to judge it by either extreme -- as if it were wholly myth or wholly verbatim truth with no layers of meaning.

Its a beautiful document, when taken in whole. When used piecemeal to further an agenda, it sullies that beauty.

[DrWeird]

59. The truth is, evolution happened the way science says it did.

As for that other stuff, well, there's no way to know one way or the other.

[Lerkfish]

61. I was referring to how one reads the bible and interprets its meaning.

I wasn't referring to evolution in that post, thanks.

[DrWeird]

62. Gotcha.

I thought you meant the truth was "somewhere in the middle" between Evolution and the literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Lerkfish]

63. yeah, I realized that from your post.

I had switched gears in the argument and as sometimes happens, forgot to signal that very clearly.

Honestly, I'm not a person who discounts evolution, or proposes the earth is 6,000 years old, etc.

I think problems arise because it appears many people are acting under the impression that ANY religious person is the same as those knuckleheads. I am only trying to correct that misassumption. When I do that, however, it invariably gets misinterpreted from me saying "you can be religious and accept science" to the incorrect notion I am defending those who discount science in favor of bizarre narrow overly literal interpretations of the bible.

The only reason I speak up is that the rhetoric and tone and tendency appears to be a wide brush swath against all those who believe in God, out of benign (and sometimes not so benign) ignorance, intolerance, what have you.

I also think those creationists are wingjobs, but that doesn't mean I should stand by and say nothing as liberal christians like myself get smeared by the same brush.

[K-W]

60. Edit, my mistake.

nevermind

[K-W]

28. Intelligent design is creationism.

Just dressed up in a psuedoscientific narrative.

[mike_c]

66. the most important distinction is that intelligent design...

...proposes purposeful change. Evolution is not a purposeful process. Some of the mechanisms of evolution, e.g. natural selection, have predictable consequences but most do not. It's a mistake to think that organisms have evolved toward some "goal." Even the most benign presentations of intelligent design assume the designer had some objective in mind. This is not just a philosophical issue-- intelligent design is inconsistent with much observed evolution.

[Endangered Specie]

13. Ohh, nice one there.

We also need to teach alternate "World Jewish Conpisracy" stuff in History too.

[barb162]

14. It is recent fact and people are still alive who can attest to the

Holocaust. Therefore in any schoolroom a teacher would be teaching a lie if they said this particular event, FACT, never happened. Evolution is also fact/science. As to creationism, if they can back it up with FACT, versus waving some bible in somebody's face, well I would ask the creationist what the hell their facts are (haha, remember no bibles)

[Endangered Specie]

16. Thats the general idea...

Its just showing creation scientists reasonin applied to a particular extreme, to show the ridiculousness of the "alternate theories (regardless of evidence and fact) should be presented in a classroom and the students decide" nonesense.

[barb162]

39. I think maybe teach children first the scientific method; once they

have that down flat and I mean imprinted in their little brains, then you show them evolution and the facts about evolution through the scientific method, then you show them creationism and say okay, let's apply scientific method here too. haha; so you get to teach creationism as an unproved, invalid piece of crap.

[K-W]

40. That is how most biology teachers handle it.

In my experience.

[barb162]

44. in my experience, it was just a given. It was taught of course,

but buried somewhere in the middle of something as if it had to be covered but not much time was spent on it. Then the teachers wanted to get into really important stuff like the citric acid cycle or amphibians.

[Endangered Specie]

51. They should teach the scientific methodS (more than one) and...

the three assumptions of science:

-Natural causality
-Common perception.
-Space-Time continuity.

(these I never heard taught in school but they are VITALLY important).

[datasuspect]

17. copernicus, kepler, and galileo

are just pushing a heliocentric agenda. why do they hate the earth so much?

everyone knows the earth is the center of the universe.

[morgan2]

18. in a sane world

school would teach evolution, and church would teach creationism. But we don't live in a sane world.

[K-W]

29. In a sane world nobody would teach creationism.

It just isnt true.

[datasuspect]

31. freeper trap

do you think threads like this one are good freeper traps?

i don't attest to enforcing doctrinal purity for the most part, but this thread and the evolution/creation threads reveal the extent to which du is being trolled.

[Beetwasher]

33. See Post #32 and Have At It!

You won't believe your eyes.

[datasuspect]

35. sarcasm

is an excellent freeper detector.

most of the time it goes right over their heads.

<SWOOOOSH!>

post 32: OHMYGAWD! case in point

[Beetwasher]

38. Hee Hee, They Just Can't Help Themselves But To Reply

and expose themselves...It's like a roach motel...

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

34. We've Got A Live One

So, were the Germans murdering jews in camps or not?

[K-W]

36. Yah, because you have to exagerate to make genocide sound bad

:p

[Beetwasher]

37. Yeah, I Guess My Relatives Didn't Really Have Tatoo's On Their Arms

That guy's a real laugh riot...

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

41. buh bye

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

42. banned in 3...2.....1.....

[Beware the Beast Man]

56. Hello Mr. Gibson. Tell your son I said hi!

And don't let the granite hit you on the ass on your way out, either!

[ElectroPrincess]

43. The entitled thread question is unbelievably ignorant?

Gee, I didn't think that there was any controversy, even among wing-nuts that The Holocaust Happened?

Of course it should be taught, most appropriately in High School, as A FACT.

[Beetwasher]

45. Ummm, It's Rhetorical

I'm trying to make a point by asking that question. Of course the Holocaust happened.

If you think there's no controversy, read post #32.

[ElectroPrincess]

52. I understand ... it's just that, to me, it's asinine that fundies have

so much power. Guess I'm still trying to adjust to life in *'s America. Sorry. ;)

[Beetwasher]

54. No Worries

Just wanted to clarify...

[maveric]

46. Mrs. Kalman, my high school history teacher escaped from Dachau

She has the tattoo and scars to prove it too.
"Glick" my dad's tailor also had the tattoo and spoke openly about how he was allowed to stay alive in Aushwitz due to his superior tailoring abilities. He made and tailored uniforms for the SS officers. His work was so good that he survived. Glick lost his whole family during the war at the hands of the SS.
What happened to them? Colateral damage victims?
Right...

[Beetwasher]

47. Wow

I never believed so many were rhetorically challenged.

Read my whole post.

[maveric]

48. I know where you are coming from. This is just a rant to those on this

post who DO deny the holocaust. There are one or two and I'm just rubbing their noses in it I guess.

[Beetwasher]

50. Cool

No worries...

[sweetheart]

64. As a study in "propaganda studies", it is a brilliant subject

No subject is taboo in my classroom. We research the truth, and look
at why people believe what they do. We see how people use the rationale
of their historical views to frame their current views.

My history class would engage this subject intensively, inviting
outside agencies to present their views to the classroom, and inviting
the classroom to think for itself given the details of the whole
charade.

I've read the websites of those who suggest that the holocaust did
not happen. They say, that during the collapse of nazi germany that,
what appeared as a systematic death camp system, was really an
outbreak of starvation and disease.... that the "gas chambers"
were never used... and that there is no substantial evidence that
they were.

It would be an enlightening course for school students to debate such
a hot item, and i would encourage such thinking, rather than hiding
from those with other views. In school, we teach students how to
discover truth amongst a sea of misinformation... what better a
place to learn and test such knowledge.

[Beetwasher]

65. Or a Course On Critical Thinking

Yup, that would be an appropriate place for the Holocaust Denial material AND the Intelligent Design material.