A Discourse in Lying and Cheating
Berlin has recently become the stage of a first-class farce. To appreciate the irony (or otherwise, lies and deception), let me give you a brief overview.
The background ¶
Germany, unlike the US, France or Turkey, has never been a secular state. In fact, despite the non-religious attitude of large parts of the population, the state still bases its very constitution on faith, as witnessed by the preamble which starts with,
Conscious of [the people's] responsibility before God and man …
The special status is further elevated by declaring (in article 7, §3) religious education as the sole constitutionally enforced compulsory subject on the curriculum. However, and due to historical reasons, there has always been an exception to this rule which applies in Berlin. Thus, Berlin has provided a religious education on voluntary basis only. This has been complemented recently by the introduction of “ethics” (which also includes history of religions and comparative religion) as a regular subject.
The introduction of compulsory ethics education has gone down badly with several religious and conservative groups which see the religious education of their children threatened by what they see as “atheist ethics” taught in schools. Instead of now attacking the perceived contents of this subject, they contest (again, the perceived) displacement of religion by ethics.
This debate has become the subject of a referendum to introduce religious education as a regular, compulsory subject alongside ethics. Not both subjects can be (or have to be taken): rather, there would be a choice between the two elective subjects. As a consequence, ethics education would no longer be universal since religious education can be taken instead — which is precisely what the referendum wants.
So far, so good. A referendum reflects the empowerment of the people and is of course welcome as such. Furthermore, both positions (for the choice between either religion or ethics on the one hand, and for compulsory ethics education and complementary free religious education on the other) are valid positions representing different interests. As such, the referendum is really a fight of two different world views. Simplified, it’s between religious people wanting to protect and enforce their exceptional position in the state, and humanists/atheists who strive to make Germany a (more) secular state and to create a foundation of common ethics for all citizens.
Campaigning is hard, let’s go shopping ¶
The referendum is a farce for two reasons.
One, and rather mundane, is the fact that it’s not really fought by the people but rather by political parties. The left-leaning majority in senate has passed the new law introducing ethics as a compulsory course over the objection of the conservative minority. The conservatives (represented mainly by the CDU), robbed of other political options, have put their money and marketing expertise into a campaign to get the referendum started. The SPD and “Linke” on the other hand have put their money into opposing the referendum.
It’s all about the “will of the people” all right. Combined with the fact that the campaigns for and against the referendum are a pack of spins, lies and deliberate omissions, this means that the referendum will simply reflect the balance of power of Berlin’s political parties. It will certainly not reflect the mind of the people.
The real issue is rather clear-cut and the above text gives a comprehensive summary. Reading between the lines in their pamphlets, this is obvious and (I believe) largely undisputed. However, none of the parties are actually using this line of reasoning in their campaigns.
I’ll lay initial blame with the drivers of the campaign which call themselves “Pro Reli“. They don’t in fact advertise religious education; instead, they advertise “free choice.” This makes it all very simple: since we’re all living in a democracy, anything that isn’t free choice is automatically bad, right? In reality, there’s of course no choice involved: the old as well as the new law makes it entirely possible for children (or rather: their parents) to choose religious education, if they so want. The only thing that is not up to choice under current law is ethics, which is compulsory, which is what Pro Reli opposes without wanting to admit it loudly.
Faced with the argument of free choice, the opponents of the referendum, styling themselves “Pro Ethik” decry the “obligation to choose”, giving themselves over to public ridicule: “obligation to choose“? I’ve rarely heard a more pathetic complaint. Such baloney is just cannon fodder for Pro Reli and they promptly used it. I can’t blame them. What I blame them for is the active distortion of facts and outright lies to win over otherwise atheist voters.
Apart from the “free choice” nonsense Pro Reli uses a few main arguments worth dissecting for their sheer amount of bullshit (numbers do not correspond to Pro Reli’s list):
Compulsory ethics education, so the implied claim, is “intolerant”.
According to Pro Reli, only a competing religious education (only for the larger religions, mind you!) can ensure tolerance — surprising, since religions have never been known for their particular tolerance.
Ethics cannot provide a sufficiently large cultural variety.
This particular claim is directly belied by the fact that ethics also includes comparative religious education and history of religion.
But it also offers an insight into what Pro Reli understands by the terms “cultural variety” and “tolerance”. To quote their official arguments (exact wording not available online):
Tolerance is always founded in individual convictions. … It does not mean … noncommittal coexistence.
Pro Reli fears that ethics can and will only talk impartially about different religious beliefs, and, since it cannot take sides, will not relay them:
Ethics education is committed to neutrality. It risks relativising the pupils’ standpoints.
What Pro Reli wants, pure and simple, is that pupils will be taught, without questions, what is right and what is wrong. It does not endorse discussion or doubt. The responsibility to decide for themselves is lifted off their puny shoulders. How does this fit with Pro Reli’s claim that
“Religious education enables responsible reasoning” — Georg Cardinal Sterzinsky
Ethics education cannot preserve ideological neutrality.
The solution: religion. Yes, that’s right, because “[it] does not have the unrealistic commitment to neutrality.”
Religious education prevents a state monopoly.
Teaching of values is never free of ideology. By letting ethics become [...] the sole regular subject the state would intervene inappropriately in matters of ideology. This contradicts the state’s duty to neutrality.1
On the one hand claiming special rights and on the other decrying lack of neutrality — that’s chutzpah. I cannot imagine a more dishonest, two-faced morality. And these people want to teach values?
– To be fair, the other side argues just as ridiculously. The party “Linke” has stooped especially low; their campaign slogan reads:
Religion is voluntary. For it to stay that way, vote “no”.
Well, duh. Nobody here attacked freedom of religion. Straw man, anyone?
- In fact, the state has never claimed neutrality in this matter. On the contrary, it is the expressed interest of the government (and has always been, of every “western” state) to instil in their citizens a respect of certain values deemed acceptable and important for the well-being of the society at large. ↩