Society The Regressive Left

[shionoro]

Supplement parenting is something that is opt-in. It shouldn't be up to the government to decide such things IMO.

I don't know, I don't really have a positive reaction to the idea that such a thing would be taught in grade school. Teachers aren't psychologists. I would be rather put off if someone was trying to get my child to talk about their ethnic background and how it makes them feel.

I think it should. I deem it very very necessary in a world in which we see increasingly nasty conspiracy theories, radicalism and paranoia.
Schools have to take those educational duties or we won't be able to handle that.
Which matters of those make sense at which time is of course up for debate.
I see it as somewhat similar to sex education. For some parents, it is always too early or should not be taught at all.
But we know by now that we need it and that it helps a lot at preventing teeny pregnancies and sexual diseases.
I think experimenting is rarely wrong. 5 lessons of those race stuff will, at worst, not harm the children, even if they doN't like it, and might do some good.

 

[xi0]

I see it as somewhat similar to sex education. For some parents, it is always too early or should not be taught at all.
But we know by now that we need it and that it helps a lot at preventing teeny pregnancies and sexual diseases.
I think experimenting is rarely wrong. 5 lessons of those race stuff will, at worst, not harm the children, even if they doN't like it, and might do some good.

I think the benefit to teaching sex ed is much greater and tangible and outweighs any downside to teaching it. I'm not really sure I can say the same about what you brought up. The scourge of STDs and the issue of unwanted pregnancies isn't apples to apples with what your suggesting. At least, not when it comes to juveniles. A segregated "identity" class isn't educational or a necessity in the same way sex ed is. That isn't to say it can't be enlightening or whatever, but I couldn't even begin to suggest what it would look like from a curricular standpoint.

 

[M3J]

Segregating kids based on race or group makes no sense, at least not "if they have any questions they can ask the teachers of their group!" That limits their experience and interactions with people who are different, and there's no guarantee the teachers will know much about the other group. For example, if my teacher was an Indian, and I asked her why there are black people, she might tell me it's because they're bad people or something. Or, if a white kid asks his teacher why Muslim kids wear a certain attire, the teacher might say something like "because their culture says they should," which isn't an answer.

Instead, I could ask the kid and get to know him better, or the white kid can learn about why the group wears what they wear directly from the source. We learn more, and it helps us talk to people that are different from us.

 

[kkck]

Segregating kids based on race or group makes no sense, at least not "if they have any questions they can ask the teachers of their group!" That limits their experience and interactions with people who are different, and there's no guarantee the teachers will know much about the other group. For example, if my teacher was an Indian, and I asked her why there are black people, she might tell me it's because they're bad people or something. Or, if a white kid asks his teacher why Muslim kids wear a certain attire, the teacher might say something like "because their culture says they should," which isn't an answer.

Instead, I could ask the kid and get to know him better, or the white kid can learn about why the group wears what they wear directly from the source. We learn more, and it helps us talk to people that are different from us.

Have you not read at all? The "segregation" in this case refers to kids being separated for an hour a week to talk and possibly help them deal with their daily life (of which race, ethnicity and culture are a part of).

The example you give here makes no sense (the one about the indian teacher and the question about there being black people). The issue is this specific case wouldn't be the 45 minute per week groups being a bad idea (I don't really know the case in general but considering shionoro's post it seems like there is real evidence that this is helpful and at worst it causes no harm), the issue would be that the teacher in question was grossly incompetent for his job, not that this was a whole a bad idea or that it causes more harm than good. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent to dismissing math classes because it is physiologically possible for a teacher to utter the words "2 + 2 = 5".

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 11, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 11, 2016 ---

As far as the list in the first post.... Quite a bit of that seems straight up made up. Or at the very least I lack context in regards as to what left this would apply to.

Even in the video with richard dawkins... what the hell is he even talking about? He talks about this as if people are being censored but that makes absolutely no sense. I mean, he is complaining that universities aren't allowing certain people to make speeches at universities.... But so fucking what? It's suddenly bad that universities are able to choose who speaks there or not? The issue here isn't free speech or ideas being censored. The actual government would have to intervene and handpick what is heard at universities for this to be a thing. Other than that the situation is universities saying no to people whose speeches they do not want. People not caring about what you have to say is in no form or context censorship. In this case, the issue would at the absolute worst be apathy from people who would otherwise want to hear these guys but don't do anything about it even though there should be plenty of ways to actually get to hear this stuff whatever it may be. This whole thing is as imaginary as the war on christmass.

 

[xi0]

It's suddenly bad that universities are able to choose who speaks there or not?

But that's not what's going on really. The issue is people being protested against and Universities succumbing to public pressure. And why do they do this? Because they want these spoiled brats parents' money. That's essentially what "safe space" culture is really about. People are appeased because to decision-makers, it doesn't seem financially prudent to ignore them.

Academia is supposed to be about being exposed to different things, instead it's being treated as extension of some people's bedrooms. Anything deemed unpleasant or discomforting to these people are thrown out and censored, or at the very least they actively attempt to do this.

The complaint isn't really about the law though (it hasn't gotten that far... yet), it's merely about the culture on some university campuses moving away from purely intellectual pursuits and more about coddling immature minds. Douglas Murray talks about it a bit here in regards to the Yale Halloween controversy last year that led to the resignation of Erika and Nicholas Christakis.

(I think he makes some fairly decent points, despite the histrionic-mode he goes into )

 

[M3J]

Have you not read at all? The "segregation" in this case refers to kids being separated for an hour a week to talk and possibly help them deal with their daily life (of which race, ethnicity and culture are a part of).

The example you give here makes no sense (the one about the indian teacher and the question about there being black people). The issue is this specific case wouldn't be the 45 minute per week groups being a bad idea (I don't really know the case in general but considering shionoro's post it seems like there is real evidence that this is helpful and at worst it causes no harm), the issue would be that the teacher in question was grossly incompetent for his job, not that this was a whole a bad idea or that it causes more harm than good. What you are suggesting would be the equivalent to dismissing math classes because it is physiologically possible for a teacher to utter the words "2 + 2 = 5".

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 11, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 11, 2016 ---

As far as the list in the first post.... Quite a bit of that seems straight up made up. Or at the very least I lack context in regards as to what left this would apply to.

Even in the video with richard dawkins... what the hell is he even talking about? He talks about this as if people are being censored but that makes absolutely no sense. I mean, he is complaining that universities aren't allowing certain people to make speeches at universities.... But so fucking what? It's suddenly bad that universities are able to choose who speaks there or not? The issue here isn't free speech or ideas being censored. The actual government would have to intervene and handpick what is heard at universities for this to be a thing. Other than that the situation is universities saying no to people whose speeches they do not want. People not caring about what you have to say is in no form or context censorship. In this case, the issue would at the absolute worst be apathy from people who would otherwise want to hear these guys but don't do anything about it even though there should be plenty of ways to actually get to hear this stuff whatever it may be. This whole thing is as imaginary as the war on christmass.

I read it, and shionoro was talking about segregating the groups for the most part, no? Or maybe I was just sleepy. But either way, there's no reason to separate them for an hour a week, which can be done at home.

You do realize that just because an idea seems good doesn't mean that it'll be carried out well if the people are incompetent, right? Segregating the kids won't work well if the teachers are incompetent or something.

how so? Math classes are different than someone talking about someone else's culture or whatnot.

 

[shionoro]

I read it, and shionoro was talking about segregating the groups for the most part, no? Or maybe I was just sleepy. But either way, there's no reason to separate them for an hour a week, which can be done at home.

How can this be done at home?
And how are math classes different? Potentially, you could have someone as politics teach who is a neonazi and teaches the children that democracy is evil. Does that mean we should abandon political education and say 'well it can be done at home'?
This is no real argument. Everything can be done at home, but chances are it is done better in a group education at school by skilled people who follow a curriculum which people actually put effort into.
And this is what happens here.
Segregation is not even the right word.
This is the same thing as splitting up catholics and protestants for religious education.

 

[Coné]

The regressive left is a wide term to describe the people usually belonging to the liberal side of the political discourse who have gone into the realm of policing language and becoming the thought police when dealing with issues such as feminism, racism an most notably Islam.

Islam seems to be center of all the discussion concerning the regressive left. People who would be considered classical liberals such as Sam Harris and Bill Maher argue against the Cultural Marxists and Progressives who they claim view all cultures the same, when in fact they are not. People from the now considered new political movement called "the alt-right" such as Milo Yiannopoulos have also spoken against the regressive left.

The whole culture of free speech at universities is also a central issue with the discussion about the regressive left. Free speech zones, trigger warning and microaggression are terms not to avoid the mainstream and alternative news media these days.

The regressive left seems to have come out of the need to impose political correctness in every aspect of society including the academic circles.

More info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_left

More on it:

Are you Kong or TOP?

Respect is now called PC and regressive left. Cool.

 

[kkck]

But that's not what's going on really. The issue is people being protested against and Universities succumbing to public pressure. And why do they do this? Because they want these spoiled brats parents' money. That's essentially what "safe space" culture is really about. People are appeased because to decision-makers, it doesn't seem financially prudent to ignore them.

Academia is supposed to be about being exposed to different things, instead it's being treated as extension of some people's bedrooms. Anything deemed unpleasant or discomforting to these people are thrown out and censored, or at the very least they actively attempt to do this.

The complaint isn't really about the law though (it hasn't gotten that far... yet), it's merely about the culture on some university campuses moving away from purely intellectual pursuits and more about coddling immature minds. Douglas Murray talks about it a bit here in regards to the Yale Halloween controversy last year that led to the resignation of Erika and Nicholas Christakis.

(I think he makes some fairly decent points, despite the histrionic-mode he goes into )

But that takes us back to the whole thing of "free speech concerns government censoring, not individuals calling out others on being assholes". Even in that article you linked, the whole thing has clearly been blown way out of proportion into something it isn't. From what I can tell things played out like this:

1.- School writes email asking students to be respectful.

What exactly is wrong about this? It didn't even say "you are banned from wearing xxxx and yyyy cosplay". It just said, please be respectful. But this seems to generated "frustrated" students. How? Being frustrated on any level from this is just ridiculous. It's like the response to being told to be sensitive and respectful was "OMG THIS PC BULLSHIT AGAIN WE CAN"T DO OR SAY ANYTHING EVER I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU SUGGEST I SHOULD NOT OFFEND OTHERS". Even the whole thing at worst suggests "Students, please consider not wearing blackface cosplay".

2.- Then the response to that is an email that says "you know, maybe we shouldn't tell students what they should and shouldn't wear".

Which is.... ok. The school didn't order students to do anything specific anyways. So this email as a response does not really say much nor causes any harm. But then again the response was "OMG DID YOU JUST JUST SAY IT IS OK FOR STUDENTS TO COSPLAY AS BLACKFACE AND FUMANCHU AND LAZY MEXICANTS AND LESBIAN BIRACIAL BIKERS AND SELF IDENTIFIED APACHE HELICOPTERS". Even though the letter merely suggested students should more or less sort this out on their own in response to a letter asking people to be respectful.

I agree in that this involved immature minds. But not on a "regressive left" but rather on every single person involved in this. Barring some crucial information the article might have lacked, this whole thing was a big blowout over absolutely thing.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 13, 2016 ---

I read it, and shionoro was talking about segregating the groups for the most part, no? Or maybe I was just sleepy. But either way, there's no reason to separate them for an hour a week, which can be done at home.

You do realize that just because an idea seems good doesn't mean that it'll be carried out well if the people are incompetent, right? Segregating the kids won't work well if the teachers are incompetent or something.

how so? Math classes are different than someone talking about someone else's culture or whatnot.

Well, no... At least not in a context relevant even remotely related to what you are suggesting. And how can this be done at home? Whatever it is you are suggesting could be done at home certainly cannot be related to what shionoro suggested.

Well, but what is being suggested supposedly already has evidence that it works. So... whats the problem? I'll agree with you if shionoro invented that bit.

Why? Is it impossible for a math teacher to be incompetent but for this class the teacher will definitely be incompetent?

 

[shionoro]

But that takes us back to the whole thing of "free speech concerns government censoring, not individuals calling out others on being assholes". Even in that article you linked, the whole thing has clearly been blown way out of proportion into something it isn't. From what I can tell things played out like this:

1.- School writes email asking students to be respectful.

What exactly is wrong about this? It didn't even say "you are banned from wearing xxxx and yyyy cosplay". It just said, please be respectful. But this seems to generated "frustrated" students. How? Being frustrated on any level from this is just ridiculous. It's like the response to being told to be sensitive and respectful was "OMG THIS PC BULLSHIT AGAIN WE CAN"T DO OR SAY ANYTHING EVER I HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH I AM OFFENDED THAT YOU SUGGEST I SHOULD NOT OFFEND OTHERS". Even the whole thing at worst suggests "Students, please consider not wearing blackface cosplay".

2.- Then the response to that is an email that says "you know, maybe we shouldn't tell students what they should and shouldn't wear".

Which is.... ok. The school didn't order students to do anything specific anyways. So this email as a response does not really say much nor causes any harm. But then again the response was "OMG DID YOU JUST JUST SAY IT IS OK FOR STUDENTS TO COSPLAY AS BLACKFACE AND FUMANCHU AND LAZY MEXICANTS AND LESBIAN BIRACIAL BIKERS AND SELF IDENTIFIED APACHE HELICOPTERS". Even though the letter merely suggested students should more or less sort this out on their own in response to a letter asking people to be respectful.

I agree in that this involved immature minds. But not on a "regressive left" but rather on every single person involved in this. Barring some crucial information the article might have lacked, this whole thing was a big blowout over absolutely thing.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 13, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 13, 2016 ---

Well, no... At least not in a context relevant even remotely related to what you are suggesting. And how can this be done at home? Whatever it is you are suggesting could be done at home certainly cannot be related to what shionoro suggested.

Well, but what is being suggested supposedly already has evidence that it works. So... whats the problem? I'll agree with you if shionoro invented that bit.

Why? Is it impossible for a math teacher to be incompetent but for this class the teacher will definitely be incompetent?

I need to clarify there then: I said that there is evidence for good effect of splitting up boys and girls in science classes for a year or two.
Whether the measure in the program we talk about has benefits remains to be seen.
But there won't ever be data about that if such programs are denied in the first place.

What has to be mentioned tho is that many of the parents are for it, no matter what race they are.
I just cannot really accept using the word 'segregation' for that. It waters down that term.
It is an educational measure which may or may not have merits, but is not fueled in any way by racism. Vice versa, it is a measure invented to fight racism and strenghten empathy between the children.

Anyone is free to say that this measure is nonsense (once again tho, that cannot be known without trying), but equating it with the actual segregation of races right wingers want is absolute nonsense.
SPlitting up children for an educational program which focusses on teaching empathy about race relations and ethnic awareness will never be the same as saying races should not mix or any of such bullshit.
It is the exact opposite: It tries to make children better suited to live together in a multiethnic environment.
And no matter whether someone likes the measure or not, the underlying thought about it could not be further from the call for racial segregation.

 

[kkck]

I need to clarify there then: I said that there is evidence for good effect of splitting up boys and girls in science classes for a year or two.
Whether the measure in the program we talk about has benefits remains to be seen.
But there won't ever be data about that if such programs are denied in the first place.

What has to be mentioned tho is that many of the parents are for it, no matter what race they are.
I just cannot really accept using the word 'segregation' for that. It waters down that term.
It is an educational measure which may or may not have merits, but is not fueled in any way by racism. Vice versa, it is a measure invented to fight racism and strenghten empathy between the children.

Anyone is free to say that this measure is nonsense (once again tho, that cannot be known without trying), but equating it with the actual segregation of races right wingers want is absolute nonsense.
SPlitting up children for an educational program which focusses on teaching empathy about race relations and ethnic awareness will never be the same as saying races should not mix or any of such bullshit.
It is the exact opposite: It tries to make children better suited to live together in a multiethnic environment.
And no matter whether someone likes the measure or not, the underlying thought about it could not be further from the call for racial segregation.

Ok, I get what you mean, I thought there was a bit more than a hypothesis here. I understand why you say the idea is not inherently racist but I can't help but feel extremely skeptic about it working at all. If anything it seems like a huge can of worms. Angry, triggered worms. I mean, how would you even go about this to begin with? Would you have a teacher with a color chart separating kids with it? Or would you ask them, kids, what their culture/ethnicity is? Imagine you are a kid in germany and then a teacher comes in and split all the white kids from the brown/black kids to discuss their culture. What about a fifth generation arab kid born in germany? Would you put him with the germans or the arabs? Which arabs? Do you have enough arabs to justify a group? Or do you just pair him with that one Tunisian kid who just arrived to the country? Is it better to do this with young kids or teenagers? Can teenagers approach this with any degree of maturity? It might sounds like a good idea on paper but I can't even fathom how they would actually even start separating the kids into these groups without triggering not only the aforementioned can and absolutely everything else they come across. Even ignoring the potential to trigger people, the task of separating kids or teenagers in any meaningful manner seems rather daunting.

 

[shionoro]

Ok, I get what you mean, I thought there was a bit more than a hypothesis here. I understand why you say the idea is not inherently racist but I can't help but feel extremely skeptic about it working at all. If anything it seems like a huge can of worms. Angry, triggered worms. I mean, how would you even go about this to begin with? Would you have a teacher with a color chart separating kids with it? Or would you ask them, kids, what their culture/ethnicity is? Imagine you are a kid in germany and then a teacher comes in and split all the white kids from the brown/black kids to discuss their culture. What about a fifth generation arab kid born in germany? Would you put him with the germans or the arabs? Which arabs? Do you have enough arabs to justify a group? Or do you just pair him with that one Tunisian kid who just arrived to the country? Is it better to do this with young kids or teenagers? Can teenagers approach this with any degree of maturity? It might sounds like a good idea on paper but I can't even fathom how they would actually even start separating the kids into these groups without triggering not only the aforementioned can and absolutely everything else they come across. Even ignoring the potential to trigger people, the task of separating kids or teenagers in any meaningful manner seems rather daunting.

That is clarified in the link: The school asked the children (and their parents) to selfidentify.
So no colour chart or talks about 'being only half black' or anything.

Germany is another playing field: Race plays much less importance here.
The split would (if a similar program is devised) be along the lines of being muslim or not.
The clear-cut race distinctions play much less of a role, simply because there is no sufficient amount of asians or black people.
That does not mean those do not face racism, but the importance of race is not comparable to the US.

So, the german equivalent would rather be religious education and talking about what it means to be a muslim and seperating the children that way (and talking with the nonmuslim kids about priviledge and so on) and then letting them talk together.
And i don't have a problem with that, we worked a long time to install islamic religious education (which, once again, is seperating kids de facto along ethnic lines for a lesson), and we are on the verge of finally having it now.
And that's a good thing.

I don't see the big problem in asking kids what race (or in the hypothetical case, religion they are) and thentelling them depending on their answer which room to go.
To me, it's really the same as religious or sex ed. In the first you divide along religion (which often means along race), in the second you divide along gender.

Sure, you'd need an idea about what to do with kids who outright refuse, but this is just a pilot project. The link didnt say about anyone being triggered or refusing, and if the programme works, you can enhance it.
Pilot projects look what works, that is what they are there for. If all the kids had cried and their parents were all horryfied, the project would have been stopped.
But there was a divide in the parents: some supported it, some were against it.
It's not like this project was done completely agains tht ewill of pupils and parents.
They tried one thing out about which many people with many races (looking at the racial diversity of that school, the teachers involved are often nonwhite) thought a long time.
And looking at the link at least, the endresult was anything but scary to the children.

 

[xi0]

So, the german equivalent would rather be religious education and talking about what it means to be a muslim and seperating the children that way (and talking with the nonmuslim kids about priviledge and so on) and then letting them talk together.

Yes, I'm sure talking to a 7 year old about their privilege would be really warmly received by them and their parents.

And i don't have a problem with that, we worked a long time to install islamic religious education (which, once again, is seperating kids de facto along ethnic lines for a lesson), and we are on the verge of finally having it now.
And that's a good thing.

I mean yeah, it might be separating kids among ethnic lines by accident, but installing islamic religious education isn't the same as what you brought up.

And I fail to see how any of this is a good thing when the goal is supposedly multiculturalism/integration. Especially where religion is concerned.

 

[shionoro]

Yes, I'm sure talking to a 7 year old about their privilege would be really warmly received by them and their parents.

In Germany? Basically impossible, you'd get insane shitstorm levels. But in the US? If it is done childfriendly, i see parents agreeing with that for like 10 year olds. Isn't that part of the program we talked about?

I mean yeah, it might be separating kids among ethnic lines by accident, but installing islamic religious education isn't the same as what you brought up.

And I fail to see how any of this is a good thing when the goal is supposedly multiculturalism/integration. Especially where religion is concerned.

Before I answer: You fail to see the good in islamic education or in the divide in the that US program?

 

[xi0]

In Germany? Basically impossible, you'd get insane shitstorm levels. But in the US? If it is done childfriendly, i see parents agreeing with that for like 10 year olds. Isn't that part of the program we talked about?

You talked about privilege, as if that's the only thing non-muslims would have to talk about...? Maybe I missed your point.

Before you answer: You fail to see the good in islamic education or in the divide in the that US program?

Well, I'm of a secular humanist persuasion, so the answer should be obvious. What obstacles existed in Germany to prevent Islamic education in the first place?

 

[shionoro]

You talked about privilege, as if that's the only thing non-muslims would have to talk about...? Maybe I missed your point.

It was just a suggestion. You could also talk about being nonreligious or christian, or generally what it means to be german.
It is just hypothetical, i just wanted to express that this program only makes sense in societies with a strong race distinction like the US and a multicultural environment.

Well, I'm of a secular humanist persuasion, so the answer should be obvious. What obstacles existed in Germany to prevent Islamic education in the first place?

The obstacle is that a lot if not most imams in germany do not speak german and are of questionable origin (mostly from turkey as employees of the turkish state, sent to germany).
We cannot have people teach children radical islam, so we have to build up people with knowledge of islam and a proper curriculum that we want to teach.
And that is not easy.
And every single different sect or movement in islam naturally wants to get its view punched through.

This is why religious islamic education is so important: To teach nonradical islam to children and not have them believe some myths while not even having read the quran.

 

[xi0]

It was just a suggestion. You could also talk about being nonreligious or christian, or generally what it means to be german.
It is just hypothetical, i just wanted to express that this program only makes sense in societies with a strong race distinction like the US and a multicultural environment.

The thing is, such a thing wouldn't be possible in public schools in the US, due to the separation of church and state. Anything taught regarding religion in public schools is strictly from a historical perspective and nothing else. It wouldn't be possible for a "class for muslims" to exist here in this context either, since "muslim" isn't an ethnicity.

I guess I was confused by "privilege" being mentioned at all. Especially when talking to gradeschoolers. The concept of privilege makes sense in a certain context, but I think a lot of the time the topic is brought up in a completely intellectually dishonest way, but I digress.

The obstacle is that a lot if not most imams in germany do not speak german and are of questionable origin (mostly from turkey as employees of the turkish state, sent to germany).
We cannot have people teach children radical islam, so we have to build up people with knowledge of islam and a proper curriculum that we want to teach.
And that is not easy.
And every single different sect or movement in islam naturally wants to get its view punched through.

This is why religious islamic education is so important: To teach nonradical islam to children and not have them believe some myths while not even having read the quran.

Feeling the need to adjudicate religious "education" isn't a solution to a problem, it's yet another problem. At least, that's how I view it. If the people are preaching toxic things, then they can be dealt with accordingly. But officials trying to decide who can and who can't preach a certain religion and trying to "mold" the ideal one seems completely counterlogic to me. Don't get me wrong, it seems well intentioned, but rather futile.

But I guess I still have to come to grips with the notion that the whole topic of radical/hate speech being treated differently in other countries, especially Germany. I still maintain that censoring it only makes the problem worse, as something can only truly be admonished and repudiated in a "free market of ideas", so to speak. Making it illegal makes it even more taboo, which can draw even more attention to it.

 

[shionoro]

The thing is, such a thing wouldn't be possible in public schools in the US, due to the separation of church and state. Anything taught regarding religion in public schools is strictly from a historical perspective and nothing else. It wouldn't be possible for a "class for muslims" to exist here in this context either, since "muslim" isn't an ethnicity.

I guess I was confused by "privilege" being mentioned at all. Especially when talking to gradeschoolers. The concept of privilege makes sense in a certain context, but I think a lot of the time the topic is brought up in a completely intellectually dishonest way, but I digress.

Is it? I mean, don't get me wrong, i am not against doing it like that, but i was under the impression the the divide of state and church is not real that strict in the US.
I mean, if you have states in which creation is taught in biology classes, i wouldn't assume that any religious education in schools is strictly just history.
I mean, don't they teach what the bible says and what christians believe?
That would be along the lines of german religious education. And i'd like to have the for muslims too.
If children are taught what their religion actually says it is harder for radicals to get through to them.

Feeling the need to adjudicate religious "education" isn't a solution to a problem, it's yet another problem. At least, that's how I view it. If the people are preaching toxic things, then they can be dealt with accordingly. But officials trying to decide who can and who can't preach a certain religion and trying to "mold" the ideal one seems completely counterlogic to me. Don't get me wrong, it seems well intentioned, but rather futile.

But I guess I still have to come to grips with the notion that the whole topic of radical/hate speech being treated differently in other countries, especially Germany. I still maintain that censoring it only makes the problem worse, as something can only truly be admonished and repudiated in a "free market of ideas", so to speak. Making it illegal makes it even more taboo, which can draw even more attention to it.

I don't think this is censoring. That would be if it was forbidden for other people to teach whatever they think islam is about.
The thing is: No matter whether we teach or not, muslim children will have some notion about what it means to be muslims.
And in many cases, that is just culture or radicalism. As with christians, many muslims do not actually know a whole lot about their religion. Even those who have very strong opinions about it. And that is a problem in a world where they become easy targets radicals or take over racist or sexist views from their parents.

I am not categorically against abandoning all religious education alltogether. Christian religious education in elementary school has impacted my youth in a very negative way.

But if we have something like that, it is exspecially important for the one group in germany who actually still puts importance on its religion (because if we are honest, most christians in germany don't actually care about christianity. And those who do are often rather on the 'oh well i guess there is some form of spirit or something' page).

What you call free market of ideas is a thing i do see merit in. However, this measure is trying to advertise one form of islam over the other.
It is a try to, in the long term, be able to form something like a european islam.

You could say that it is not a free market if one idea gets taught in school and the other doesn't, but then i'D argue that it is not free if your parents decide what you get to know about religion either. This is a way to put something against pure tradition.

 

[xi0]

Is it? I mean, don't get me wrong, i am not against doing it like that, but i was under the impression the the divide of state and church is not real that strict in the US.
I mean, if you have states in which creation is taught in biology classes, i wouldn't assume that any religious education in schools is strictly just history.
I mean, don't they teach what the bible says and what christians believe?

I mean, I live in a blue state, but as far as I know, challenges against the separation of church and state when it comes to education has never been breached. There's a difference between public school and private school though, as the latter almost always exists under the umbrella of a religious organization, and isn't publicly funded.

There aren't any states that teach creationism as far as I know. That doesn't mean that they haven't tried.

From my recollection, we learned far more about the Arab world than we did anything about the history of christianity. The people who write the curriculum have to skirt a fine line, and I see no problem with that. The curriculum is also revised on a regular basis. One year students might learn about American History, another European history. It's the same with science classes and literature courses. It can vary.

That would be along the lines of german religious education. And i'd like to have the for muslims too.
If children are taught what their religion actually says it is harder for radicals to get through to them.

Who is to say what a religion actually says? Who decides such a thing? Germans? That's why I think such an effort is useless, because no one is going to respond favorably to that.

As with christians, many muslims do not actually know a whole lot about their religion. Even those who have very strong opinions about it. And that is a problem in a world where they become easy targets radicals or take over racist or sexist views from their parents.

You seem to make a habit out of feeling like there's a necessity for some outside body to step in and undo the indoctrination that kids suffer from their parents, but you don't seem to give the individual child much credit to discover things on their own and hold their own beliefs, whether that's supported or happens in spite of someone's upbringing is a separate story, obviously.

I am not categorically against abandoning all religious education alltogether. Christian religious education in elementary school has impacted my youth in a very negative way.

My mother made me and my brother attend catechism until we were confirmed at 15/16. And while my family isn't particular religious, I was never indoctrinated past this. It's almost as if she only wanted us to be confirmed for superstitious reasons, as she almost always added the caveat, "just get confirmed and then you can do whatever you want". And we did. No one in my family attends church on a regular basis now. So in spite of this upbringing and my almost always strict antitheist attitude towards stuff, I can't say my religious education impacted me in a negative way, funnily enough.

But I guess my "religious education" was wholly separate of my actual education, and the reasons for which I already mentioned.

What you call free market of ideas is a thing i do see merit in. However, this measure is trying to advertise one form of islam over the other.
It is a try to, in the long term, be able to form something like a european islam.

Well, the idea behind a reformation/enlightment for Islam is a great idea, but I don't think such a thing can be manufactured in this manner, so to speak. The main issue is that Islam's influence is almost always foreign in nature, and this is sort of the same reason why Protestants and Catholics have always clashed with one another.

You could say that it is not a free market if one idea gets taught in school and the other doesn't, but then i'D argue that it is not free if your parents decide what you get to know about religion either. This is a way to put something against pure tradition.

But shouldn't an individual arrive at such a place of their own volition? I don't see why you're so insistent on society at large intervening and undermining parenting. Major cultural and societal revolutions don't really need help in this manner, at least from what I can tell.

 

[kkck]

Honestly, I can't imagine people at the US being all to welcoming to the idea of being taught about their privilege. I can't say I know much about germany in that context but even then I have a really hard time believing people would receive it any better than in germany. Even actual educated adults don't quite grasp privilege to begin with. Heck, at the US you can find actual "adults" who respond to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" even though it takes a shred of empathy and 7 seconds on google to grasp what BLM's point is. I might be underestimating kids but I would think kids in general would have trouble properly grasping the finer details of what privilege in this context means.