The science council advised us to educate Imams in the teaching of their religion at German universities. I read so in the Spiegel and also heard the same thing in the news. Allegedly, the advice was well received all over the place.
I am irritated by this wide-spread acceptance. Don’t we see ourselves as a modern and secularised society? The number of Christians dwindles, the number of people calling themselves “without religious affiliation” increases. This tendency is absolutely undisputed.
Why is it common practice in this country that the instruction in Christian religion is paid for by the state and managed by the state? Why do free German universities educate Catholic and Lutheran clergymen and teachers of religion at federal expense? And why do we follow the concordat and pay the bishops out of the federal budget?
Mind you, this happens regardless of the fact that we have a church tax in Germany (I do not know any other country that has a church tax), which is a systematic financial subsidy of churches by the state.
Now it is planned to teach Islamism at German universities in order to make it possible for Islamic religion to be taught at German schools at the cost of the German taxpayer as a way to integrate pupils. It appears that the objective of this plan is to make Islamic religious education more transparent.
They say the science council’s advice is basically undisputed. I am surprised to hear it, because I used to believe we still adhere to the principle: the same law for everyone. The next logical step would be to pay high-ranking Imams from the federal budget. Consequently, Muslim military clergy, too, etc.
How about another strategy: Why not cease paying for any of the religion chairs and clergy out of the federal budget? Instead of religious education as a compulsory subject at school, we could introduce obligatory ethical teachings (and social behaviour) including moral courage at schools. And we could offer the churches that they have a right to teach at schools on a voluntary basis and under surveillance.
This can probably not be done because we have a concordat contract. And I guess a concordat is a contract that can only be terminated if both parties concerned consent. But wouldn’t it be worth trying?
As far as I am concerned, the church tax need not be abolished. Why not introduce it for Muslims, as well? As long as it is restricted to members of a church or religion, it is voluntary and thereby fine by me. Defining its rate through the income tax is probably a socially fair solution.
And the unique tool “church tax” could easily be used in order to make religious education transparent (and probably also have an influence on it). I presume that is what the science council intended. As we all know, the road from education to indoctrination is not a long one.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
I read some more interesting things in the SZ this week. Every one of these items would be well worth a separate article:
- The doctor of physics, Frau Dr. Angela D. Merkel, considers nuclear fusion a particularly future-oriented way to generate energy.
- The reduced tax rate for hotels will not be tampered with.
- The ends justify the means and data are not objects, which is why data theft or data fencing cannot exist.
- Many townships are in danger of total over-indebtedness or even insolvency.
- In January 2010, even less cars were sold than in 2009 (the poor sales in January last year were the reason for creating the wreck premium) and still the car shares are on the incline.
- The EU is going to “put a short leash” to Greece.
- We now have a new Afghanistan strategy. It focuses on training many policemen and soldiers, thus hopefully making a speedy extraction of soldiers from Afghanistan possible
- The bachelor and master models really were a failure.
- The first hundred days of the black-yellow government were far from great.
- The SPD wants to help Frau Merkel with her reform of the job centres.
- We will soon see the next massive strike, etc.
What terrific news all around the place!
Loading ...