THE GREAT SCAM. Opinion Section by David Cerdá

Secular Sermons

License Creative Commons

David Cerdá

There are certain educators who, while claiming to be inclusive, exclude students from accessing the tools of consciousness and reflection necessary for becoming true citizens. They are false flag bearers of critical thinking who claim to combat ideology just as Amazon claims to combat inefficiency: constructing a monopoly that leaves a wasteland around their particular viewpoints.

There are some teachers clenching fists tightly for the removal of religious education from the curriculum. However, these are not the same individuals who have long argued for the Church’s exit from schools; they represent a different breed altogether. One knows they are not the same because while the secular nature of public schools can be solidly debated, it is now clear that the influence of this optional subject is negligible. Its doctrinal content is minimal—often merely a superficial layer of benevolent morality—and its coherence with objective and universal moral principles, non-existent; indeed, students rarely even read the Bible, as that would require too much effort, if you catch my drift. Those who keep banging on about this—insisting it is debatable, but nonetheless, the least of our problems—do so for two primary reasons. First, it is an educational “battle of posturing”, a soft kick at the lampposts, Friday night bar agitprop. Second, these so-called “armchair bullfighters” are attempting to instil their own ideology, whilst ironically dubbing their actions as “promoting critical thinking.”

We are talking about teachers who wear keffiyehs to class—or the flag of Israel, it’s all the same—those who teach about the “colonial past of Spain in the Americas,” (sigh) and those delighted with the talks in which male students are told that they are all potential rapists (wanting to uncover in this a display of logic, which shows a remarkable ignorance), those who say “we must educate for and in “de-growth”. We refer to educators who deliver weekly secular homilies on all manner of issues that concern them; those who assume a self-serving duty to colonise the minds of their students; the same ones who label those advocating for education from differing perspectives as “rojipardos” (red bastards). They are the champions of the adage “the other always indoctrinates; I educate,” those who misinterpret “objectivity” as offering students ethical and political solutions to complex dilemmas in the form of a singular mush that they have regurgitated.

Currently, it is mainstream in Spain to tell people that we live surrounded by fascists: it also serves to play into the government’s hands. Yet this is not the point; it is no longer about teaching young people to question all power, only the one that seems suspicious to them, nor is it about consistently criticising the government as citizens in training, but rather according to, without, on, after. I’ll tell you what the thesis of these people is, which is essential for understanding the puzzle: constructivism, which is rooted in that disease called relativism, and continues, just as day follows night, leading to the politicisation of students. To enlighten students politically is the opposite of politicising them; it digs a trench for them. The destruction of complexity in ethical and political thinking is one of the great ills of our time. Great storm clouds loom over our democracy and our moral achievements as a consequence of this phenomenon. These false advocates of inclusive education are not part of the solution; they are part of the problem.

Let this brief article serve as a reminder of what critical thinking truly entails: logic, dialectic, rhetoric, and basic cognition. If we desire our students to become adults with sound political discernment, cultivating a future citizenry that holds power (without qualification) accountable rather than complacent, we must teach them to think, to sidestep fallacies and biases, and fundamentally to articulate their thoughts through dialogue rather than merely repeating slogans. The objective, ultimately, is to contribute to their freedom, which necessitates that they develop an informed and personal criterion. It is regrettable that those who claim to wish to eradicate religious homilies—ones that hardly exist anymore—would impose their own secular homilies upon our students.

We all understand that schools should not be neutral: in their endeavour to civilise individuals beyond what genetic and socioeconomic lottery has determined, they are inherently social and must remain so. However, we are discussing a different kind of lack of neutrality, one rooted in puerile constructivism, a pseudo-agitation from washed-up hippies, and a cynical lack of faith in the capability of youth to form their own criteria. 1″Anunciando el apocalipsis | Van de salvadores | Y se les dejas te pierden | Infaliblemente | Manipulan nuestro sueños | Y nuestros temores | Sabedores de que el miedo | Nunca es inocente,” sang Serrat in a song aptly titled “Los macarras de la moral”.

___

¹ Possible translation: “Announcing the apocalypse | They present themselves as saviours | And if you leave them be, they will infallibly lead you astray | Manipulating our dreams | And our fears | Aware that fear | Is never innocent”, sang Serrat in a song aptly titled “The Tough Guys of Morality”.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons