What should Pride do about that? Stop their marches so as not to antagonize Joe, who's so far gone that he doesn't even remember how he lost his job in the first place?
I'm hesitating to see how Pride are punching down in this case.
I question whether it really mattered to the killer whether the teacher was punching up or down. Was Isioma Daniel punching down? I suspect the killer in Paris would have been just as hostile to her.
I know that generally, we talk only about Anglo concerns, and we all try to respect each other's position about sacred and secular. It seems to me that while the French teacher was within his rights to take pride in his secularism it does not mean he had the right to offend a person of faith.
I have not seen or heard anywhere that he had stated his intention to offend, and in particular to offend a person of faith.
This is not the first time a French teacher has been killed for displaying caricatures of the prophet. Seems like some people have not learned from past experience.
Perhaps the teacher felt that those who do such killings ought to have learnt that it is never right to kill someone for trying to teach about freedom of speech. in today's climate, it can be very dangerous for someone to stand up against those who would bully and control, and it is terrible that some die as a result of trying to do so.
Ought? The killer felt bullied and controlled, had nowhere else to go. Education is a privilege. Being patronizing with it to marginalized minorities, to the disempowered, the poor, to second class citoyens, without actually addressing their material deprivation is bullying and controlling, gaslighting. By a still, just as much as always, culturally colonial power in Africa. 'Never mind all your actual felt social injustice, you need enlightenment above all.'. Fuck off.
I kinda wonder why, if the killer was motivated by sociopolitical considerations, he didn't choose a more sociopolitical target. I mean, the National Front, to take just one example, certainly doesn't confine itself to spoofing the Prophet, but rather engages in all sorts of political shennanigans designed to harness governmental power against Muslim immigrants.
Granted, I'm sure Marine Le Pen is surrounded by bodyguards 24/7, but surely there are party offices etc. all over Paris, easily accessible for a young man looking to decapitate someone complicit in the repression of his demographic.
Re education. Here the curriculum is provincial. The administration of schools is via elected school boards. Some things are tailored to local needs but we know why someone is learning in each grade. The standards and funding per student are the same wherever you live. Wealthy and poor, born here and speak the language are born elsewhere and don't, you don't pick what's learned.
A relative in law who teaches discussed that the most common boy name in her class is Mohammed. She particularly enjoyed teaching First Nations culture and history, which falls under Truth and Reconciliation. Stuff like that bridges gaps. Acknowledgement of inherent racism in Canadian society and teaching from the perspective of tolerance. Helps.
Perhaps our extreme climate helps too. When it's very cold, lots of snow and you're a newcomer, you need your neighbours. Your car won't start. You're snowed in.
I question whether it really mattered to the killer whether the teacher was punching up or down.
The point is not to accommodate people who are actually at the point where they're actually prepared to kill people who disagree with them. The point is to prevent other people from getting to that point, or from thinking that those who do are reasonable.
Re education. Here the curriculum is provincial. The administration of schools is via elected school boards. Some things are tailored to local needs but we know why someone is learning in each grade. The standards and funding per student are the same wherever you live. Wealthy and poor, born here and speak the language are born elsewhere and don't, you don't pick what's learned.
A relative in law who teaches discussed that the most common boy name in her class is Mohammed. She particularly enjoyed teaching First Nations culture and history, which falls under Truth and Reconciliation. Stuff like that bridges gaps. Acknowledgement of inherent racism in Canadian society and teaching from the perspective of tolerance. Helps.
Perhaps our extreme climate helps too. When it's very cold, lots of snow and you're a newcomer, you need your neighbours. Your car won't start. You're snowed in.
You don't have low income banlieues do you? Massive, remote, working class, Muslim ghettos?
Re education. Here the curriculum is provincial. The administration of schools is via elected school boards. Some things are tailored to local needs but we know why someone is learning in each grade. The standards and funding per student are the same wherever you live. Wealthy and poor, born here and speak the language are born elsewhere and don't, you don't pick what's learned.
A relative in law who teaches discussed that the most common boy name in her class is Mohammed. She particularly enjoyed teaching First Nations culture and history, which falls under Truth and Reconciliation. Stuff like that bridges gaps. Acknowledgement of inherent racism in Canadian society and teaching from the perspective of tolerance. Helps.
Perhaps our extreme climate helps too. When it's very cold, lots of snow and you're a newcomer, you need your neighbours. Your car won't start. You're snowed in.
You don't have low income banlieues do you? Massive, remote, working class, Muslim ghettos?
For shame. There's no ess. Banlieue seems to be either singular or plural.
The leader of the French ecologist party was on the radio yesterday and talked a lot of sense about a couple of things. Firstly, teachers are not being equipped to deal with this kind of problem. Husband en rouge is going to have to discuss this incident with the kids in his class when school starts up again after the holidays and he's not looking forward to it. He also highlighted the stigmatisation of moderate, law-abiding Muslims. See François Fillon* popping up this week to suggest the headscarf should be banned everywhere except the street.
*Why anyone is still listening to a dude who is most likely headed to jail is a different question...
The point is to prevent other people from getting to that point, or from thinking that those who do are reasonable.
On consideration I'm not happy with the formulation: it treats other people as a problem that we have to manage. The point is to work out how to have everybody included in the society so nobody ends up alienated from it.
I can't make a full comparison, never having been to France. For the record, though, the living conditions of Canada's First Nations have been plausibly described as third-world, though if I'm being generous, possibly on the swankier end of that designation(IOW not as bad as Ethiopia).
Of course, indigenous peoples are largely concentrated in rural areas, often reserves, and the inner-city areas of urban centres, not to mention a disproportionate number in penal institutions. So if you're a white middle-class Canadian who tends to avoid all those places, you can probably miss a lot of that.
The point is to prevent other people from getting to that point, or from thinking that those who do are reasonable.
On consideration I'm not happy with the formulation: it treats other people as a problem that we have to manage. The point is to work out how to have everybody included in the society so nobody ends up alienated from it.
Quite. A situation where caricatures of Mohammed are legally fine but wearing a burkini isn't seems ideally set up to fuel a sense of alienation from society.
If I were to complain that I perceive the term "infidel" to be offensive and marginalising, do you suppose that anyone would undertake to eliminate it from Islam ?
Just wondering about secularism, and how far it means a lowest-common-denominator public space in which everything is diluted to the point of offending nobody. As against a model in which the Muslims and the Charlie Hebdo types can each do their own thing full-throated, subject to clear boundaries about what constitutes interfering with other people in the pursuit of their own visions ?
I can't make a full comparison, never having been to France. For the record, though, the living conditions of Canada's First Nations have been plausibly described as third-world, though if I'm being generous, possibly on the swankier end of that designation(IOW not as bad as Ethiopia).
Of course, indigenous peoples are largely concentrated in rural areas, often reserves, and the inner-city areas of urban centres, not to mention a disproportionate number in penal institutions. So if you're a white middle-class Canadian who tends to avoid all those places, you can probably miss a lot of that.
You don't have Muslim banlieues. You don't have a minority with a righteously murderous sense of the sacred.
Of course, indigenous peoples are largely concentrated in rural areas, often reserves, and the inner-city areas of urban centres, not to mention a disproportionate number in penal institutions. So if you're a white middle-class Canadian who tends to avoid all those places, you can probably miss a lot of that.
Which largely describes the position of the First Nation peoples here. The rate of their incarceration is much higher than for those of more recent arrival.
If I were to complain that I perceive the term "infidel" to be offensive and marginalising, do you suppose that anyone would undertake to eliminate it from Islam ?
We're talking about real life. In which it can easily and amply be demonstrated that images of the religious are offensive on an identificational level to many, as opposed to some fancy wordplay you made up for the sake of the argument.
Also, radicalisation is something fundamentalist sects do and it is completely independent of your posited repression.
That's too much of a generalisation. Sects evolve both ways. Some go mainstream, some splinter and radicalise. Some engage in violent extremism; some don't (e.g. the Amish).
Of course sects evolve both ways. but it is still the fundamentalist ones that do damage.
[radicalisation] is organised and focused. And it is a real problem, because freedom for their interpreation of religion is not their goal, but rather the lack of freedom to express anything else.
I think that's far too much of a generalisation too. I have not read anything about the attacker in this case, but I would be surprised if his story was about looking for a sense of purpose amid personal alienation with a dash of spirituality attached to legitimise acts of violence in his own internal narrative.
The direct influence on any one person is not completely relevant. The spread of fundamentalism means that those looking for trouble will find justification and those who are merely troubled are more likely to e pushed towards extreme actions.
The radicalised people I have talked to have an unnerving mix of what appears to me to be a genuine fear of God and a complete lack of basic boundaries and ethics; the quest for purity and rather warped definitions of halal/haram make for quite a cocktail.
Higher up the chain of command, I suspect religious dogma is a figleaf for purely terrestrial political/power aims. At another military conference I worked for I learned that the some of the leading lights in Isis studied military strategy and history under one of its leading lights at Oxford university, i.e. read the same books as UK senior officers. The ground troops are useful idiots in their eyes.
I think that this is too binary. I'm sure that some of the driving forces are legitimately fundamentalists. This certainly seems to be true amongst the Wahhabi Saudi families that fund fundamentalist ideology. ISTM, you can find that throughout history and across sects. A blend of true believer and hunger for power. It is not zero-sum.
That Charlie Hebdo mightn't be perfect is also a long way from shifting the blame of radicalisation towards France and away from the people who encourage it.
Islam was hardly oppressed in Turkey, but that didn't stop the fundamentalists from taking over.
Erdogan is certainly a problem. But Macron seems to be painting himself into a corner with him in the aftermath of this episode.
The point of bringing up Turkey is that fundamentalism is the problem. They had a stable economy, Islam was the dominant religion and they still had a religious power grab. Whilst poverty and oppression can foster fundamentalism, it is not a requirement.
I'm in record of disproving religiously affiliated schools and private schools. That's a good place to start.
I'm in favour of state education, the requirement of the State to provide education, and the French constitutional requirement for children to receive instruction. However, I am not in favour of the state having a total monopoly on both education and instruction.
In a democratic society, the state cannot have a monopoly on education unless we let it.
As little as I trust the government, I trust non-state education even less. Non-state schools drive division, whether it be class or ideology.
Since Ataturk Turkey has a long history of secularist authoritarian military governments trying to suppress most public expressions of Islam. Headscarves were still banned for public servants, including doctors, until 2013, and they could be denied promotion for wearing headscarves outside work. University students were legally not permitted to wear headscarves although that was very unevenly enforced. The attempted 2013 coup was probably the last fling.
If you're going to argue that secularism is necessary to suppress authoritarian Islamist movements Turkey is exactly the example you don't want to point to.
it can easily and amply be demonstrated that images of the religious are offensive on an identificational level to many, as opposed to some fancy wordplay you made up for the sake of the argument.
You disappoint me. There was I thinking you were making valid and serious points about the nature of secularism, and what it means for a state to be neutral between conflicting ideologies.
And then you come out with crap like this. Which - if I read it right - says that you take seriously that which is considered offensive to many but not that which is offensive to one person.
And that minorities have this strange power to be offended "on an identificational level" which ordinary people somehow lack.
Your other posts on this thread have been thoroughly worth reading. I think lots of what you say here is right.
You say insightful and thought-provoking things like
The radicalised people I have talked to have an unnerving mix of what appears to me to be a genuine fear of God and a complete lack of basic boundaries and ethics;
and then can't see that making Islam out to be an identity without an ethical system is the problem.
Somewhere you referenced "intrinsic rights" (sorry, can't find it right now). Which is a good question. But if your idea of intrinsic rights is bound up in the notion of identity, and identity is something that only large groups or only minorities are allowed to choose, then you're on the wrong track.
@Russ again context is everything. A rare and esoteric offence experienced by a couple of isolated individuals is not going to need addressing in the same way as one shared by a large number of co-religionists; I don't see many people in jail for acts of violent extremism perpetrated because of their reaction to the term "infidel".
I did once spend rather longer than I planned locked up in the same solitary confinement cell as somebody who inflicted serious injury on a prison officer, apparently because of the difference in the amount of lettuce he was served compared to the next inmate. I steered clear of the topic of food altogether until somebody remembered where I was and came to let me out. That was a much simpler problem to be solved than the one at hand here.
Since Ataturk Turkey has a long history of secularist authoritarian military governments trying to suppress most public expressions of Islam. Headscarves were still banned for public servants, including doctors, until 2013, and they could be denied promotion for wearing headscarves outside work. University students were legally not permitted to wear headscarves although that was very unevenly enforced. The attempted 2013 coup was probably the last fling.
If you're going to argue that secularism is necessary to suppress authoritarian Islamist movements Turkey is exactly the example you don't want to point to.
I'm not making that argument. I am saying that fundamentalism is the problem and that a secular government is better than a religious one.
The secularist governments of Turkey were comprised of Muslims. They recognised that religious governments and fundamentalism are a bad thing. They were right. Turkey, post 2016 "coup" are evidence of this.
'Non state schools drive division whether it be class or ideology'
While I agree with lilbuddha that this is so, I would say that many things apart from non state education do the same.
Politics ,for example are a point of division in terms of ideology ( and class).
During the period of the German Democratic Republic there were all sorts of political parties which were allowed to exist, but apparently they all freely and spontaneously came together under the aegis of the Socialist Unity Party. This party, in effect, banished social and ideological divisions. The Socialist Unity Party were able to do everything to harmonise life for the minor divisions in society between workers, peasants and intellectuals. The Socialist Unity Party were even able to build a wall around the state to protect the workers, peasants and intellectuals from those outside of the state scheming and fomenting division in terms of class and ideology. Why has this state now disappeared ?
In the UK parents are the first educators of their children and are responsible for that education with the great majority of parents handing over that responsibility to the state 'in loco parentis'
Christ says both 'he who is not with me,is against me'
as well as 'he who is not against me is with me'
A really 'free ' state has to accept that there will be various points of view and make allowances for these, showing respect to all who do not labour directly for the destruction of society.
This is of course true @Forthview. Societies need to provide for the majority, ensure that minorities have their rights not over-ridden by the majority. Al the same time, societies need to be civil societies, where the very differences which create the minorities differences do not cause the societies to break down.
In Canada, during a prior election, the Conservatives made a very big deal out of face coverings, dog whistling aside, the decision was that wearing such during citizenship ceremonies really didn't matter, as it didn't challenge civil society. (not a lawyer and don't think the fine points of law matter here)
Also in Canada, several times teachers have been dismissed from their jobs because they were teaching Holocaust denial. Marriage commissioners have been terminated because they refused to marry same-sex couples. Plural marriage (more than one wife) has been judged unconstitutional because although it disrespects other cultural traditions, the women involved are exploited. Messy stuff. No clear rules, rather decision making to balance individual rights, group and minority rights, and the larger civil society.
Some of us think that separate education for minority groups (including the wealthy, ideologically or religiously defined) is a threat to civil society. If privately educated people believe they are inherently more <something> than others, it's a threat to civil society. If we have to allow private schools, they must be subject to the same curriculum. In my view, religious education should not occur in schools in the way of any form of indoctrination or instruction. Comparative religion should be taught. Everyone should interact with everyone else, from all walks, stations and belief stand points.
The secularist governments of Turkey were comprised of Muslims. They recognised that religious governments and fundamentalism are a bad thing. They were right. Turkey, post 2016 "coup" are evidence of this.
Given the history of human rights in Turkey under secularist governments, the certainty that the leaders of the coup would have been less repressive than Erdogan because they were secular strikes me as beyond ridicule.
Minor correction, but I think that only one Canadian teacher has ever been fired for teaching Holocaust denial, Jim Keegstra in Alberta in the 1980s.
The New Brunswicker Malcolm Ross was fired for arguing Holocaust denial in books that he published apart ftom his teaching job, but I don't think he ever taught it in class. His dismissal was defended on the grounds that his mere presence in the classroom created a discriminatory atmosphere for Jewish students, and the courts eventually sided with this view.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
If a social-studies teacher says that conservatives generally want to preserve institutions and liberals generally want to change them, is that indoctrinating people into political ideologies?
If it is, then every social-studies class in the world is engaged in indoctrination.
Your second point, about choosing to teach some religions and not others being itself a form of indoctrination, is a little better. Ultimately, the curriculum probably has to err on the side of covering those faiths which have the most impact on the world. Similar to how a social-studies class will teach about the main political parties political tendencies represented in a country, but not every obscure fascist or maoist sect in existence.
I don't see telling somebody about a belief system as indoctrination. That's a weird idea to me. The relevant definition here seems to be:
to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle)
I can't see how merely teaching you about a belief system -- especially if I am teaching ou about several all at the same time -- counts as indoctrination.
The secularist governments of Turkey were comprised of Muslims. They recognised that religious governments and fundamentalism are a bad thing. They were right. Turkey, post 2016 "coup" are evidence of this.
Given the history of human rights in Turkey under secularist governments, the certainty that the leaders of the coup would have been less repressive than Erdogan because they were secular strikes me as beyond ridicule.
Wow are you reading more into what I wrote than what is actually there.
The human rights abuses under the secularist governments have been directed at minority Ethnic groups. Erdogan certainly hasn't stopped that and has expanded persecutions.
The only people who have it better under him are the hardcore fundamentalists who want fewer people to have rights than did under the secular governments.
I in no way used Turkey as a good perfect example of a secular government. I used them as an example of how fundamentalism can be a problem despite not being seriously oppressed.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
What nonsense. Religious education can certainly be formal. I'm pretty sure the local Muslim kids learning the Qu'ran at the mosque on Saturdays are doing it in a formal fashion. I've known churches that have a pretty formal Christian education program, and others that don't.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
What nonsense. Religious education can certainly be formal. I'm pretty sure the local Muslim kids learning the Qu'ran at the mosque on Saturdays are doing it in a formal fashion. I've known churches that have a pretty formal Christian education program, and others that don't.
Sure, "after school", not in the publicly-funded schools. Much like I went off to church choir practice and youth group (I went because my mother made me, and later for the pizza and cookies).
I don't see telling somebody about a belief system as indoctrination. That's a weird idea to me. The relevant definition here seems to be:
to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle)
I can't see how merely teaching you about a belief system -- especially if I am teaching ou about several all at the same time -- counts as indoctrination.
It certainly can be either indoctrination or not indoctrination. This depends on who is teaching what their motive is. Given the right sort of beliefs and willingness to push them- and there's absolutely no shortage of willingness- this is how we get all sorts of religious and other ideologies with out the willingness or ability to question.
I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
If ,however, one thinks that the state functions and acts for the people, rather than the people being there for the state ,then that state has to give the people the right to choose what they want to consider as being important in education. Tjhat could include education within a specific religious context ,if a sufficient number of parents wish this for their children and if it does not conflict with the outlook and wishes of the other citizens of the state in question.
NPNP tells us that his mother made him go to church or at least to church sponsored events, probably because she believed that he would be affected positively by the Christian message. Is that not a sort of indoctrination ? or is it education ?
My contention is that if people like something they call it education, if they don't like it they call it indoctrination .
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
What nonsense. Religious education can certainly be formal. I'm pretty sure the local Muslim kids learning the Qu'ran at the mosque on Saturdays are doing it in a formal fashion. I've known churches that have a pretty formal Christian education program, and others that don't.
Please. Formal education as in the state curriculum. NOprophet_NØprofit had no problem wroking that out.
I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
State education is less likely to do this than religious education.
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
I mentioned elsewhere if you teach the history of a culture, you have to include something about the religious background of culture as well. For instance, you cannot teach German history without mentioning the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. It is quite possible to teach the Bible as literature in many American High Schools without promoting the religions from which it is derived.
In other news, I heard on the radio today that many mullahs in Arab countries are now calling for a boycott of French products because of their insensitivity to Islamic traditions.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
State education is less likely to do this than religious education.
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
Umm... Scotland has state Catholic schools precisely to protect our (historically) largest religious minority.
I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
State education is less likely to do this than religious education.
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
Umm... Scotland has state Catholic schools precisely to protect our (historically) largest religious minority.
As historically have several Canadian provinces, including my own. Canada being a country that imported a few of the sectarian delights from the motherland, and mixed it up with the whole French vs. English thing.
That said, it's almost certainly the case in Canada(and Scotland?) these days that rampaging mobs of Orangemen breaking down church doors to stop the teaching of Catholic catechism to children is a most unlikely occurence. So the schools likely survive in Ontario and Alberta as a sop to public opinion.
Your second point, about choosing to teach some religions and not others being itself a form of indoctrination, is a little better. Ultimately, the curriculum probably has to err on the side of covering those faiths which have the most impact on the world. Similar to how a social-studies class will teach about the main political parties political tendencies represented in a country, but not every obscure fascist or maoist sect in existence.
I have no argument with your post, but just wonder about the two phrases I have bolded. Do you think it would have been better to add the word 'about' to the first one?
I am happy to say that a state educational system should keep away from religion.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
State education is less likely to do this than religious education.
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
Umm... Scotland has state Catholic schools precisely to protect our (historically) largest religious minority.
As historically have several Canadian provinces, including my own. Canada being a country that imported a few of the sectarian delights from the motherland, and mixed it up with the whole French vs. English thing.
That said, it's almost certainly the case in Canada(and Scotland?) these days that rampaging mobs of Orangemen breaking down church doors to stop the teaching of Catholic catechism to children is a most unlikely occurence. So the schools likely survive in Ontario and Alberta as a sop to public opinion.
Anti-Catholic sentiment is a lot less visceral than it was a century ago but you can still find it in secular (i.e. football) form and bubbling under the surface in parts of the Kirk. The Orange Order is alive and its marches in Glasgow are still a source of intimidation and abuse of Catholics.
In what way can 'comparative religion' be 'taught' ?
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
No religion should be taught in school. Full stop. Religious teaching should be reserved for home or private lessons separate from formal education.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
1 Definitely.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
Absolutely - and that's what I understood Forthview to mean by 'comparative religion'. And AIUI, UK state schools are supposed to teach about religions other than Christianity, though the reality does not always match the aspiration.
Some of us think that separate education for minority groups (including the wealthy, ideologically or religiously defined) is a threat to civil society. If privately educated people believe they are inherently more <something> than others, it's a threat to civil society.
Not exactly. If pupils in Catholic schools think they're more Catholic than the general population, that doesn't seem much of a threat.
But if pupils in Catholic schools are taught that there's a conflict between being a good citizen and being a good Catholic, and that being a good Catholic is more important, then yes that's a potential threat.
If we have to allow private schools, they must be subject to the same curriculum.
Again, not exactly. I think the logic is that whatever is taught in "civics" about the relationship between the individual and the state should be the same. The rest of the curriculum can vary.
In my view, religious education should not occur in schools in the way of any form of indoctrination or instruction.
The difficulty with "civics" education is its potential to become indoctrination into whatever political belief-system the educators hold (whether that's the beliefs of teachers or of the Ministry of Education).
Does Canada allow "First Nations" schools that teach the history of the tribe ? What checks are in place to prevent an 'us and them" mentality being taught ?
Most English Primary Schools (including Church schools) teach about Christianity and one or two other religions, often varying according to their local context. I think the same is true in secondary schools, although secondary RE (along with other subjects) has fallen through the floor in some place since Michael Gove introduced the E-bacc.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited October 2020
la vie en rouge’s post re lack of preparedness was very helpful. What constitutes provocation?
There is a sense in which all education is provocative. It can provoke changes to previous patterns of thought because of the provision of new information. One might argue that is its primary purpose. To help us move from ignorance to understanding.
My temperament is such that I like that generally but get a bit irritated if I feel I am being talked down to. As a side issue that connects with the phenomenon known as mansplaining.
But others are more resistant by temperament, particularly if they think either they already understand or the teacher does not understand. And the sensitivity may vary from subject to subject.
I think these first principles are what underly the disagreements here.
It is probably too simple to say that on matters of deep conviction people should talk and teach more sensitively. Working out what sensitivity means specifically is not always easy. All of us, including educators, may need to be educated. I shall think ‘lettuce’ in future when pondering these things!
Most English Primary Schools (including Church schools) teach about Christianity and one or two other religions, often varying according to their local context. I think the same is true in secondary schools, although secondary RE (along with other subjects) has fallen through the floor in some place since Michael Gove introduced the E-bacc.
I was very grateful that our secondary school doesn't enforce the eBacc. None of our kids have any aptitude for languages for starters. After three years neither of the boys could string a simple sentence together in Spanish.
Comments
I question whether it really mattered to the killer whether the teacher was punching up or down. Was Isioma Daniel punching down? I suspect the killer in Paris would have been just as hostile to her.
Because the fascists are street smart.
A relative in law who teaches discussed that the most common boy name in her class is Mohammed. She particularly enjoyed teaching First Nations culture and history, which falls under Truth and Reconciliation. Stuff like that bridges gaps. Acknowledgement of inherent racism in Canadian society and teaching from the perspective of tolerance. Helps.
Perhaps our extreme climate helps too. When it's very cold, lots of snow and you're a newcomer, you need your neighbours. Your car won't start. You're snowed in.
You don't have low income banlieues do you? Massive, remote, working class, Muslim ghettos?
For shame. There's no ess. Banlieue seems to be either singular or plural.
The leader of the French ecologist party was on the radio yesterday and talked a lot of sense about a couple of things. Firstly, teachers are not being equipped to deal with this kind of problem. Husband en rouge is going to have to discuss this incident with the kids in his class when school starts up again after the holidays and he's not looking forward to it. He also highlighted the stigmatisation of moderate, law-abiding Muslims. See François Fillon* popping up this week to suggest the headscarf should be banned everywhere except the street.
*Why anyone is still listening to a dude who is most likely headed to jail is a different question...
re: banlieues in Canada
I can't make a full comparison, never having been to France. For the record, though, the living conditions of Canada's First Nations have been plausibly described as third-world, though if I'm being generous, possibly on the swankier end of that designation(IOW not as bad as Ethiopia).
Of course, indigenous peoples are largely concentrated in rural areas, often reserves, and the inner-city areas of urban centres, not to mention a disproportionate number in penal institutions. So if you're a white middle-class Canadian who tends to avoid all those places, you can probably miss a lot of that.
Quite. A situation where caricatures of Mohammed are legally fine but wearing a burkini isn't seems ideally set up to fuel a sense of alienation from society.
Just wondering about secularism, and how far it means a lowest-common-denominator public space in which everything is diluted to the point of offending nobody. As against a model in which the Muslims and the Charlie Hebdo types can each do their own thing full-throated, subject to clear boundaries about what constitutes interfering with other people in the pursuit of their own visions ?
And of course it's offensive @Russ, but you can't be marginalized or offended from below.
You don't have Muslim banlieues. You don't have a minority with a righteously murderous sense of the sacred.
Which largely describes the position of the First Nation peoples here. The rate of their incarceration is much higher than for those of more recent arrival.
We're talking about real life. In which it can easily and amply be demonstrated that images of the religious are offensive on an identificational level to many, as opposed to some fancy wordplay you made up for the sake of the argument.
The point of bringing up Turkey is that fundamentalism is the problem. They had a stable economy, Islam was the dominant religion and they still had a religious power grab. Whilst poverty and oppression can foster fundamentalism, it is not a requirement.
Fundamentalism is the problem.
As little as I trust the government, I trust non-state education even less. Non-state schools drive division, whether it be class or ideology.
If you're going to argue that secularism is necessary to suppress authoritarian Islamist movements Turkey is exactly the example you don't want to point to.
You disappoint me. There was I thinking you were making valid and serious points about the nature of secularism, and what it means for a state to be neutral between conflicting ideologies.
And then you come out with crap like this. Which - if I read it right - says that you take seriously that which is considered offensive to many but not that which is offensive to one person.
And that minorities have this strange power to be offended "on an identificational level" which ordinary people somehow lack.
Your other posts on this thread have been thoroughly worth reading. I think lots of what you say here is right.
You say insightful and thought-provoking things like and then can't see that making Islam out to be an identity without an ethical system is the problem.
Somewhere you referenced "intrinsic rights" (sorry, can't find it right now). Which is a good question. But if your idea of intrinsic rights is bound up in the notion of identity, and identity is something that only large groups or only minorities are allowed to choose, then you're on the wrong track.
I did once spend rather longer than I planned locked up in the same solitary confinement cell as somebody who inflicted serious injury on a prison officer, apparently because of the difference in the amount of lettuce he was served compared to the next inmate. I steered clear of the topic of food altogether until somebody remembered where I was and came to let me out. That was a much simpler problem to be solved than the one at hand here.
The secularist governments of Turkey were comprised of Muslims. They recognised that religious governments and fundamentalism are a bad thing. They were right. Turkey, post 2016 "coup" are evidence of this.
While I agree with lilbuddha that this is so, I would say that many things apart from non state education do the same.
Politics ,for example are a point of division in terms of ideology ( and class).
During the period of the German Democratic Republic there were all sorts of political parties which were allowed to exist, but apparently they all freely and spontaneously came together under the aegis of the Socialist Unity Party. This party, in effect, banished social and ideological divisions. The Socialist Unity Party were able to do everything to harmonise life for the minor divisions in society between workers, peasants and intellectuals. The Socialist Unity Party were even able to build a wall around the state to protect the workers, peasants and intellectuals from those outside of the state scheming and fomenting division in terms of class and ideology. Why has this state now disappeared ?
In the UK parents are the first educators of their children and are responsible for that education with the great majority of parents handing over that responsibility to the state 'in loco parentis'
Christ says both 'he who is not with me,is against me'
as well as 'he who is not against me is with me'
A really 'free ' state has to accept that there will be various points of view and make allowances for these, showing respect to all who do not labour directly for the destruction of society.
In Canada, during a prior election, the Conservatives made a very big deal out of face coverings, dog whistling aside, the decision was that wearing such during citizenship ceremonies really didn't matter, as it didn't challenge civil society. (not a lawyer and don't think the fine points of law matter here)
Also in Canada, several times teachers have been dismissed from their jobs because they were teaching Holocaust denial. Marriage commissioners have been terminated because they refused to marry same-sex couples. Plural marriage (more than one wife) has been judged unconstitutional because although it disrespects other cultural traditions, the women involved are exploited. Messy stuff. No clear rules, rather decision making to balance individual rights, group and minority rights, and the larger civil society.
Some of us think that separate education for minority groups (including the wealthy, ideologically or religiously defined) is a threat to civil society. If privately educated people believe they are inherently more <something> than others, it's a threat to civil society. If we have to allow private schools, they must be subject to the same curriculum. In my view, religious education should not occur in schools in the way of any form of indoctrination or instruction. Comparative religion should be taught. Everyone should interact with everyone else, from all walks, stations and belief stand points.
Minor correction, but I think that only one Canadian teacher has ever been fired for teaching Holocaust denial, Jim Keegstra in Alberta in the 1980s.
The New Brunswicker Malcolm Ross was fired for arguing Holocaust denial in books that he published apart ftom his teaching job, but I don't think he ever taught it in class. His dismissal was defended on the grounds that his mere presence in the classroom created a discriminatory atmosphere for Jewish students, and the courts eventually sided with this view.
The moment you say ' christianity teaches........... you could be accused of indoctrinating others.
Even if you add 'islam teaches............, judaism teaches........... hinduism teaches...........
you are still giving information which may attract people to that particular religion.
And to be fair how can you mention every single religious philosophy,for if you don't you could be accused of being biased in favour of some religions and not others
In a pluralist,'multicultural' society we have to allow people to express their views, even in the matter of education of their offspring, but we have to find ways in our modern society to show respect for the views of others which may not in some respects be the same as ours.
It is within this context that I think that comparative religion can be a useful tool.
If a social-studies teacher says that conservatives generally want to preserve institutions and liberals generally want to change them, is that indoctrinating people into political ideologies?
If it is, then every social-studies class in the world is engaged in indoctrination.
Your second point, about choosing to teach some religions and not others being itself a form of indoctrination, is a little better. Ultimately, the curriculum probably has to err on the side of covering those faiths which have the most impact on the world. Similar to how a social-studies class will teach about the main political parties political tendencies represented in a country, but not every obscure fascist or maoist sect in existence.
to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle)
I can't see how merely teaching you about a belief system -- especially if I am teaching ou about several all at the same time -- counts as indoctrination.
The human rights abuses under the secularist governments have been directed at minority Ethnic groups. Erdogan certainly hasn't stopped that and has expanded persecutions.
The only people who have it better under him are the hardcore fundamentalists who want fewer people to have rights than did under the secular governments.
I in no way used Turkey as a good perfect example of a secular government. I used them as an example of how fundamentalism can be a problem despite not being seriously oppressed.
What nonsense. Religious education can certainly be formal. I'm pretty sure the local Muslim kids learning the Qu'ran at the mosque on Saturdays are doing it in a formal fashion. I've known churches that have a pretty formal Christian education program, and others that don't.
Sure, "after school", not in the publicly-funded schools. Much like I went off to church choir practice and youth group (I went because my mother made me, and later for the pizza and cookies).
It certainly can be either indoctrination or not indoctrination. This depends on who is teaching what their motive is. Given the right sort of beliefs and willingness to push them- and there's absolutely no shortage of willingness- this is how we get all sorts of religious and other ideologies with out the willingness or ability to question.
That is if one believes that it is the state which has the absolute right to tell its citizens what to believe and what not to believe.
If ,however, one thinks that the state functions and acts for the people, rather than the people being there for the state ,then that state has to give the people the right to choose what they want to consider as being important in education. Tjhat could include education within a specific religious context ,if a sufficient number of parents wish this for their children and if it does not conflict with the outlook and wishes of the other citizens of the state in question.
NPNP tells us that his mother made him go to church or at least to church sponsored events, probably because she believed that he would be affected positively by the Christian message. Is that not a sort of indoctrination ? or is it education ?
My contention is that if people like something they call it education, if they don't like it they call it indoctrination .
Formal religious education by the state results in the reduction of rights for, or persecution of, religious minorities.
In democratic societies, the people do have a voice in the education system. But one reason we have representative democracies instead of direct democracies is to protect minority voices. Religion as part of the state does the exact opposite.
Do you mean:
1.) State schools should not teach: 'Jesus was the Son of God'; or:
2.) State schools should not teach: 'Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God'?
I agree with (1) but not (2). Let's accept for the sake of argument that Christian beliefs are totally irrational. It seems to me useful to know that there are people wandering round society with these irrational beliefs, so that one knows what to expect when they start acting on them.
In other news, I heard on the radio today that many mullahs in Arab countries are now calling for a boycott of French products because of their insensitivity to Islamic traditions.
2 is not as simple as you appear to posit. Because what you posted should then mean every religion is discussed. Or at least all of the reasonably popular ones.
In reality, religion is part of history. So teaching how it interacts with politics and culture is not a bad thing.
So you take back what you said, then.
Umm... Scotland has state Catholic schools precisely to protect our (historically) largest religious minority.
As historically have several Canadian provinces, including my own. Canada being a country that imported a few of the sectarian delights from the motherland, and mixed it up with the whole French vs. English thing.
That said, it's almost certainly the case in Canada(and Scotland?) these days that rampaging mobs of Orangemen breaking down church doors to stop the teaching of Catholic catechism to children is a most unlikely occurence. So the schools likely survive in Ontario and Alberta as a sop to public opinion.
Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meaning.
Anti-Catholic sentiment is a lot less visceral than it was a century ago but you can still find it in secular (i.e. football) form and bubbling under the surface in parts of the Kirk. The Orange Order is alive and its marches in Glasgow are still a source of intimidation and abuse of Catholics.
Absolutely - and that's what I understood Forthview to mean by 'comparative religion'. And AIUI, UK state schools are supposed to teach about religions other than Christianity, though the reality does not always match the aspiration.
Not exactly. If pupils in Catholic schools think they're more Catholic than the general population, that doesn't seem much of a threat.
But if pupils in Catholic schools are taught that there's a conflict between being a good citizen and being a good Catholic, and that being a good Catholic is more important, then yes that's a potential threat.
Again, not exactly. I think the logic is that whatever is taught in "civics" about the relationship between the individual and the state should be the same. The rest of the curriculum can vary.
The difficulty with "civics" education is its potential to become indoctrination into whatever political belief-system the educators hold (whether that's the beliefs of teachers or of the Ministry of Education).
Does Canada allow "First Nations" schools that teach the history of the tribe ? What checks are in place to prevent an 'us and them" mentality being taught ?
Not sure how much of a tangent this is...
There is a sense in which all education is provocative. It can provoke changes to previous patterns of thought because of the provision of new information. One might argue that is its primary purpose. To help us move from ignorance to understanding.
My temperament is such that I like that generally but get a bit irritated if I feel I am being talked down to. As a side issue that connects with the phenomenon known as mansplaining.
But others are more resistant by temperament, particularly if they think either they already understand or the teacher does not understand. And the sensitivity may vary from subject to subject.
I think these first principles are what underly the disagreements here.
It is probably too simple to say that on matters of deep conviction people should talk and teach more sensitively. Working out what sensitivity means specifically is not always easy. All of us, including educators, may need to be educated. I shall think ‘lettuce’ in future when pondering these things!
I was very grateful that our secondary school doesn't enforce the eBacc. None of our kids have any aptitude for languages for starters. After three years neither of the boys could string a simple sentence together in Spanish.