Erdogan replaces teaching evolution with teaching jihad in schools

[Thanas]

The Independent

Turkey's new school curriculum drops evolution and will teach concept of jihad
Education minister says 'the real meaning of jihad is loving your nation'


Turkey's new school curriculum drops Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and adds the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit.

The move has fuelled fears President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is subverting the republic's secular foundations.

The chairman of a teachers' union has described the changes as a huge step in the wrong direction for Turkey's schools and an attempt to avoid raising "generations who ask questions".

Ismet Yilmaz, the country's education minister, said the controversial decision to exclude the theory of evolution was "because it is above the students' level and not directly relevant."

A member of the opposition Republican People's Party, Mustafa Balbay, said any suggestion the theory was beyond their understanding was an insult to high school students.

"You go and give an 18-year old student the right to elect and be elected, but don't give him the right to learn about the theory of evolution...This is being close minded and ignorant."

Mr Erdogan, accused by critics of crushing democratic freedoms with tens of thousands of arrests and a clampdown on media since a failed coup last July, has in the past spoken of raising a "pious generation".

The curriculum, effective from the start of the 2017-2018 school year, also obliges Turkey's growing number of "Imam Hatip" religious schools to teach the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit.

"It is also our duty to fix what has been perceived as wrong. This is why the Islamic law class and basic fundamental religion lectures will include [lessons on] jihad," Mr Yilmaz told reporters. "The real meaning of jihad is loving your nation."

Jihad is often translated as "holy war" in the context of fighters waging war against enemies of Islam; but Muslim scholars stress that it also refers to a personal, spiritual struggle against sin.

Mehhmet Balik, chairman of the Union of Education and Science Workers (Egitim-Is), condemned the new curriculum.

"The new policies that ban the teaching of evolution and requiring all schools to have a prayer room, these actions destroy the principle of secularism and the scientific principles of education," he said.

Under the AKP, which came to power in 2002, the number of "Imam Hatip" religious schools has grown exponentially. Erdogan, who has roots in political Islam, attended one such school.

He has spent his career fighting to bring religion back into public life in constitutionally secular Turkey and has cast himself as the liberator of millions of pious Turks whose rights and welfare were neglected by a secular elite.

Liberal Turks see Mr Erdogan as attempting to roll back the work of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Western-facing founder of modern Turkey who believed education should be free of religious teachings.

Some government critics have said the new curriculum - which was presented for public feedback earlier this year - increased the emphasis on Islamic values at the expense of Ataturk's role.

But Mr Yilmaz said nothing about Ataturk or his accomplishments had been removed. Changes only emphasised core values such as justice, friendship, honesty, love and patriotism.

He said discussion of the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Isis and the network of the US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom Ankara blames for last year's attempted coup, would also be added.

Mr Balik, the head of the union, said the changes were being made in an attempt to stamp out dissenting ideas.

"The bottom line is: generations who ask questions, that's what the government fears," he said.

So no more teaching of science instead they will teach religiously-fueled nationalism.

Such a great development.

[ray245]

The Turks kinda voted for that when they gave him increasing powers.

[wautd]

So basically he wants to raise a generation of warmongers* that will be free from reasoning skills and critical thought.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong...

*Because to me fundamentalism + nationalism is the perfect recipe for a powder keg

[AniThyng]

So basically he wants to raise a generation of warmongers* that will be free from reasoning skills and critical thought.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong...

*Because to me fundamentalism + nationalism is the perfect recipe for a powder keg

Only a islamophobic westerner would think that, you clearly fail to understand true Islam. /s.

No seriously, it's tiring trying not to fall into the "islamophobia" trap sometimes, with the "points" many Muslim leaders use to block critics, especially secular or non Muslim critics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thing is, though, he's not even teaching loyalty to Islam. He's using Islam to indoctrinate people into nationalism/loyalty to him.

And yeah, this sounds so much like an expansionist fascist state in the making, especially given Erdogan's history thus far.

Edit: Seriously, can't we just boot this worthless cocksucker from NATO?

[Dragon Angel]

Thing is, though, he's not even teaching loyalty to Islam. He's using Islam to indoctrinate people into nationalism/loyalty to him.

Interestingly, this should be an example to point to westerners who are afraid of Them Mooselims that even the fundamentalists in Islam do not refer to a single ideology. ISIS had al Baghdadi as their leader, Erdogan apparently wants his own little theocracy, and well, any number of other tinpots who fancy themselves as God's True Prophet. The concept of a unified Islam that universally hates the West should be disproven even by pointing to the radical groups who have vastly different ideologies.

But, I don't really expect this logical step to gain much hold, unfortunately...

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. There's no more a "unified Islam" than there is a "unified Christianity".

But just try getting the tribalistic bigots to see that...

[ray245]

Yup. There's no more a "unified Islam" than there is a "unified Christianity".

But just try getting the tribalistic bigots to see that...

Except the media shaped the narrative in such a way that westerners hear more about people like Erdogan than the people who disagreed with him. Those in Turkey that are opposed to Erdogan are seen as liberal-western-thinking Turks, with their religion being downplayed. Same with the war in Syria. Those that opposed ISIS are secularists, rather than Muslim secularists.

The fundamentalists are becoming the only representation of Muslim in western news media. They are the ones benefiting from such a coverage, even for new sites that are more liberal/left-wing.

[AniThyng]

Yup. There's no more a "unified Islam" than there is a "unified Christianity".

But just try getting the tribalistic bigots to see that...

How far down does the "no true Scotsman" rabbit hole go, seriously? I mean we all know that there are multiple viewpoints in Islam just like in "Christianity" but you could say the same about anything, when does that stop being useful as a descriptor and cross over onto "not all <x>" ?

Bearing in mind that I'm real life I am rarely afforded the luxury to tell any random Muslim that I reject their version in favor of one that suits my sensibilities

[Dragon Angel]

Who is saying "no true Scotsman"? In fact, we're saying the complete opposite of that.

I mean, it sucks where you live you can't openly criticize the religion but this neither invalidates the point nor does it justify the West's general attitude toward everyone part of Islam.

[K. A. Pital]

"The West" does not have a general attitude towards islam, because it is not a monolithic entity itself.

That said, I fully support people in islamic countries who have to contend with dark age bullshit. I understand it is even more painful in countries with a history of secular rule, like Turkey, and so I cannot claim to be in a holier-than-thou position to tell them they've brought it down on themselves.

The horribleness of religion is not constrained by the type of god(s) you believe in. The more I've learned over years and decades about various religions, including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, is that all of them could be extremely backwards and oppressive, and that faith and tradition, at their core, always challenge reason and science.

[Dragon Angel]

"The West" does not have a general attitude towards islam, because it is not a monolithic entity itself.

It's shorthand I use sometimes, even though yes, there's a lot of the West that doesn't treat Islam like trash too. But, the far right making more inroads into policy and my own country especially having a history with drones has kind of made me plenty more cynical of western countries too so...

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. There's no more a "unified Islam" than there is a "unified Christianity".

But just try getting the tribalistic bigots to see that...

How far down does the "no true Scotsman" rabbit hole go, seriously? I mean we all know that there are multiple viewpoints in Islam just like in "Christianity" but you could say the same about anything, when does that stop being useful as a descriptor and cross over onto "not all <x>" ?

Bearing in mind that I'm real life I am rarely afforded the luxury to tell any random Muslim that I reject their version in favor of one that suits my sensibilities

Reminding people that not all Muslims are part of a Jihadi hive-mind is not a No True Scotsman. That is all.

[AniThyng]

For literally any ideology or culture or religion we can find divisions and alternate viewpoints and someone who will gladly tell us that the other guy doesn't represent him( and vice versa), this isn't in of itself news.

But I'll concede that it is true that "no true Scotsman" is not being used here. But I'll still stand by the "not all <x>" question, especially given in this very thread "the west" was used as shorthand the very same way people use "the Muslim world" as shorthand.

[AniThyng]

"The West" does not have a general attitude towards islam, because it is not a monolithic entity itself.

It's shorthand I use sometimes, even though yes, there's a lot of the West that doesn't treat Islam like trash too. But, the far right making more inroads into policy and my own country especially having a history with drones has kind of made me plenty more cynical of western countries too so...

Not necessarily disagreeing, just adding to the cynicism that no matter how vile your western country is, what's stopping other non western countries from being equally vile is lack of ability, not lack of morals... that and the old saw that the problem with the US is that it meddles in other countries business and torture foreigners, while China has the decency to only torture it's own people and rattle sabers at "rebels" ( "Taiwan")

[Dragon Angel]

especially given in this very thread "the west" was used as shorthand the very same way people use "the Muslim world" as shorthand.

this ... isn't comparable. People are helplessly dying in certain Middle Eastern countries by western bombs, far right politicians are trying their damnedest to make Islam virtually if not literally illegal, and you can barely have a terrorist attack happen anymore without random idiots screaming "religion of peace am i rite". We're having rights being stripped away from us and our privacy violated at every turn being justified by the "radical Muslim threat".

Fundamentalist Muslims, while they do fantasize about targeting and destroying the West, do not have nearly the same level of pull to accomplish their goals. There are also no refugees from the West trying to escape into affected Middle Eastern countries.

There is a clear power difference. Ignoring that is assuming "both sides are equal" while that is hugely not the case.

Not necessarily disagreeing, just adding to the cynicism that no matter how vile your western country is, what's stopping other non western countries from being equally vile is lack of ability, not lack of morals

I mean, yeah, given enough ability anyone can try to be world cops. It's just exactly that, the USA has the capability to be as vile as it wishes with little to nothing in consequences for it, and it chooses to exercise that weight like a schoolyard bully. And it reeks more because supposedly, we should have a better understanding of how not to be a schoolyard bully.

[AniThyng]

this ... isn't comparable. People are helplessly dying in certain Middle Eastern countries by western bombs,

No disagreement there.

far right politicians are trying their damnedest to make Islam virtually if not literally illegal, and you can barely have a terrorist attack happen anymore without random idiots screaming "religion of peace am i rite".

Far right islamist politicians are also trying to make blasphemous and illegal the kind of liberal Islam you are likely familiar with...

We're having rights being stripped away from us and our privacy violated at every turn being justified by the "radical Muslim threat".

True. The same happens where I am, both with that excuse (sure, most Muslim governments are against isis. That's hardly high praise) and the liberal Western coloniser zionist excuse. It really is vexing.

Fundamentalist Muslims, while they do fantasize about targeting and destroying the West, do not have nearly the same level of pull to accomplish their goals. There are also no refugees from the West trying to escape into affected Middle Eastern countries.

Yes, they don't have the pull, but they would if they did, that's the point. It's like Sharia law in my country - the problem isn't that it's never going to be passed in to law, it's that it is regressive unless you take a very liberal interpretation that's being far to charitable to the typical moderate islamist party that cares about that sort of thing enough to make it law.

But man typing that made me realize just why it frustrates me so and why it bleeds over - no one will have me arrested for both blasphemy and incitement for critical of the secular government, just incitement. But being Islam and the islamist political parties into the mix and wham, you're in for a wonderful time...

I misspoke btw, I meant to say it's not morals keeping certain other nations from being as vile as the us, it's ability. I she agree on the hypocrisy though.

[AniThyng]

That is to say I have lived an entire life in a world where Islamic ideologies have had institutional power and it colors my worldview when I hear that "Islam is not...", even if I can temper it with the knowledge that many muslims are well meaning, ordinary people like all of us and that there exist interpretations that do not clash with my values, so I apologize for that.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that it comes down to this.

Islam is not a hive mind in the sense that there is a united accord among all Muslims (or even all advocates of political Islam) about how Islamic societies should govern themselves, or who should be in charge, or what should be done with all these unbelievers lying around.

There are, however, some extremely strong recurring patterns throughout the Muslim world, resulting from Islam trying to merge with and take over the political governance of nations. Many if not most Muslims probably even think of political-Islam as normal. There are historical and cultural reasons for that, which I'm going to avoid going into because I don't want to write a whole essay on that question.

Point being, the patterns do in fact exist. We can observe similar processes coming out of strongly 'Islamic' political factions throughout the Muslim world.

...

Now, saying "not all Muslims!" is very relevant in the context of preventing oppression of Muslims in Western developed societies. These are, on the whole, Muslims who have accepted the separation of church and state. And who are heavily liberalized compared to their counterparts in places like Turkey or Malaysia (let alone Iran or Saudi Arabia). They are just plain not the problem, and harassing them for their religion or what co-religionists do elsewhere in the world is a gross injustice.

At the same time, though, saying "not all Muslims!" becomes disruptive and unhelpful when we are specifically talking about political-Islam fundamentalist factions, in the politics of countries where Muslims are a majority. In those countries there are clear patterns of Muslims agitating to pass laws that effectively criminalize opposition to Islam, of intimidating secular movements into submission, and of trying to take secular law codes and remake them into Muslim law codes. Forcing large amounts of 'Islamic education' on the public is one of the common tools for making this happen.

And this does happen, in one form or another, across much of the Muslim world and nations on the fringes of same. The pattern is very persistent, to the point where it is reasonable to speculate that this comes from something structural about Islam itself in predominantly-Muslim countries. Something that actually does lead a significant fraction of Muslims to try and take over secular power structures in their countries. Because it happens too often to be a coincidence.

[ray245]

I think that it comes down to this.

Islam is not a hive mind in the sense that there is a united accord among all Muslims (or even all advocates of political Islam) about how Islamic societies should govern themselves, or who should be in charge, or what should be done with all these unbelievers lying around.

There are, however, some extremely strong recurring patterns throughout the Muslim world, resulting from Islam trying to merge with and take over the political governance of nations. Many if not most Muslims probably even think of political-Islam as normal. There are historical and cultural reasons for that, which I'm going to avoid going into because I don't want to write a whole essay on that question.

Point being, the patterns do in fact exist. We can observe similar processes coming out of strongly 'Islamic' political factions throughout the Muslim world.

...

Now, saying "not all Muslims!" is very relevant in the context of preventing oppression of Muslims in Western developed societies. These are, on the whole, Muslims who have accepted the separation of church and state. And who are heavily liberalized compared to their counterparts in places like Turkey or Malaysia (let alone Iran or Saudi Arabia). They are just plain not the problem, and harassing them for their religion or what co-religionists do elsewhere in the world is a gross injustice.

At the same time, though, saying "not all Muslims!" becomes disruptive and unhelpful when we are specifically talking about political-Islam fundamentalist factions, in the politics of countries where Muslims are a majority. In those countries there are clear patterns of Muslims agitating to pass laws that effectively criminalize opposition to Islam, of intimidating secular movements into submission, and of trying to take secular law codes and remake them into Muslim law codes. Forcing large amounts of 'Islamic education' on the public is one of the common tools for making this happen.

And this does happen, in one form or another, across much of the Muslim world and nations on the fringes of same. The pattern is very persistent, to the point where it is reasonable to speculate that this comes from something structural about Islam itself in predominantly-Muslim countries. Something that actually does lead a significant fraction of Muslims to try and take over secular power structures in their countries. Because it happens too often to be a coincidence.

I would really like to point out that the notion of secularism is a very western concept that is tied to Europe and their understanding of Christianity. For example, the notion of a legal system existing separate from the church can be linked back to the Roman empire. Westerners expecting the Islamic world to become a Muslim version of them is unrealistic.

But the problem is we have a problem with understanding the nuances and instead we are being forced into a simple yes/no narrative. The "not all Muslim" tag is a symptom of this because it is impossible for a mere hashtag to communicate such nuances. Moreover, it's also an issue if you lump all Muslims in Western countries as being "liberalised". There are those that remain more conservative, and I need to remind you that Erdogan is quite popular among many European Turks.

Erdogan's popularity among European Turks seemed to be ignored in your narrative.

[Dragon Angel]

That is to say I have lived an entire life in a world where Islamic ideologies have had institutional power and it colors my worldview when I hear that "Islam is not...", even if I can temper it with the knowledge that many muslims are well meaning, ordinary people like all of us and that there exist interpretations that do not clash with my values, so I apologize for that.

Yeah, I guess I can see where you're coming from though. I reflexively start to defend Muslims because since pretty much high school I've seen and heard of all the atrocities that America and other western countries have done and continue to do, and I remember the slow buildup of Islamophobia that has led to where we are today. We're both talking over each other in completely different contexts as Simon said.

It should be noted though that my first post to TRR was about the western context and thinking that Simon mentioned, not intended to lecture to anyone in Islamic theocracies "not all Muslims".

[ray245]

Yeah, I guess I can see where you're coming from though. I reflexively start to defend Muslims because since pretty much high school I've seen and heard of all the atrocities that America and other western countries have done and continue to do, and I remember the slow buildup of Islamophobia that has led to where we are today. We're both talking over each other in completely different contexts as Simon said.

It should be noted though that my first post to TRR was about the western context and thinking that Simon mentioned, not intended to lecture to anyone in Islamic theocracies "not all Muslims".

Being reflexive in a debate is utterly problematic because no one is actually talking to each other. It just turns everything into a Yes/No reply, and allow people to get away with constructing false narrative.

[Dragon Angel]

Ray, do you have a habit of stating the obvious while also deriving the most hopeless possible conclusions imaginable? Asking for a friend.

[ray245]

Ray, do you have a habit of stating the obvious while also deriving the most hopeless possible conclusions imaginable? Asking for a friend.

I'll probably won't be so cynical if I can see things becoming better.

[Simon_Jester]

I would really like to point out that the notion of secularism is a very western concept that is tied to Europe and their understanding of Christianity. For example, the notion of a legal system existing separate from the church can be linked back to the Roman empire. Westerners expecting the Islamic world to become a Muslim version of them is unrealistic.

Well, there are multiple versions of secularism. The European one is exactly as you describe.

There is also what we can reasonably call a 'Far Eastern' version of secularism, in which the government continues to exist and lets different philosophies and religions flow through without too much trouble. Japanese governments did not, on the whole, have major problems with conflicts between (Shinto or Buddhist) 'church' and the state. The basic imperial structure of the Chinese state has been able to survive having several different waves of religious and quasi-religious belief systems pass through China, without major sectarian problems most of the time.

[YES there are exceptions to this statement, some of them quite messy. Bear with me here; you know what I mean and I have an actual point I'm building up to]

And from what I know of, say, ancient Egypt or Inca civilization, in a real sense they were secular... in that there was a very powerful god-king who ran the government and refused to allow any religion other than "obey the god-king" to make significant laws. Which is a sort of demented mutant form of secularism, when you think about it.

[YES this is an oversimplification, bear with me here]

What I'm getting at is that the idea "there is a government, and it functions without specific, constant reference to the principles of a single religion" is not in fact a uniquely Western idea. What it is, though, is a very very non-Muslim idea. It's an idea some Muslims have become willing to accept due to influences from outside the Muslim cultural sphere... but it is not an idea that would ever be likely to originate and flourish coming from within the meme-space of ideas native to Islam.

But the problem is we have a problem with understanding the nuances and instead we are being forced into a simple yes/no narrative. The "not all Muslim" tag is a symptom of this because it is impossible for a mere hashtag to communicate such nuances. Moreover, it's also an issue if you lump all Muslims in Western countries as being "liberalised". There are those that remain more conservative, and I need to remind you that Erdogan is quite popular among many European Turks.

Erdogan's popularity among European Turks seemed to be ignored in your narrative.

[sigh]

That's because I was making a point to which it is entirely irrelevant.

Muslims in Western societies* are a small minority and, realistically, always will be. There is no meaningful chance of Muslims in these countries restructuring the societies they live in to follow the Islamic theories of how government should work. The Muslims who live in these societies are therefore not a threat to the basic structure of the social order. Harassing them for their beliefs, even if those beliefs clash with Western culture, is an injustice.

You note that there are pro-Erdogan Turks in European countries (not counting Turkey). I reply, so what?

It doesn't matter if a Turk in Germany thinks Erdogan is the greatest thing since yogurt and coffee. There is no Erdogan in Germany. There is no risk of Germany becoming a Muslim fundamentalist dystopia. A pro-Erdogan Turk in Germany is irrelevant and puny, no threat to the German political order. It is therefore not only unjust but useless to harass this particular Muslim for his beliefs on the grounds that they are 'opposed to Western culture' or whatever.

Furthermore, even this version of your argument is at most a counter to a distorted version of what I actually said. You said "Moreover, it's also an issue if you lump all Muslims in Western countries as being "liberalised". There are those that remain more conservative, and I need to remind you that Erdogan is quite popular among many European Turks."

This was in reply to "These are, on the whole, Muslims who have accepted the separation of church and state. And who are heavily liberalized compared to their counterparts in places like Turkey or Malaysia (let alone Iran or Saudi Arabia)."

What you are missing is that I am speaking of a weighted average when I use words like 'on the whole.' This becomes fairly clear when you know what phrases like 'on the whole' mean and when you look at the context.

You are construing 'the bulk of this population is okay with living in a secular society' as 'literally every member of this population considers a secular society ideal.' So not only am I still correct to point out that it's pointless to harass Muslims in European countries because of the actions of political-Islam in Muslim countries... But your attempt to counter my statements along these lines is an entirely pointless nitpick based on a distorted version of what I'm saying.
__________________________

*(with Turkey being a borderline case that is in the process of leaving the group if it was ever in the group)