Why do people hate islam?

[BCEmporium]

It is true. But in the extremists and terrorists do not follow the true Islam, they are followers of the extreme cutting it flows. Therefore, these people are harming the true Islam.

The extremists will claim that the version of Islam which they are following is the true Islam. They will cite verses from the hadiths and the Qur'an to support their argument. On the other hand, the moderates will also cite various verses to support their side of the argument. So what is true Islam? There is not going to be an agreement over this.

Shias and Sunnis are trying to figure that one out for the last 1400 years, without any conclusion yet...

[1714915213]

1714915213

[Biomech]

Sometimes I almost seem to be wanting to turn the peaceful Muslims into people of violence in the way that I write about the violence directives in the Islamic writings. But, that is not what I want to do.

The thing that I am trying to do is to show peaceful Muslims that they, themselves, are interpreting the violence of their own religious writings into peace, even though those writings express a lot of violence directives.

The point is that Muslims are turning away from Islam by themselves, because most people want peace rather than violence. This is very evident among the Sunni's, who allow all kinds of religious practices in their Islam... almost so that you can't tell if the various Sunni's are really Sunni or really Islamic.

Sure, they call themselves Muslims. And they proclaim that they follow Islam. But they are so shocked at and abhorrent of the violence directives in their religious writings, that they attempt to turn these directives into things of peace.

As an Atheist, I despise the very idea of defining people by one religion or another.  More than that, I despise the religion which encourages or requires such self-definition.

After that is done, though, then the discussion is "framed."  It is framed in terms of one religion versus another, instead of humans, one versus another.

So let me say straight out that your Christianity is not what I consider Christianity to best be, but this is a mild criticism.  At it's worst, Christianity cannot begin to reach the depravity of the bastardization of Islam by Sayd Qutb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cj_Qj3xMtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik0VUXVgWe4

Virtually no one in the Western world understands who Qutb was or his relationship to generations of radical Islam.  No doubt that is part of why and how they confuse Islam with extremist Islam.  However the very existence of such as the writings of Qutd show that radical Islam, is in fact a subset of Islam.

Well, at least that seems to be right.

Of course. That's what the atheism religion says. Avoid considering your religion and the religion of any other people at all costs. And use your religion of atheism to avoid itself.

You atheists are about as dense as anyone can get, even more dense than 1aguar and his PJs.

Only a religious person could consider an atheist to be religious. While an atheist may indeed hold some religious beliefs (religion, religare, to bind (oneself to a creed)), the term itself comes from religious people. We just don't have a better label. Look at what the word actually means. a, without. theism, a belief in specific gods. Or literally, without gods. What an individual atheist believes regarding a great many things is not in any way associated with the label atheist. It tells you what we DON'T believe, not what we do. A christian, by that label, likely believes that Yeheshua Ben Jacob was a real person, conceived by a spirit creature to be an Avatar of Yahweh, that said person made a huge ruckus from about 1 to 33 AD, and was crucified by Jews, rather than Romans. My knowledge of Islam is far less than my knowledge of Christianity, but I can posit from a person identifying themselves as a Muslim that they believe that Mohammed was Allah's last prophet, and that the Q'uran is an inspired book (in the spiritual sense).

Since I self identify as an atheist, all you really know of me from that, prior to interaction, is that I believe in three less gods than you.

[BADecker]

Only a religious person could consider an atheist to be religious. While an atheist may indeed hold some religious beliefs (religion, religare, to bind (oneself to a creed)), the term itself comes from religious people. We just don't have a better label. Look at what the word actually means. a, without. theism, a belief in specific gods. Or literally, without gods. What an individual atheist believes regarding a great many things is not in any way associated with the label atheist. It tells you what we DON'T believe, not what we do. A christian, by that label, likely believes that Yeheshua Ben Jacob was a real person, conceived by a spirit creature to be an Avatar of Yahweh, that said person made a huge ruckus from about 1 to 33 AD, and was crucified by Jews, rather than Romans. My knowledge of Islam is far less than my knowledge of Christianity, but I can posit from a person identifying themselves as a Muslim that they believe that Mohammed was Allah's last prophet, and that the Q'uran is an inspired book (in the spiritual sense).

Since I self identify as an atheist, all you really know of me from that, prior to interaction, is that I believe in three less gods than you.

Since you self identify as an atheist, I know which god you believe in. You believe in yourself as god, and, perhaps you believe in others who self identify in the same way as you do to be gods as well.

How does that work? Like this. Since there isn't enough information around to say for a fact that God doesn't exist, and since there is a lot of information around that suggests that God DOES exist, and since science actually proves in some ways that God DOES exist, by being a self proclaimed atheist, you are setting yourself up as god by attempting to hide the facts of the probable existence of God from yourself.

This doesn't only make you wrong, but it makes you appear to be a hypocrite, since you are setting yourself up as the thing that you "want" to NOT exist.

If someone said, I believe in the God of the Bible, and then he went on his way, neither praying to God, nor joining a church, nor doing anything else that a believer in the God of the Bible would do, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated that he believed in the God of the Bible. But he certainly would be a religious person if he prayed to God. And the more he studied the Bible, and the more he participated in a Christian church, the greater he would be into the religion of the God of the Bible.

If someone said, I don't believe God exists, and then he went on his way, never thinking about or participating in the atheism the idea again, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated the point that he was an atheist. But he certainly would be a religious person if he built up all kinds of points about how his atheism kept him from being a religious person. Those points would be his religious doctrine, even though his religion would be built around a form of self inflicted ignorance, hypocrisy, and at times, downright lies because he knew better.

The stronger an atheist becomes in attempting to prove that his atheism isn't a religion, the greater his religion of non religion is becoming.



EDIT: If you don't respond at all to the things I have posted here, will it be because you are trying to become less religious by starting to ignore your atheism religion, thereby making it less of a religion for you?

[BCEmporium]

I also consider myself an atheist and I don't think of myself as God, instead I study and rely on several philosophers of human History.
I'm mainly Epicurean, still acknowledge Voltaire, Descartes and even the tale of Jesus found in the New Testament (you can use the Old to wipe...) for simple things of life.
I see as overall negative philosophers Nietzsche, Machiavelli or Muhammad, still no one was good enough for me to consider any 100% right or 100% wrong, this means I can see some value on some entries of these "bad philosophers", just as a lump sum I see them as negative.

* For the notice, what we usually call a "prophet" is a philosopher backed by an imaginary friend, nowadays we send them a mental institution, at ancient times they formed religions...

[Biomech]

Only a religious person could consider an atheist to be religious. While an atheist may indeed hold some religious beliefs (religion, religare, to bind (oneself to a creed)), the term itself comes from religious people. We just don't have a better label. Look at what the word actually means. a, without. theism, a belief in specific gods. Or literally, without gods. What an individual atheist believes regarding a great many things is not in any way associated with the label atheist. It tells you what we DON'T believe, not what we do. A christian, by that label, likely believes that Yeheshua Ben Jacob was a real person, conceived by a spirit creature to be an Avatar of Yahweh, that said person made a huge ruckus from about 1 to 33 AD, and was crucified by Jews, rather than Romans. My knowledge of Islam is far less than my knowledge of Christianity, but I can posit from a person identifying themselves as a Muslim that they believe that Mohammed was Allah's last prophet, and that the Q'uran is an inspired book (in the spiritual sense).

Since I self identify as an atheist, all you really know of me from that, prior to interaction, is that I believe in three less gods than you.

Since you self identify as an atheist, I know which god you believe in. You believe in yourself as god, and, perhaps you believe in others who self identify in the same way as you do to be gods as well.

How does that work? Like this. Since there isn't enough information around to say for a fact that God doesn't exist, and since there is a lot of information around that suggests that God DOES exist, and since science actually proves in some ways that God DOES exist, by being a self proclaimed atheist, you are setting yourself up as god by attempting to hide the facts of the probable existence of God from yourself.

This doesn't only make you wrong, but it makes you appear to be a hypocrite, since you are setting yourself up as the thing that you "want" to NOT exist.

If someone said, I believe in the God of the Bible, and then he went on his way, neither praying to God, nor joining a church, nor doing anything else that a believer in the God of the Bible would do, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated that he believed in the God of the Bible. But he certainly would be a religious person if he prayed to God. And the more he studied the Bible, and the more he participated in a Christian church, the greater he would be into the religion of the God of the Bible.

If someone said, I don't believe God exists, and then he went on his way, never thinking about or participating in the atheism the idea again, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated the point that he was an atheist. But he certainly would be a religious person if he built up all kinds of points about how his atheism kept him from being a religious person. Those points would be his religious doctrine, even though his religion would be built around a form of self inflicted ignorance, hypocrisy, and at times, downright lies because he knew better.

The stronger an atheist becomes in attempting to prove that his atheism isn't a religion, the greater his religion of non religion is becoming.



EDIT: If you don't respond at all to the things I have posted here, will it be because you are trying to become less religious by starting to ignore your atheism religion, thereby making it less of a religion for you?

For this to be true, you would have to know a number of things about me that you actually should have gleaned by now.

So, I'll have a brief stab at it.

One, I never said that I believe there is no god, I said I don't believe in any particular god. Your set calls my position "weak" atheism, while more secular people tend to refer to it as "negative" atheism. Now, the so called "strong" or "positive" atheists, yes, I believe you could classify that as a religion, as they strongly believe that there is not, was not, and cannot be a god. Despite the labels, theirs is the weaker position as opposed to mine, as mine is simply based on what can be proven, whereas they are doing exactly what theists are doing: Stating the unprovable as a categoric truth.

To my knowledge, I've never made that error, and if I have, it was poor wording as it's certainly not my position.

Two. That I "want" there to be no god. This is one of the biggest and most used strawmen in Theistic Apologetics. In my experience, it is true perhaps one time out of a million, and I'm being generous. I think that most of us would LIKE to believe that there's some all-powerful being looking after us. It would be very nice. In my own case, I spent well over a decade trying very hard to prove Christianity, as losing one's lifelong faith is painful. Unfortunately, and you too will experience this if you can get past your will against thought, the deeper down that particular rabbit hole you go, the more you find the untruths. I've never said that I can prove or disprove the God Concept itself. Disproving Christianity, and pretty much any other formal relgion, that is frankly a High School philosophy project. It's not even difficult. One cannot, of course, overcome willful cognitive dissonance, but it must make you uncomfortable, no?

Three. Yes, I'm god. When I close my eyes, I am King of All I survey. Seriously, dude? You actually expect anyone to buy that tripe? It's not even a particularly clever ad-hominem.

[BADecker]

Only a religious person could consider an atheist to be religious. While an atheist may indeed hold some religious beliefs (religion, religare, to bind (oneself to a creed)), the term itself comes from religious people. We just don't have a better label. Look at what the word actually means. a, without. theism, a belief in specific gods. Or literally, without gods. What an individual atheist believes regarding a great many things is not in any way associated with the label atheist. It tells you what we DON'T believe, not what we do. A christian, by that label, likely believes that Yeheshua Ben Jacob was a real person, conceived by a spirit creature to be an Avatar of Yahweh, that said person made a huge ruckus from about 1 to 33 AD, and was crucified by Jews, rather than Romans. My knowledge of Islam is far less than my knowledge of Christianity, but I can posit from a person identifying themselves as a Muslim that they believe that Mohammed was Allah's last prophet, and that the Q'uran is an inspired book (in the spiritual sense).

Since I self identify as an atheist, all you really know of me from that, prior to interaction, is that I believe in three less gods than you.

Since you self identify as an atheist, I know which god you believe in. You believe in yourself as god, and, perhaps you believe in others who self identify in the same way as you do to be gods as well.

How does that work? Like this. Since there isn't enough information around to say for a fact that God doesn't exist, and since there is a lot of information around that suggests that God DOES exist, and since science actually proves in some ways that God DOES exist, by being a self proclaimed atheist, you are setting yourself up as god by attempting to hide the facts of the probable existence of God from yourself.

This doesn't only make you wrong, but it makes you appear to be a hypocrite, since you are setting yourself up as the thing that you "want" to NOT exist.

If someone said, I believe in the God of the Bible, and then he went on his way, neither praying to God, nor joining a church, nor doing anything else that a believer in the God of the Bible would do, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated that he believed in the God of the Bible. But he certainly would be a religious person if he prayed to God. And the more he studied the Bible, and the more he participated in a Christian church, the greater he would be into the religion of the God of the Bible.

If someone said, I don't believe God exists, and then he went on his way, never thinking about or participating in the atheism the idea again, would he be a religious person? Perhaps, slightly, if he occasionally repeated the point that he was an atheist. But he certainly would be a religious person if he built up all kinds of points about how his atheism kept him from being a religious person. Those points would be his religious doctrine, even though his religion would be built around a form of self inflicted ignorance, hypocrisy, and at times, downright lies because he knew better.

The stronger an atheist becomes in attempting to prove that his atheism isn't a religion, the greater his religion of non religion is becoming.



EDIT: If you don't respond at all to the things I have posted here, will it be because you are trying to become less religious by starting to ignore your atheism religion, thereby making it less of a religion for you?

For this to be true, you would have to know a number of things about me that you actually should have gleaned by now.

So, I'll have a brief stab at it.

Do you really think you need to make excuses for yourself to me?   

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t:

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]

noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One, I never said that I believe there is no god, I said I don't believe in any particular god.

Your quote from way up top is in part:

Since I self identify as an atheist...

If you had not expressed your self-identification, who would know? But you seem to contradict yourself.

Your set calls my position "weak" atheism, while more secular people tend to refer to it as "negative" atheism.

I am not sure what a "set" is. All atheism is weak atheism. The more adamant an atheist becomes, the weaker his atheism becomes. But his religion regarding atheism becomes stronger.

Since you self identified as an atheist (one who believes there is no God, from the definition above), and then you stated, above, "... I never said that I believe there is no god," perhaps your weakness is NOT atheism or religious weakness. Perhaps it is a weakness of mind.

Now, the so called "strong" or "positive" atheists, yes, I believe you could classify that as a religion, as they strongly believe that there is not, was not, and cannot be a god.

Yes, I can go along with that. Strong atheism is strong hypocrisy, since a strong atheist has to work much harder to convince himself that he believes in atheism. The harder he has to work at it, the more of a religion it becomes. Yet his belief in atheism falls apart more as well.

Despite the labels, theirs is the weaker position as opposed to mine, as mine is simply based on what can be proven, whereas they are doing exactly what theists are doing: Stating the unprovable as a categoric truth.

To my knowledge, I've never made that error, and if I have, it was poor wording as it's certainly not my position.

Here I must disagree. Factual science, not theoretical science, has proven that God exists, although such isn't often stated. But the attributes of God are entirely left to the religions.

Proof for God lies in the combining of 3 things:
1. Action and reaction (cause and effect), Newton's 3rd Law;
2. The fact of a complex universe, including all things therein;
3. Standard, simple entropy, which doesn't include all the latest theoretical stuff about entropy.

Two. That I "want" there to be no god. This is one of the biggest and most used strawmen in Theistic Apologetics. In my experience, it is true perhaps one time out of a million, and I'm being generous. I think that most of us would LIKE to believe that there's some all-powerful being looking after us. It would be very nice.

In the face of atheism being proven wrong, and basic theism being proven correct, why would an atheist NOT be a person who "wanted" no God to exist? If he wanted God to exist, all he has to do is accept the fact.

It seems that your case is different. You don't seem to know if you are an atheist or not. Perhaps it has to do with the definitions of "atheism" and other words.

In my own case, I spent well over a decade trying very hard to prove Christianity, as losing one's lifelong faith is painful. Unfortunately, and you too will experience this if you can get past your will against thought, the deeper down that particular rabbit hole you go, the more you find the untruths.

This might be where your problem lies. Nobody can prove Christianity. Some of the aspects of Christianity might be provable. Some of the locations where Jesus lived and walked might be found archaeologically. But proving Christianity is something else.

God is the only one Who can prove Christianity to you. You can't prove Christianity to yourself or to anyone else. The way that God proves Christianity to you is through your reading of the Bible, or hearing it read. That's it. There is no other way.

You might be able to prove points in the Bible. You might be able to see areas where the Bible makes a whole lot of sense even though some of the points haven't been proven. But it is only the Spirit of God Who proves the Bible to your heart.

I've never said that I can prove or disprove the God Concept itself. Disproving Christianity, and pretty much any other formal relgion, that is frankly a High School philosophy project. It's not even difficult. One cannot, of course, overcome willful cognitive dissonance, but it must make you uncomfortable, no?

As long as you think Bible religion can be easily disproven, you will probably have a difficult time accepting Christianity.

Three. Yes, I'm god. When I close my eyes, I am King of All I survey. Seriously, dude? You actually expect anyone to buy that tripe? It's not even a particularly clever ad-hominem.

Jesus said that we are gods, if the Word of God comes to us. So who am I to believe that you are not a god, especially in the light of the residual of all that Christian training you received? But, remember one thing about this. The place in the Old Testament that Jesus took His quote from, goes on to say words to the effect of, "... but you will all die like the children of men."

[PrikiNo.1]

All religions are same, they are created by people. People hate people, so you can figure it out.
It's not special for Islam, you can see the same issue in all other religions.

You are right, ever religion is created so it can control the people, but let me ask something... Is there any difference between the word religion and spirituality?

Here, I will tell my definition: Religion is a group of people who is guided by one person who tells them what to think. Spirituality is group of people who is guided by one person who instead of telling them what to think he makes them think i.e. a way of life.

So if you take the Bible, the New Testament and the books of Apostle Paul you will see the difference in that two words. Paul teach his people how to think by parabolas and examples.

In other words, pure Bible religion tries to control people... for their own good.

Dude, if you think logically, what is written in the Bible and what the preachers telling us to do is so different...

For example, when you go to church you have pay for the candles or if you want some souvenir you have to pay for that. Do you think that is normal?

Let me remind you what happen when Christ enter in the temple of Jerusalem:

Matthew 9:9-13

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

[Spendulus]

...Unfortunately, and you too will experience this if you can get past your will against thought, the deeper down that particular rabbit hole you go, the more you find the untruths. I've never said that I can prove or disprove the God Concept itself. Disproving Christianity, and pretty much any other formal religion, that is frankly a High School philosophy project. It's not even difficult. One cannot, of course, overcome willful cognitive dissonance, but it must make you uncomfortable, no? ...

I see this matter quite differently, as being a question whether the universe is poor in intelligence and consciousness (say only man and god) or rich in such attributes (basically, smarts everywhere, way beyond us).

The first concept has resembles pre-Copernican astronautical concepts more than anything else, yet all religions were formed on this level of understanding.

The second solves a number of difficult questions quite nicely.  For example, the matter of "original causation."

[BADecker]

All religions are same, they are created by people. People hate people, so you can figure it out.
It's not special for Islam, you can see the same issue in all other religions.

You are right, ever religion is created so it can control the people, but let me ask something... Is there any difference between the word religion and spirituality?

Here, I will tell my definition: Religion is a group of people who is guided by one person who tells them what to think. Spirituality is group of people who is guided by one person who instead of telling them what to think he makes them think i.e. a way of life.

So if you take the Bible, the New Testament and the books of Apostle Paul you will see the difference in that two words. Paul teach his people how to think by parabolas and examples.

In other words, pure Bible religion tries to control people... for their own good.

Dude, if you think logically, what is written in the Bible and what the preachers telling us to do is so different...

For example, when you go to church you have pay for the candles or if you want some souvenir you have to pay for that. Do you think that is normal?

Let me remind you what happen when Christ enter in the temple of Jerusalem:

Matthew 9:9-13

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Thank you for informing me of things that I know. You are such a wonderful person for doing so.

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

[Buffer Overflow]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

[BADecker]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

Are you preaching again, Fluffer?   

[Buffer Overflow]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

Are you preaching again, Fluffer?   

No. Educating.

[BADecker]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

Are you preaching again, Fluffer?   

No. Educating.

That's what I wanted to hear... educating, just like all the other preachers.   

[Buffer Overflow]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

Are you preaching again, Fluffer?   

No. Educating.

That's what I wanted to hear... educating, just like all the other preachers.   

Preacher is motivational.
Teacher is informational.

[BADecker]

Preachers tell people to do many different things. Some preachers preach good things. Some preachers preach bad things. Most preachers preach a mixture.

Isn't it about time that you stop listening to the bad things preachers preach? When they tell us to read the Bible, shouldn't we do it? If we do, it is then that we will get pure Bible religion.

Better still, let's just ignore all the preachers. That way there's no danger of inadvertently listening to a bad one, and anything the good ones tell you is worthless anyway.  It's a win-win.

Are you preaching again, Fluffer?   

No. Educating.

That's what I wanted to hear... educating, just like all the other preachers.   

Preacher is motivational.
Teacher is informational.

That's a good comeback. But it really is a mixture of the two... at least a lot of the time.

 

[BCEmporium]

Boarding schools were... "educating".
That term leaves me a bit unrest due to its broad meaning.
Why not teach to read, let kids access all information and let them figure it out?

[BADecker]

Boarding schools were... "educating".
That term leaves me a bit unrest due to its broad meaning.
Why not teach to read, let kids access all information and let them figure it out?

That's what I vigorously agree with. Teach the kids heavy and complex reading, writing, and arithmetic for 3 hours a day at school. Let the kids, parents, and teachers work together to see if anybody wants to learn more. Let them choose other classes if they want, on a totally voluntary basis, with no additional classes required.

What about history and government and art, etc., that some people think all kids should learn? Teach it in the part of reading that has to do with literature... one hour a day. Some of it can even be taught along with math and writing.

Let the kids start early learning a trade - and getting paid for it - during the rest of their day.

[Buffer Overflow]

Boarding schools were... "educating".
That term leaves me a bit unrest due to its broad meaning.
Why not teach to read, let kids access all information and let them figure it out?

That's what I vigorously agree with. Teach the kids heavy and complex reading, writing, and arithmetic for 3 hours a day at school. Let the kids, parents, and teachers work together to see if anybody wants to learn more. Let them choose other classes if they want, on a totally voluntary basis, with no additional classes required.

What about history and government and art, etc., that some people think all kids should learn? Teach it in the part of reading that has to do with literature... one hour a day. Some of it can even be taught along with math and writing.

Let the kids start early learning a trade - and getting paid for it - during the rest of their day.

Fresh idea. Makes sense.

[BADecker]

Boarding schools were... "educating".
That term leaves me a bit unrest due to its broad meaning.
Why not teach to read, let kids access all information and let them figure it out?

That's what I vigorously agree with. Teach the kids heavy and complex reading, writing, and arithmetic for 3 hours a day at school. Let the kids, parents, and teachers work together to see if anybody wants to learn more. Let them choose other classes if they want, on a totally voluntary basis, with no additional classes required.

What about history and government and art, etc., that some people think all kids should learn? Teach it in the part of reading that has to do with literature... one hour a day. Some of it can even be taught along with math and writing.

Let the kids start early learning a trade - and getting paid for it - during the rest of their day.

Fresh idea. Makes sense.

This is the way it was in the 1800s in America.   

[sarabanda]

islam is terroristic religion.