"why kids are not taught about evil" Topic

A decidedly right wing analysis by a Jewish scholar.
But I think the FACT is correct; kids' knowledge of these evils is minimal. Is it also purposeful?

link

"Why don't students know about evil?

The first reason is that nearly all the genocides of the 20th century were committed by communists, and the Left, which runs virtually all educational institutions, has always had a soft spot for communism."

"Another reason is the foolish notion that people are basically good."

"A third reason follows from the second. With the exception of the mass murder of the Armenians (which was committed by Muslim Turks), the genocides and the other horrors of the 20th century were committed by secular regimes. Given the centrality of secularism to leftism, this fact has been kept from young people. Likewise, the fact that all these genocides were committed by big governments is not taught to young people because big government is also central to left-wing ideology. In other words, a true depiction of the evils of the 20th century would mean the end of the two pillars of left-wing ideology: secularism and big government."

Not sure I agree with everything but the point about Jean Jacques Rosseau's thought that man is inherently good is mostly but not completely wrong. My observation would be that 90% or so of people are in fact good. However, laws and religion exist for the other 10%, who if left unchecked do all manner of bad and wicked things

If you want an answer to whether people are inherently disposed toward good or evil, just take a room and fill it full of different toys (or even the SAME toy). Put two toddlers in the room and see what happens. We covet. We always have, and we always will. Just one of the reasons why Socialism will never work.

Agree with Perris0707. But even if vast majority of people lean towards good, they can do bad things if it seems reasonable or in their best interests.

Is evil not a religious concept?

Hmm. It is certainly an idea, and so philosophical if not religious. But we can SEE it all around us. The SOURCE of evil may indeed be a religious question.

As to the question of "most people being good":

Paul (as usual) nailed it: I don't WANT to be bad, but I find myself doing the very evil I reject.

Romans 7: For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

DOC adds: Some people value intentions -- which I agree are often good. Others insist we look at outcomes, which are often bad, even if unintended.

Perris, we had a hilarious episode of two toddlers playing in a toy kitchen, which had a jillion things to do, but only one spatula. The parent watching restrained himself as they huffed at each other and tussled a bit, and let them work it out between them. But if there HAD been two spatulas, would it have mattered? I doubt it.

I believe most evil involves people thinking they are doing good.

Utopian beliefs seems to invariably lead to disaster as those committed to their vision of good are often the worst abusers of anyone not on board with their unique vision. Communism is a great example of a theoretical utopia that ignores the reality of human nature and attempts to create that vision through force over time through stages of socialist management while the populace is taught to be better. Most religions can be equally stupid (and are really just alternate ideologies) claiming to have "THE" answer and are horribly intolerant while cheerfully attempting to bend society towards their unique vision either by government action or actual force because they are good and right and any other vision is wrong and evil.

Doc, thanks for posting this, a good thought provoking article.
And, I can't say I disagree with him on most of the issues.

the Left, which runs virtually all educational institutions,

Sunday schools, Mosques, Synagogues,….notorious hotbeds of left-wing conspiracy….

Aren't US State schools secular….so they don't teach religion?

Which rather undermines the whole argument put forward above.

Just the usual Right wing tosh.

This Paul guy you mention sounds a bad lot – if he's selfaware enough that he knows he's doing wrong then he should stop doing it. Or get psychiatric help.

And finally – if you think that kids know nothing about evil, why lay the blame at the door of educators? Surely some of the children have parents?

McK, we humans are experts at rationalization and self-justification. But the Greeks did think -- see Socrates -- that KNOWING what was right was enough. Then one just does it, no problem.

Except anyone who believes that does NOT know himself.

20th, the OP makes clear that the "evil" referred to is mainly genocides, and lists a number of them. You really think knowledge of those events is widespread today? The Holocaust is the most widely known, for identifiable reasons, but even it is less and less a part of what "everybody knows." The Communist genocides are virtually unknown outside of a few pockets and sub-cultures.

I taught one of the Yann kids (Cambodian family, sister won the national spelling bee, Disney made a flick "The Girl Who Spelled Freedom.") The reality -- it is two Chattanooga families, evangelical Christians -- is light-years from what Disney was willing to show; the families involved had to fight to get ANY mention of religion into it, when their shared faith was a central fact. The father was killed by the Khmer Rouge and the children worked as slaves until they managed to escape. These are things that people mostly do not wish to know.

Evil is the good you do to yourself or yours at the cost to others.

So anybody of us does evil. Ask a pig. Its a question of perspective and relation.

Refute what you disagree with, then, why don't you?

Puster, I think your definition is partially correct but incomplete. Plenty of us do evil to ourselves.

I see John got zapped again. I wish he could reconcile with the editor, as I valued a lot of his posts over the years. But I also appreciate the editor's insistence on minimum civility.

your source Dennis Prager is a charlatan promoting himself as some source of reliable information, everything he puts out is pure garbage.

I have used Praeger's material for decades. His lecture on holiness is excellent. What specifically do you object to in the OP?

Knowing what is right is unfortunately a very dangerous thing when attached to power. Urban the Second knew he was right calling for a Crusade to "free" the Holy Land but the result was horrendous. I suspect in their hearts such horror story villains as Hitler, Stalin and Mao knew they were right and actually considered their actions rational within their world view and indeed seemingly justified terrible behavior with a claim of greater good.

I believe humanity does much better when people continuously question everything in lieu of trusting their particular world view without question.

Good on you, doc mcb!

Clearly any post only tangentially related to wargames (first) and history (second) is treading very close to a line many understandably do want to see crossed here, so your posting of the link and comments are, for me at least, greatly appreciated and respected.

As I've learned for myself, the otherwise inexcusable persecutions associated with most, if not all, religions, don't hold a candle to those performed by governments that wish to replace them with worship of the State.

The easiest definition of evil need only be the selfishness that doesn't care a wit for the needs and rights of others. There's not a Judeo/Christian/Muslim Commandment that is not rooted in the practice of such selfishness.

Murder, theft, coveting (and even more important concerns) are all about selfishness--doing it because someone WANTS to do it, and anything said after the fact is mere rationalization.

And if I may be permitted to challenge 20th Maine on a point or two, he's certainly right that religious institutions mostly do try to teach a morality based on curbing our natural tendencies to selfishness, but these institutions are in decline--a steep one. They are being shouldered aside by popular culture, public education that increasing sees children as belonging to the state, not their families, and government that promotes dependency on itself.

And, yes, those parents alluded to traditionally taught their children how to live in a society where everyone had equal rights and responsibilities. But we are at least two or three generations into the decline of a shared morality and sense of citizenship. Children are now killing one another in unprecedented numbers, rather suggesting that their "parents" haven't bothered to teach them anything along these lines.

Brushing these profound issues aside or under the rug does not address them.

TVAG

A little prospective here. The Spanish Inquisition killed around 32,000 people over a 200 year period. That's about 160 people a year. Communism kill 100 million in 60 years. That's 1.6 million a year. Those communists are the gold medal killers.

TVAG, yes indeed.

I have seldom read such pontificating ignorance. Having been a high school social studies teacher as well as having taught in universities over the last forty years, the brush the author paints with is really wide and fact free.

The first reason is that nearly all the genocides of the 20th century were committed by communists, and the Left, which runs virtually all educational institutions, has always had a soft spot for communism."

Yes, those educational institutions just love Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other communist dictators. This is total non-sense. "All educational institutions" don't have a 'soft spot' for communism in any sense. Being liberal institutions, progressive, liberal views predominate. Having worked with over 400 public and private schools across the US as well as dozens of universities, I can say without reservation, that the author has been in very few if ever. He is Dennis Prager, "a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist."

"Another reason is the foolish notion that people are basically good."

If he is trying to prove the opposite, he is off to a good start. The Constitution isn't founded on Rousseau's ideas, but Lockean, and most all Americans left and right support the Constitution last time I checked. Locke and others felt man was a self-serving creature. It's why there are so many 'Checks and Balances.'

"A third reason follows from the second. With the exception of the mass murder of the Armenians (which was committed by Muslim Turks), the genocides and the other horrors of the 20th century were committed by secular regimes.

Obviously, Prager hasn't counted up his mass murders or who or what caused them. For instance, Tens of millions have died in genocidal massacres in Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia, and seldom carried out by 'leftists.' A number had religious 'justifications' and some not even orchestrated by the central government.

"Why don't students know about evil?

I don't know. I taught ALL the theories and evil events he mentioned when I taught and I know my colleagues did too. I will say that one root cause of evil is ignorance and a willingness to foist it off on others, without thought or checking. As if teaching Shakespeare, the Bible and genocides are the answer to his invented problems of evil ignorance. Then again, there are some serious genocides in the Bible… Is that what he is talking about?

McL, I agree about Locke. Our system assumes that men are not angels. But the Progressive movement, since Wilson, has been impatient with such restrictions. They want an efficient big government guided by experts. Themselves.

In how many films etc do we see Nazis as the villains, versus Communists? I bet the ratio is like 10 to 1 Nazis vs Commies.

"Yes, those educational institutions just love Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other communist dictators. This is total non-sense."

He didn't say they love communist dictators, he said they love communism. Whenever you point out the fact communism doesn't work you almost always hear, "It hasn't been done properly," Same thing. They love the theory and ignore the facts.

"most all Americans left and right support the Constitution last time I checked."

You should check again. A lot of people, usually on the left want to remove the right to bear arms, get rid of the electoral college, want progressive taxation, etc. In other words, they don't support the Constitution.

Doc, commies started being the bad guys in movies after the Soviet Union fell. Prior to that it was probably 20 to 1.

Without religion and the strictures it places on us in the form of 'right and wrong' as well as 'moral and immoral' man is capable of any evil that advances his agenda. After all, if there is no God and mankind is the culmination of various mutations from a single celled organism brought to life by lightning in the primordial soup, (or whatever theory is popular right now), then what difference does it make if you kill someone because you want his sneakers? And if you can kill one person, why not thousands, or millions if by killing them you remove them from the gene pool and make the next mutations trend toward an outcome you want?

After over 20 years as a police officer I can confirm that evil is real and man is capable of all sorts of depraved acts. What's worse is that every time I think I've seen the worst that man is capable of, someone invariably does something even worse.

Dn J, yes, and yes.

Movies? Seriously? But if you really want to go there I think it's obvious, snappy uniforms! Shabby commies just can't compete (well there was Irina Spalko I suppose…)

Dn Jackson is quite correct, having served as a police officer in South East London for over twenty years, l have met people who are, quite simply, evil. They come from all walks of life, some are from broken homes, others had loving parents.

I worked with a number of secondary education schools, aged 11 to 16, plus a few junior schools, 5 to 11 year olds. One of the younger establishments was for those who couldn't, or wouldn't, behave in mainstream school.

One of these students was 10 years old, l was discussing him with his rather left wing teacher, they all were!

She told me that she felt the boy could happily slit her throat, smiling as he did so and walk away laughing. The boy was eventually removed from the school due to his violent behaviour and a couple of years later went on to rape a young girl. One of the other establishments had a number of students get life for murder, usually gang related drug crime.

People have the capacity to do evil deeds, all of us. Most people are stopped from doing this because they are scared of the consequences, some do not care about consequences and happily kill and torture etc.

In the UK education is dominated by the Left, l suspect this has no bearing on people's capacity to do had things, nor is coming from a stable, loving home, we have the capacity to be bad, luckily, most of us choose not to.

Do I really want to go into mass popular culture? Gee, yes, I think I do. Because the POINT is about what people, and kids, know and do not know. Surely you'd agree that most Americans get what little historical knowledge they possess mainly from entertainment. So who is portrayed as wicked matters.

London, yes, education here is also dominated by the left. And while I very much agree that we are all sinners, all capable of evil, I think it is not JUST fear of consequences that makes us behave. That is a big part of it, for certain, but the other factor is "worldview"; if you deny there is a God, deny any higher authority, deny any afterlife or accountability, then WHY NOT be as bad as you can get away with? Secularism breaks down that restraint.

Surely one does not have to have any religious belief in order to believe that genocide, murder, rape, theft &c. are wrong?

I don't do these things because I would not like them to be done to me, my family, other people I care about or anyone else who is just trying to live their lives without hurting others.

In the past, religion probably was a powerful factor influencing people's behaviour, but increased knowledge about how the world and our species came into existence has tended to reduce the number or people who believe in a god or afterlife.

So parents and educators must accept that is the case and find other ways to persuade people to behave decently towards each other, rather than trying to 'turn the clock back' and increase religious conformity.

Last time there was "religious conformity" was around 1500, i.e. five centuries ago.

The Golden Rule is a good one, one of those "self-evident truths." But it does little or nothing to motivate people to sacrifice their own selfish interests for the benefit of others. We all understand that things are nicer when people follow the rules. I've worked in two places -- a school and a prison -- in which people could leave valuables unattended and unprotected and expect to find them undisturbed later. It was, in both cases, because a small community realized the benefit to everyone of trust, and came down really hard on the rare violations.

But most people most of time want two things: for everyone else to follow the rules; and for themselves to be able to cheat and get away with it. No secular philosophy can correct that. If you can get away with it, why not?

This Diatribe is TOTALY political, it should be stopped and the author should be dawg housed…I am now questioning my subscription, I come here for hobby news not crack pot political posting masquerading as valid chat…Stop this Now BILL

No one forced you to come here on this thread. The title is accurate as to what it is.

Then don't read it EL. Click on a topic and it's not your cup of tea? Back out and go on your merry way. Sheesh, some people.

Oh, yes! If any topic is "Political," it's best to have the argument you don't like be forcibly removed from consideration!

Freedom of Speech only applies to people who are always right!

Double "Sheesh…."

TVAG

Last time there was "religious conformity" was around 1500

Assuming you are just referring to Christianity, that is completely untrue. Even confining oneself to Western Christendom after the Great Schism, non-conformist movements are frequent; Lollards, Albigensians, Hussites, etc.

Eastern churches have of course been fractured since the 5th and 6th centuries.

McL, I agree about Locke. Our system assumes that men are not angels. But the Progressive movement, since Wilson, has been impatient with such restrictions. They want an efficient big government guided by experts. Themselves.

doc: The Conservative movement has been just as impatient with the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, the law, and Republican Democracy. 'Surprise!' That is the nature of our system: No one is happy with the compromises and restrictions. Live with it. The system protects our values

However, who doesn't want efficient government run by knowledgeable people? As for 'big government', it all depends on your lens when grousing about Big Brother telling you what to do.

How about big government deciding
*what you can or can't do with your body,
*or the words you can say,
*or the books you read,
*whether you can disagree with government,
*which religion will be governing decisions,
*or ignoring laws and the Constitution when they become inconvenient,
*or even who you can be?

Both the Right and the Left ask a great deal from Big Government when it is what they want. Luckily, that would be pretty bad if either party got all of their wish list.
That doesn't happen when the Constitution and the voter are the arbitrators. Our government is based on and only works with compromise. Live with it.

McL, no. Government is a necessary evil, and the thing to do with such is keep them as small as possible. OF COURSE conservatives are tempted by power -- like everyone. See TJ and the La Purchase -- too good a deal to pass up, even if it did violate his whole philosophy.

And of course you are right about compromise.

But the more aspects of our lives government wants to manage, 1) the worse job it does and 2) the more important it is to control the power. Which is why every election cycle is a catastrophe about to happen.

He didn't say they love communist dictators, he said they love communism. Whenever you point out the fact communism doesn't work you almost always hear, "It hasn't been done properly," Same thing. They love the theory and ignore the facts.

Dn Jackson
"Almost always hear?" Who are you talking to? Sorry, but when Communism has almost always become authoritarian dictatorships with genocidal tendencies, I doubt seriously, that anyone 'almost always hears' that. I sure haven't among my 'leftist friends.'

"most all Americans left and right support the Constitution last time I checked."

You should check again. A lot of people, usually on the left want to remove the right to bear arms, get rid of the electoral college, want progressive taxation, etc. In other words, they don't support the Constitution.

I almost always hear the right insisting the left wants to remove the right to bear arms, but I don't hear that on the left. Again, who are you talking to? Those on the Right?

Whenever there is ANY discussion of restricting access to fire arms, the right goes nuts. Do you know what the first act of this term's Republican Congress did…FIRST THING. They turned back the gun restrictions for those diagnosed with serious mental conditions.

The Right has no problem with licenses and taxes on automobiles, or denying a driver's license to the mentally ill, proven DUIs and reckless driving. No fear that their 4th amendment rights will be revoked, but don't even mention gun control. Even though 60% of gun violence in the US is tied to spousal abuse and confirmed violent behavior, the Republicans blocked ANY gun restrictions regarding those behaviors. We have to have sensible conversations about this rather than paranoia that the government is coming to get your guns and force you to drink only two beers a week without your gas stove. Supposedly, more guns means more safety. In the last 40 years, the number of guns per capita has sky-rocked. So has gun violence.

Having Constitutional amendments on the electoral college or progressive taxation isn't 'anti-Constitutional. You may not agree with those ideas, but the Constitution has how many amendments??

ANY change to the Constitution would follow Constitutionally mandated processes where ALL the states get a say. How are those proposals anti-constitutional??

Without religion and the strictures it places on us in the form of 'right and wrong' as well as 'moral and immoral' man is capable of any evil that advances his agenda.

Dn Jackson:
Having worked at a boys ranch as a teacher, I can imagine some of what you've seen as a police officer. However, "Immoral men" [or teenagers] aren't a new phenomenon, nor is unspeakable evil. Neither are worse now than the past. Unfortunately, we certainly are exposed to a greater daily dose of it through the media, often with exaggerated click-bait titles and hyperbole.

History, religious histories, are replete with both the immoral and evil. The 'heathens' almost always have gotten the worst of it.

I agree that we need a common understanding of 'right and wrong,' that is, if we want to have that. The problem today is too many groups aren't interested in common ground, but holding on to their particular interpretation of right and wrong, often including the right to impose it on everyone. "Blessed by God and/or the moral right." Certainly, in there lies evil. And yes, that includes various folks on the right and the left in the U.S.

But the more aspects of our lives government wants to manage, 1) the worse job it does and 2) the more important it is to control the power. Which is why every election cycle is a catastrophe about to happen.

doc mcb:
From what I have seen historically, and currently, government's efforts to 'manage' have been at times done well and done badly. Some have had very good results, and some very bad outcomes, depending. What I have noticed though, is when things go well, no one says a word… if they notice at all, when they go badly, everyone complains. Bureaucracies are like that, effective ones are taken for granted, the failures are demonized. That and legislators are always wanting to 'fix' things that ain't broke.

We want certain things from the government, we want it done well, effectively and efficiently. Less or more government arguments skew the discussion which should focus more on how well the government does what we want/need it to do and how to improve performance.

The notion that simply cutting something 20% as a step in the right direction [proposed by the Republicans] is no smarter than throwing 20% more money at the issue. [Proposed by the Democrats]

There are intrinsic reasons why bureaucracies suck. They spend other peoples' money on behalf of other people so have no incentive to maximize benefits nor to minimize costs. They are also uninterested in solving any problem if doing so diminishes their power or income.

doc:
Having dealt with too many school, state, university, and business bureaucracies to count, I would say that your description can be true, and some systems certainly reward such behavior, but I have also met and worked with those who truly believe in excellence and the value of their services [and that is what bureaucracies are designed to do: Provide services of some sort].

So, I wouldn't say it is intrinsic at all. It's just people. I think it is important to ask how some bureaucracies work well and others don't. That's just my experience.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

I believe that was the philosophy of what at one time were called liberals.

Col Durnford:

IIRC, Thomas Jefferson was the one who coined that. The notions of Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative have morphed over time. But personally, when a political 'philosophy' trumps the practical needs, I get nervous. In the current political atmosphere, I often have the shakes. [And no, that wasn't a pun at Donald's expense.]