[corty]

I'm not sure if I didn't get it or I got it all too well... If you want to educate pupils to be critical, then of course they need to be critical not only in a curriculum-intended classroom setting. They need to be critical in all parts of life, or you've failed in what you wanted to teach them. This also means arguing against catholic dogma in catholic religion class. Every point of view needs to be defended, even the point of view that the teacher and curriculum promotes. Arguing otherwise means that you teach pupils to only be critical on a few select subjects that are politically acceptable to be critical about, like the usual tropes of "human rights in china" or "death penalty in the US". Then you are just teaching the faking of critical thinking and reading, not the actual thing.

Bavaria re-introduced crosses in classrooms several years ago, with very shady arguments.

> "And why wouldn't all religions be treated equal in a country that guarantees religious freedom?" and "Religion calsses are, by the way, mandatory in all (most?) German states, and the church has huge sa in who teaches it."

The notion of religious freedom that you promote and that schools promote explicitly excludes freedom from religion, i.e. Atheism or Agnosticism. Just like forced religious education (couldn't pick ethics as an alternative for lack of teachers, and as soon as ethics was available, noticed that the religion curriculum is literally "dancing and singing" while ethics is hardcore philosophy to keep pupils away from the subject and from any kind of acceptable grades).

Oh, and that the death penalty was abolished is beside the point. If you pick "death penalty" as a subject of discussion, then of course it must be an equally valid outcome of the discussion to be pro death penalty, if the arguments provided weigh more heavily. Changing policy isn't the intent here. Learning to discuss such matters critically is. Which doesn't work if the outcome is predetermined and you will be punished with bad marks for arriving at the "wrong" conclusion.

[hef19898]

Ethics is a very common alternative, even bavarian countryside schools (source: a friend of ours is teaching English and religion at such a school), upt to the point where they have to mix classes for catholic religion. And ethics is covering much more than just religion (source: bith my childern are in ethics class).

Regarding your last argument, following that logic would include argueing genocide as a solution as well. Which you obviously cannot. There is no way why China's human righs abuses should be tolerated or supported. Tolerated to the degree geopolitical realities dictate, sure. Learning why realities are what they are and why China is doing what they do, of course. Finding arguments supporting their actions for the sake of the argument and "critical thinking" excersise, no way. Same goes for the death penalty.

[corty]

Well, but in that case the curriculum is even more screwed up because they picked exercise topics (and death penalty is the classic) that according to your arguments are totally unsuitable. You are arguing to limit critical thinking to the cute "bunnies or butterflies" topics. I would argue that critical thinking is necessary, especially in topics that "hurt". One may leave genocide or cannibalism to the advanced classes, but if a topic isn't the least bit controversial, I would say it is impossible to learn critical thinking.

[UnFleshedOne]

Lots of people historically considered genocide a solution (and lots still do). So it is very very far from "obvious". If you dismiss such arguments out of hand instead of showing why the strongest versions of them are flawed you will never convince anybody who is not on your side already.