# Salman Rushdie and America’s free speech ambivalence



## Gypsybones (Aug 20, 2022)

Salman Rushdie and America’s free speech ambivalence​by LUCIEN GREAVES

Overview:​_Our modern crusaders against offensive speech have no loyalty to our free speech guarantees, nor a coherent position on censorship and civil rights._


“The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.”
~Fourth Tenet of The Satanic Temple.



Less than a week after literary giant Salman Rushdie was attacked and repeatedly stabbed on stage in upstate New York, sales of his offending work, The Satanic Verses, which had earned the author a fatwa over 30 years ago, have sky-rocketed, while defenders of free speech have taken to writing impassioned pleas in defense of a value that they see as under threat now more than ever.

Rushdie himself had suggested, in 2021, that our current culture is too hostile to free speech for The Satanic Verses to be accepted for publication. “The idea that being offended is a valid critique has gained a lot of traction,” he wrote.

Writing for The Atlantic, author Graeme Wood said:



> We have conceded moral authority to howling mobs, and the louder the howls, the more we have agreed that the howls were worth heeding. The novelist Hanif Kureishi has said that ‘nobody would have the balls’ to write The Satanic Verses today. More precisely, nobody would publish it, because sensitivity readers would notice the theological delicacy of the book’s title and plot. The ayatollahs have trained them well, and social-media disasters of recent years have reinforced the lesson: Don’t publish books that get you criticized, either by semiliterate fanatics on the other side of the world or by semiliterate fanatics on this one.”


Author Margaret Atwood, writing for The Guardian, lamented our contemporary diminished respect for free speech following Rushdie’s stabbing, observing that what was “[o]nce a yawn-making liberal platitude, [free speech] has now become a hot-button issue, since the extreme right has attempted to kidnap it in the service of libel, lies and hatred, and the extreme left has tried to toss it out the window in the service of its version of earthly perfection.”

In light of this commentary and countless others, The New York Times ran a piece with a headline proclaiming (preemptively and optimistically, in my opinion) that “The Stabbing of Salman Rushdie Renews Free Speech Debates.” NPR later echoed the claim of fresh debate in an article titled “Since 1989, threats to Salman Rushdie have sparked support and debate on free speech.”

But while defenders of free speech are taking this opportunity to desperately attempt to renew some type of respect for free expression, I have seen very little debate from the other side, very little commentary to be seen so far, this time around, blaming the author for the vitriol directed towards him. While some may see this as a positive development indicating a general consensus in favor of a principled stand for the preservation of free speech, I believe that the silence of censorship’s contemporary champions is more indicative of intellectual cowardice than a pro-democratic change of heart.

Back in 1989, when the fatwa against Rushdie was ordered by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, former president Jimmy Carter wrote for The New York Times, opining that “[w]hile Rushdie’s First Amendment freedoms are important, we have tended to promote him and his book with little acknowledgment that it is a direct insult to those millions of Moslems whose sacred beliefs have been violated and are suffering in restrained silence the added embarrassment of the Ayatollah’s irresponsibility.”

At least Carter deemed First Amendment freedoms “important,” but many questions were left unanswered in his criticisms. Was he claiming that the book was overvalued because of the controversy surrounding it, or was he suggesting that a work of literary merit should be ignored because it is “offensive”? Did it matter that Rushdie was born into a Kashmiri Muslim family and may have been critical of viewpoints that were imposed upon him at an early age and remain a part of his inherited universal mythological framework, even as a nonbeliever? Are apostates from major world religions who grow up imbedded in those religious communities to be seen as merely joining a larger majority of non-adherents to a particular faith when they renounce those beliefs, or are apostates from those religions to be viewed as a minority within a minority, and deserving of greater protections?

Others similarly lamented the fame of Rushdie’s work at the time of the fatwa and since, but the commentary decrying The Satanic Verses was often the same as that expressed by Carter: the First Amendment is still vital to democracy, but Rushdie should not have done what he did, and we should not celebrate him for it.

As pointless and misguided as I may feel such proclamations are, our modern crusaders against offensive speech seem to have no such loyalty to the First Amendment, and they do even less to attempt a coherent position on censorship and civil rights. Thus, faced with the brutal stabbing of a respected author who offended what is in the United States (and so likely believed to be everywhere in their provincial minds) a minority religious group, it seems that the crusaders against offensive speech largely choose to hold their silence.

Unlike Carter, today’s critics of offensive speech concede little to no respect for First Amendment protections, which are often dismissed as “free speech absolutism.” Or if not “absolute,” then the acknowledgment that free speech has never actually been absolute, and that there are prohibitions against death threats, libel, etc., is often senselessly used to advance a case that censorship is merely a pre-existing norm that deserves more expansive elaboration to mitigate possible “offense.”

Today’s anti-free speech moral crusaders do not take on difficult challenges. They ignore them. Instead of attempting to create a position that would preserve artistic works like Rushdie’s and the ability to speak truth to power while delineating the borders beyond which Free Speech is deemed harmful, the “debate” is reduced to extremist platitudes expressed on social media that entirely ignore any potential for abuse and a “chilling effect” that the introduction of new censorship standards could impose. Today’s anti-free speech movement chooses only those cases that might support their cause, discarding the rest, or pretending that they are irrelevant. Outrage in the moment, and directed toward specific events, seems to have completely overtaken any attempts in public discourse to design workable standards within a principled and neutral legal framework.

Most distressingly, the mindless assault upon free speech is happening at a time when the theocratic right-wing in the United States is actively trying to impose new standards of censorship on literature and in public schools. The disingenuous simultaneous proclamations of the witch-hunting would-be book burners insisting that they are the defenders of free speech are somehow taken at face value by online armchair activists who then thoughtlessly accept that free speech is a harmful right-wing ideal that must be destroyed. Thus, we have recently seen the bizarre dark comedy of Trump-supporting Turning Point USA president and founder Charlie Kirk penning an intellectually incoherent op-ed for Newsweek, declaring, “[t]he First Amendment has long been a bedrock principle of my worldview… I support free speech, and free religious exercise, both in spirit and in the letter of the law. I’ve spent years railing against leftist censorship in all areas of society, especially on college campuses and social media,” but then unironically went on to explain that The Satanic Temple’s first annual convention in 2021, “SatanCon,” was “so objectionable—even downright evil—that [it didn’t] merit society’s protection,” and should have been prohibited.

Similarly, Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, who also fashions herself a free speech supporter, suggested publicly that local officials should have intervened and prevented a privategathering of The Satanic Temple.

Despite all of this, and despite the fact that The Satanic Temple has seldom held an event that militant Christians have not deemed to be an intentional insult against them, petitioning whomever they think they may persuade that we should be denied any ability to congregate publicly or privately, I still receive messages from would-be members who express discomfort with The Satanic Temple’s fourth fundamental tenet upholding the “freedom to offend.” Despite being a leader in a minority religious organization that has been criminally attacked for its beliefs, and despite the fact that I am, myself, the regular recipient of death threats and the topic of conspiracy theories, I find myself admonished that I simply can not understand the dangers of free speech in the modern world.

Of course, the complaints that I have received from those who express concern regarding the dangers of free speech have never bothered to answer questions regarding the dangers of censorship. Does not censorship often have the unintended consequence of paradoxically elevating an idea’s prestige as “dangerous” and forbidden? And again, determining who are the marginalized, as opposed to those who are worthy of criticism (ie apostates versus their former religious identity) is not always clear. Catholics protesting against The Satanic Temple insist that they are being marginalized by our activities which represent the larger, non-Catholic world. The Satanic Temple views itself as a minority religious group that utilizes the blasphemous in the service of its individual members’ personal journeys toward liberation from oppressive superstitions. Who do we entrust with the power to make such determinations?

Far from renewing debate regarding free speech, the overall lack of any sophisticated dialogue centered upon free speech following Salman Rushdie’s recent stabbing indicates a widespread failure to engage in honest debate at all. Too much has been yielded to our polarized extremes for whom workable democratic policies are a distant concern, if they are considered at all.

Free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. If we do not come to collectively rediscover its vital role as a civil right, I fear that the United States will see the introduction of anti-blasphemy laws during the next Republican administration.

If the irony of this were to be carried full circle, 20 years’ time would find me in a secular Iran writing satirical literature about the American Christian Nationalist theocracy, only to find myself rebuked by Iranian undergraduates over my lack of sensitivity. 


Link to Original article


----------



## Sameer (Aug 27, 2022)

He wasn't a literary giant. Mediocre at best. It's not the conservative that want to limit free speech it's the liberals who are offended by everything. That's my honest opinion.


----------



## Sameer (Aug 27, 2022)

I want to clarify my statement as we understand the author quite well. He was born into a liberal Muslim family. He lost his faith and became an atheist. The book itself, satanic versus is typical of someone who leaves Islam. In regards to the Ummah it was the most conservative that were offended, the Shiites and the sunnis. They follow the hadiths more strictly When he realized he offended so many he then said he gained his faith again with new understanding. Then he said he made that up. In general his books are not all that interesting. His notoriety came when he insulted the most conservative of the Ummah. I read the Quran in the original language of the Prophet(PBUH), according to the Quran his offense is just a descent into hell. Those that follow the hadiths like the desert-dwellers his offense is death. My point is that many made a big deal of the fatwa and he as a personality unjustifiably. He's just a mediocre author who gained his notoriety by insulting Islam.
My other comment is that you worried that Republicans would restrict free speech. There are degrees of conservatism within the Republican party just like there are degrees of liberalism within the Democratic party. It is the ultra liberals that say that some free speech should be restricted. Even on this site some free speeches restricted which I agree with. This site is a microcosm of many personalities and lifestyles and many opinions. My point is that conservatives are less likely to restrict free speech. Liberals are more likely to restrict free speech.


----------



## TheDesertMouse (Sep 5, 2022)

Oh please, this is false two-sides enlightned centrist nonsense.

The left has not systematically removed from office nearly every one of its representatives that challanged their leader. Censored or sidelined the rest, my

The left is not currently running a nationwide moral panic propoganda campaign to remove dozens of books from school libraries, based on nothing more then out of context, cherry picked passages or a rant they heard on tucker carlson. Books that simply discuss transgender or queer topics, race relations or american history as it pertains to race. this has resulted in,
For race relations :
Laws have been passed in 14 STATES and bills proposed in a further 20 STATES.
For Lgbtq or gender in schools:
Laws have been PASSED IN 6 STATES.
These laws make it punishable or even CRIMINALIZE TEACHERS for even daring to SPEEK about such topics in a classroom.
Because they dont like these ideas.

Like dude, I could end my post right fucking here with my point soundly made…. But Im gonna keep going!

The left did not pass a bill in florida requiring state funded unuversities to regularly survey the ideslogical leanings of their students to ensure they have ‘ballanced viewpointa’ DeCuntiss later implied that the state would cut funding to universities that didnt meet their idealogical tests.

The left did not attempt, in multiple states, to ignore the free will of the people and decide that their preferred canidate won when he so clearly lost.

That canidate, created a social media platform where it is a BANNABLE OFFENCE to “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." Dont criticise or dear leader! Or you will be punished!

The left has not been the source of multiple murder sprees, random attacks, fire bombings, death or bomb threats and harrassment campaigns against minorities or organizations and institutions that espouse ideas they don't like. 

What has the left done? Tried to keep a few genocide advicating crypto-nazis from being lent legitamacy via a university platform. Called people out for being legitmatley shitty human beings and made them suffer consequences for hurting people? Went a little crazy on twitter a few times(suprise suprise, twitter jackoffs do not represent even a majority of the left)

The disparity between the two ends of the soectrum is so far its not even funny. You sinply cannot comoare the two in ANY WAY. 
For the right free speech means Freedom From speech. Or freedom from ideas they dont like. This myth of a free speech crises is a calculated pack of bullshit designed to 1: Counter unconfortable ideas on the left without actually engaging those ideas. Why make better arguments when you can just dismiss it an moan about your free speech rughts?
2: To elicite a fear based emotional response, which will motivate people too, if not vote republican, atleast not support the enemy(democrats) again, without actually making any concrete arguments, or policy proposals to improve peoples lives. 

Stop falling for their bullshit. Your being manipulated for their cynical, authoritarian, anti pluralist, white-nationalist hyper capitalist suedo-facist goals.


----------



## TheDesertMouse (Sep 5, 2022)

And for fucks sake, can we just clarify what Free speech and the first amendment are actually intended for? They are inended to resitrict the GOVERNMENTS ability to regulate speech. Because the governments power is so disproportionate, and because british colonial authorities would abuse theirs regularly to squash criticism, it needed to be checked.

This does not, and probably should not mean that citizens can’t restrict speech based on their own consensus. In fact, I would argue free speech doesnt make any sense as a moral pillar unless that happends. The entire idea here is to allow all ideas equal opportunity in the market place, so that the poorest ones will be weaded out in favor of the best in a ideally never ending process of perfecting a society. 

If I walk into a grocery store, and call a clerk a dumb cunt for no reason, I dont get too complain when I get a hand to the face and kicked out of the store. My ‘rights’ arent being infeinged, I’m just an asshole.

Conversly, if someome refuses to not use MEASURABLY harmful racial slurs, or go on about the benefits of National Socialism and threat of the jewish conspiracy, telling them to shut the fuck up and even physically making them so, is not supressing their rights. It’s taking out the trash.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 5, 2022)

TheDesertMouse said:


> Oh please, this is false two-sides enlightned centrist nonsense.
> 
> The left has not systematically removed from office nearly every one of its representatives that challanged their leader. Censored or sidelined the rest, my
> 
> ...



There is a distinct difference between banning books which is to put them in a bonfire so to speak. They are not banning books but saying they are inappropriate in the taxpayer funded public schools. Many people don't see a need to teach prepubescent children about sexuality or gender. Many people do not think that this is the role of teachers in the public school to address these issues in a multicultural society.
The topic is not what I was discussing. I do want to say that both liberals and conservatives have a problem with what is taught in the public schools.

I was relating free speech in regards to the first amendment. "The right to speak freely".....
Cancel culture is quick to restrict that right as are liberals who are offended by what seems to be everything said out loud by anyone. 
I am not speaking about any current events within the nation. I am saying that conservatives are most likely to support the first amendment and the liberals are most likely to alter it. Simply that. Personally I am not a fan of free speech which has to do with my politics. I am neither liberal or conservative and prefer a different style of structure for the people.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 5, 2022)

TheDesertMouse said:


> And for fucks sake, can we just clarify what Free speech and the first amendment are actually intended for? They are inended to resitrict the GOVERNMENTS ability to regulate speech. Because the governments power is so disproportionate, and because british colonial authorities would abuse theirs regularly to squash criticism, it needed to be checked.
> 
> This does not, and probably should not mean that citizens can’t restrict speech based on their own consensus. In fact, I would argue free speech doesnt make any sense as a moral pillar unless that happends. The entire idea here is to allow all ideas equal opportunity in the market place, so that the poorest ones will be weaded out in favor of the best in a ideally never ending process of perfecting a society.
> 
> ...



So is what you're saying is that free speech is acceptable only when you agree with it and that if you don't agree with it then it needs to be suppressed? What the majority thinks is correct and if you're not part of the majority then you are not correct? That's how your statement comes across to me. Culturally I am in the minority so your thoughts are quite disturbing.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 5, 2022)

TheDesertMouse said:


> And for fucks sake, can we just clarify what Free speech and the first amendment are actually intended for? They are inended to resitrict the GOVERNMENTS ability to regulate speech. Because the governments power is so disproportionate, and because british colonial authorities would abuse theirs regularly to squash criticism, it needed to be checked.
> 
> This does not, and probably should not mean that citizens can’t restrict speech based on their own consensus. In fact, I would argue free speech doesnt make any sense as a moral pillar unless that happends. The entire idea here is to allow all ideas equal opportunity in the market place, so that the poorest ones will be weaded out in favor of the best in a ideally never ending process of perfecting a society.
> 
> ...



I tried to address just one section of your comments but don't know how to do that. This business with the public schools in my personal opinion is very troubling to me because it doesn't take into context a multicultural society. To be very honest I'm going to phrase what I think about the public school. And I'm speaking from a Muslim standpoint. "I don't want the white Christian devil teaching my children morality based on the dominant culture.". . You see every culture is different and America is not a melting pot like many think. We learn specifics when we are young and when we get older we think for ourselves.


----------



## TheDesertMouse (Sep 6, 2022)

1st post:
The distinction your making is irrelevent. Read the laws they have passed, they quite literally ban the discussion of such topics and forbid schools to carry the material. And the idea that it was teaching sexual topics to pre-pubescent children is EXACTLY the propagandistic message their trying to convey. Because thats flat out false. First of all the florida bill and its amendments does not say anything about teaching sexual acts or sexual education, let me quote HB 1557:

“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

In fact, an amendment that was introduced by Senatore Jeff Brandes to prohibit discussion of all sexual acts in k-3. It was voted down.

This illumates the lies the right has been telling here, because its never been about teaching third graders about sex acts. It’s about a false narrative of ‘social indocteination’ and ‘injecting transgenderisn’ into class rooms. The same kind of crap they said when they tried to ban gay and lesbian teachers from classrooms in the 80’s. No one is “convincing” children to be trans, no more then anybe convinced a strait kid to turn gay, or a white christian to accept fundamentalist sharia law. This is yet another moral panic not based in reality(its an american trandition lol)

What really makes them unconfortable is teachers DISCUSSING these non-binary n, non strait sexual orientations in a class room setting. Because the ‘parents’ are uncomfortable with their children being exposed to ideas they dont like. And the crazy part is, in most districts actuall discussion of these topics is either wildly exaggerated, or just not taking place at all. That is text book suppression of speech.


2nd:
Yes, it seems that way if you totally strawman my argument and then attack that. Let me state it in slightly different terms. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or ridicule. As a society, we recognize that some ideas are just so perposterously terrible and harmful that they dont deserve traction. You seem to be equating people attacking others speech as supression of that speech. No. We are protected(mostly) from government entities punishing us for political speech. You dont get too complain about your rights being trampled if a bunch of people on the internet call you out for saying something they disagree with. This necissarily involves certain ideas being dropped from common discourse, and even being made socially uncouth. This is healthy and has been happening since for ever anyway! When was the last time you heard a politician support racial segregation publically? Or sterilizing poor brown people because of their racial inferiority? Or admiring the principles of Hitler and the New Germany? What about defending against the yellow terror of chinese immigrants? Or eastern european ones?
You dont. And if someone does they get rolled pretty quick. Now a days its still somewhat acceptable to these things about Muslims. Or central american refugees. Or trans/non-binary people. And it time that will change, thats how it works dude.

“Cancel culture” is mostly a myth that exists to insulate the right from having to defend against criticism.

Dissagree? I challenge you to provide examples of people being TANGIBLY suppressed or harmed by their political speech due to this cancel culture.


Your last post is a bit incoherent and I’m not sure how to respond. You say it doesnt take into account multiculturalism… but then you say america isnt a melting pot and you have to take into account other cultures? And the way to do that is do forcibly inject your own morality standard into the school system? How is that not hypocritical? We learn specifica when we are young……like how trans people exist? Have always existed? And its fine to be one? Or gays? Gay and Trans people exists in muslim societies too.
What exactly makes you so uncomfortable about that? Do you just not like these ideas being discussed in schools? Does transgenderism make you uncomfortable?


----------



## Sameer (Sep 6, 2022)

TheDesertMouse said:


> 1st post:
> The distinction your making is irrelevent. Read the laws they have passed, they quite literally ban the discussion of such topics and forbid schools to carry the material. And the idea that it was teaching sexual topics to pre-pubescent children is EXACTLY the propagandistic message their trying to convey. Because thats flat out false. First of all the florida bill and its amendments does not say anything about teaching sexual acts or sexual education, let me quote HB 1557:
> 
> “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
> ...



Actually I'm not quite sure what is the definition of transgenderism. 
I don't feel uncomfortable around anyone and their sexual choices. I grew up in Boyle heights which is walking distance to downtown Los Angeles and when I was young we went to the gay bars because they were fun and safe. I danced with guys and I danced with women and it was all the same. Being tall dark and handsome in the day I took getting hit on by another guy as a compliment. I don't care about another person's choices. I have many friends and some I know their sexuality and some I don't. I am friends with them because of their character and compatibility and their sexuality is their own business. For me I am heterosexual I don't think I made that choice I think it is just the way I turned out to be. 
You bring up many many issues that I know little about or haven't even thought about. I am apolitical so there's lots I don't give my attention. But I have thought about what is taught in the public school. Their job is to educate and not to take on the role of parent and teach morality or sexuality. They would be teaching these subjects from a perspective of the dominant culture. The dominant culture is Caucasian without a cultural root or foundation. And that is a problem for orthodox communities like mine. My own Islamic and South Asian roots would prevent me from sending my son to public school. My son's first education came from the Masjid and he was educated in the public school. All his choices are his own. When his mother became crabby and stopped shaving her armpits and legs and decided that arguing was more important than peace and tranquility I left,. I seek a transcendental way of living and have lived in a van for the past 13 years on public land. I don't think much or admire the dominant culture or worry much about the trials and tribulations that take place in the nation. I thought my discussion here would be about the "hack writer" Rushdie and the first amendment. Never thought I would be making comments like I have made. My only news source is the Times of India where I participate in a lively discussion in the comment section. There is lots you have said that I haven't commented on like free speech and cancel culture and I will think about those subjects from your perspective. My participation in this discussion is not over... Assalamualaikum!


----------



## Sameer (Sep 6, 2022)

There for a while I experienced a lot of hate. Even slapped in the head in the coffee aisle by a woman in Walmart in Kingman Arizona. Spit on and screamed at. Told my other campers to leave the forest or else! Even had someone point a gun at me and said they were going to blow my Muslim ass off the planet. I just couldn't resist wearing a Kufi and kurta in public and took it all as a badge of honor! 
All that persisted for a while but I think it is better times now...


----------



## ali (Sep 7, 2022)

The point of school is to teach children about things that their parents can or will not.

I went to a public highschool 25+ years ago now in a so-called "Caucasian dominant culture". My Religion teacher was a "white Christian devil", but we learned about Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and more. We learned about sex and marriage and children and what those things meant to different ethnicities. We learned about how drug use and other vices are seen in different societies, we talked about trans people, biracial people, indigenous people and colonialism... That was all part of the curriculum, and it was by far the subject I got the most out of in school. (Social Studies, by contrast, was more focused on the mechanics of politics, voting, immigration, gender inequality, class differences and so forth.) Certain parents opted to keep their children out of Religion classes, and those parents were almost always parents whose families were members of close-minded cults who did not want their children being exposed to any kind of outside religious, cultural or philosophical education whatsoever. Too bad, those kids got a subpar education about the world and probably had a much harder time adapting to the reality of a diverse society. God knows I wouldn't want any government to legislate that sort of close-minded teaching - that's the route to theocracy and authoritarianism.

As you have discovered, if you want to shield your children from receiving a broad and diverse education, that's what homeschooling or private schools are for. There are plenty of private schools run by churches that push a single religion's values on their students. My mother went to one, and she swore she would never let her children be brainwashed the same way.

Public schools absolutely should be giving children an inclusive education and trying to keep their minds curious and open as they grow up to become autonomous, independent young people. Same goes for public libraries, for that matter, which is another place where conservatives in the US are trying to limit what information is allowed to be distributed freely to the people. Please don't fall for conservative bamboozling tactics where in the media they claim they are the ones being "silenced" and "oppressed" while at the very same time it is their own lawmakers who are actually passing laws to ban books and lesson plans. In a free and democratic society, it's critical that schools are able to expose children to a broad range of topics.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 7, 2022)

ali said:


> The point of school is to teach children about things that their parents can or will not.
> 
> I went to a public highschool 25+ years ago now in a so-called "Caucasian dominant culture". My Religion teacher was a "white Christian devil", but we learned about Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and more. We learned about sex and marriage and children and what those things meant to different ethnicities. We learned about how drug use and other vices are seen in different societies, we talked about trans people, biracial people, indigenous people and colonialism... That was all part of the curriculum, and it was by far the subject I got the most out of in school. (Social Studies, by contrast, was more focused on the mechanics of politics, voting, immigration, gender inequality, class differences and so forth.) Certain parents opted to keep their children out of Religion classes, and those parents were almost always parents whose families were members of close-minded cults who did not want their children being exposed to any kind of outside religious, cultural or philosophical education whatsoever. Too bad, those kids got a subpar education about the world and probably had a much harder time adapting to the reality of a diverse society. God knows I wouldn't want any government to legislate that sort of close-minded teaching - that's the route to theocracy and authoritarianism.
> 
> ...



I certainly agree with you for the most part as what you have described is the real purpose of public education. Especially your statement "it is critical that schools are able to expose children to a broad range of topics.". I would say to that in addition the schools provide socialization and exposure to other cultures and a broad spectrum of ideas. That is why our children are first taught in the Masjid for a foundation. During these particular times of what I perceive as political and social unrest that creates division within society I would be concerned about a specific agenda or the wish to indoctrinate. Coming from an orthodox community I think it is a legitimate concern. Many parents abortcate their responsibilities to teach their children. Children need a broad range of ideas so they can make their own decisions freely both inside and outside their own communities. I myself was provided with this type of education by my parents and was able to make my own decisions about my life without judgment. With great effort I was able to do this for my own son.
I am apolitical but think that the conservative right wing is a danger that I have personally experienced a danger to communities of strong cultures and to the freedom of thought. Their ideas are a form of imperialism.


----------



## ali (Sep 7, 2022)

I agree that a lot of parents abdicate their responsibilities to their children. I went to public school, but I was blessed to have a mother with a decent job who tried to make our home lives as safe and comfortable as possible. Of course she messed up at times - all parents do - but having a relatively stable home life (at least after the age of 13 or so) made a big difference for me in highschool. Some of my friends who had less stable home environments really suffered without solid emotional and academic support outside of the school.

What concerns me is that the US school system was in a shambles even before the most recent push to ban books and lesson plans. I spent my highschool years in the Netherlands, and although we all watched American teen dramas on TV and imagined how cool it would be to live in the US, in retrospect I think we got a much richer and less rigid education than students in the US receive. That might be because Christian conservatives have been directing the course of US public education for decades - I remember years ago the articles about how a majority of American kids still aren't taught evolution in Biology classes due to the Christian stranglehold over the system. What sucks is when you raise a bunch of ignorant children, then they just grow up to be ignorant adults who perpetuate the problem.

Maybe it's just a cultural thing in general, where Americans tend to value formal education less than people from other countries? God knows there's a lot of mainstream whining about and distrust of scientists and other professionals, despite the fact that those folks are far more knowledgable in their respective fields than the average person. Of course, you have to question how much of that sentiment is manufactured - specifically engineered by people in power to try to keep the masses stupid and compliant. The magnificent coup is that the people who got so suckered by the "let's stick it to the elites"/"let's drain the swamp" propaganda are the ones who think themselves truly smart free-thinkers, even though they're getting their talking points from figures amongst exactly the rich and well-educated elites they claim to despise. It's depressing.

But that's getting a bit off-topic, I suppose.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 7, 2022)

Not off topic at all and a good perspective on what has taken place and the damage that has been done to the public schools. You were able to receive a good education because your schools didn't have that influence. Educators must be free of narrow thinking and in regards to the American school system, Christian influence and their agenda. Or any other religious or political bias. Your earlier post expresses the exact purpose of public schools
Which is to educate. With Good foundations and backgrounds it helps assist better decisions. The school have a role and so do the parents in bring children forward. I think the public School is currently broken because of interference from many other influences and their compulsion to do more than is necessary.


----------



## Sameer (Sep 7, 2022)

Interesting discussion


----------

