Church and state

Yesterday I heard about a new school controversy: the last public school in the city of Tatabánya will be passed over to the Catholic church. Thus, there will be no choice. All children of Tatabánya will have to attend parochial schools.

Some background. Prior to the nationalization of schools in 1948 most of the high schools were in the hands of the Catholic church. A few belonged to the Hungarian Reformed and the Lutheran churches, but relatively few. Just to give you an example, in my home town there were three gymnasiums (from grade five to grade twelve) and all three belonged to the Catholic church. Two of these were boys' gymnasiums, run by Jesuits and Cistercians; the girls' gymnasium was under the control of Notre Dame nuns. There was no choice: if parents wanted their children to attend public school, tough luck.

With the change of regime came negotiations between the churches and the new democratically elected governments to return some of the nationalized schools to their original owners. Running these schools posed no financial burden to church authorities since the state paid per student regardless of whether the school was public or parochial. Actually parochial schools today receive more money per student than do the public schools. The Catholic church fought very aggressively for the extra money, and while the ministry of education kept saying that financing already favored the parochial schools, the church eventually got its way. And the Protestant churches clung onto the Catholic church's coat tails and also profited. Take, for example, the overwhelmingly Catholic city of Pécs where the Hungarian Reformed Church couldn't even build a decent church until the mid-1930s and where there was only a short-lived middle school (polgári) for girls.Today there is a Hungarian Reformed school complex, including dormitories, with 500 elementary to high school students. And although there probably aren't 500 Hungarian Reformed kids in all of Pécs and its surrounding villages, for one reason or another parents seem to be convinced that a parochial school must be superior to its public counterpart. This is not the case. Among the top Hungarian high schools public schools predominate.

Other than academic excellence, why is it dangerous to transform public into parochial schools? The church leadership in Hungary is extremely conservative by western standards. As if time stopped at the end of World War II. All churches side with the Hungarian right, and their representatives are either extremely conservative or, in the case of the Hungarian Reformed Church, radical nationalists. The parochial schools disseminate a world view that may not be the best for the youth of the future. The political atmosphere in these schools is decidedly right-wing, echoing the tone of most sermons in Catholic and protestant churches. I find the whole thing fairly alarming.

Meanwhile Orbán is courting the churches. He himself was baptized (or most likely not) as a protestant, but he married a Catholic girl in a civil ceremony. They already had two children when a liberal Methodist minister convinced him to baptize them. Thus, the first two became Methodists. Then came the third, and perhaps he was baptized as a Hungarian Reformed. The last two, if I recall properly, are Catholics. An ecumenical family. Orbán's attitude to the churches has changed dramatically since the founding of Fidesz twenty years ago. Then he was not only not religious but he was outright antagonistic toward the churches. One infamous scene in parliament occurred when he and his fellow Fidesz members got up and in unison made fun of the Christian democratic members, calling them "csuhások" ("cowl" in English). The insult is lost in translation, but it was not a very friendly gesture. Now he extols the role of the churches in Hungarian society.

Yesterday one of the groups attached to his party organized a gathering entitled "The church and the soul of the country." Orbán, in his keynote speech, practically put the churches above the state. The churches should tell the legislators how to behave. According to him the "church does not ask but gives, and our job is to create the necessary conditions for its activities." He continued: "No country can survive without the guidance of the churches. We must have spiritual leaders who call the good good and the evil evil." (Or, to decode, who can differentiate between the pious head of Fidesz and the lying prime minister.)

I am a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. To put things in stark relief: most people are uncomfortable with the theocratic states of the Muslim world. Why should we try to imitate them in a very secular Europe?

Comments

[Varangy]

Eva, may I ask what, if any, your religion is?

[Viking]

Varangy,

Why this "McCarthy"-ism? Why is it important to know which political party anyones votes for, which church (if any) someone visits?

What is your agenda? Do you collect this info for any higher purpose?

Debate people's ideas and arguments - not what they are!

[Adrian]

Well said, Viking!

[NWO]

Eva-

One thing I don't understand. Was not the essence of your argument on communisim during the Kadar era in Hungary, that (as much as we may not like it) it "worked" because it appeased the people by offering them something they wanted-stability and a steadily improving material quality of life? Does not the same apply to the Church? You and I may not like the growing influence of the clergy in the society and we may not agree with the politics of the clergy, but in the end if it satisfies a need in the people and appeases a majority of the people (regardless if it violates some fundamental tenet of liberalism)then it must be acceptable? Is that not your biew of politics? Was this not your justification for Kadarism?

If so, the question we should be asking is whether the people of Tatabanya object to having only parochial schools? My guess is they don't, otherwise the local MPs (and this is a Socialist area) would not have allowed this to happen.

[Eva S. Balogh]

NWO: "If so, the question we should be asking is whether the people of Tatabanya object to having only parochial schools? My guess is they don't, otherwise the local MPs (and this is a Socialist area) would not have allowed this to happen."

You're wrong on both fronts. The people of Tatabánya object and the mayor is also Fidesz representative in parliament.

[Eva S. Balogh]

NWO: "One thing I don't understand. Was not the essence of your argument on communisim during the Kadar era in Hungary, that (as much as we may not like it) it "worked" because it appeased the people by offering them something they wanted-stability and a steadily improving material quality of life? Does not the same apply to the Church?"

In Hungary only about 15% of the population attend church.

[Lia]

"The parochial schools disseminate a world view that may not be the best for the youth of the future." WHOA!!! Like living by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?!? (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, in case you haven't heard about it.) I just don't see how that is a problem, Eva, in a world that has turned upside down entirely, where people have no moral groundings, no respect for human life and human dignity.

My daughter attends a Catholic school outside of Budapest. And, while 99% of the families are probably Fidesz supporters (we are not), what my daughter brings home from that school far outweighs the political persuasions of the other parents. She is loved by her teachers and her classmates, the values that are forming her will take her beyond any silly, short-term debates in this messed up country. When my daughter draws a picture of a church with hearts on the door and I ask her, why have you drawn hearts on the door of the church? Her answer is: 'because there is love inside. God is love.' That's all she really needs to know and understand. The political influence of the church may be one side of the story, but children in faith-based schools learn that faith, hope and love are what matter most. I'll take the Church over any other institution any day of the week.

NWO: "but in the end if it satisfies a need in the people and appeases a majority of the people" Please. We religious are not cows or imbeciles. We believe in something other than our BKV passes, O.K.? Is that so hard to understand?

[Eva S. Balogh]

Not worth fighting over it. You have an opinion and I have an opinion. I find the political messages spread in parochial schools in Hungary harmful. You don't.

[Hatodik Oszlop]

Personally, I think sending kids to Catholic schools is a good thing. Out of my family, of the five of us who went, only 1 is still a believer.

[Lia]

Please give me an example of the political messages being spread in parochial schools in Hungary. I'd be interested in hearing them. Really. If there's one thing that communism was successful at it was turning everyone into this country into political, religious eunuchs. No one cares or believes in anything except a free lunch (see March 9 referendum.) THAT they will fight for -- but nothing more. How sad. You might think I am a right wing nut job -- I assure you, I'm generally the only Hungarian-American present in the SzDSz tent on election night. I am a laissez-faire kind of chick, leaning toward libertarianism -- but I do believe in God. I can do so without prescribing to Fidesz or any other political party for that matter. Eva -- for someone who spent the better part of her life in the US and Canada, I'm surprised you don't give more credence to religious upbringing.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Lia: "Please give me an example of the political messages being spread in parochial schools in Hungary. I'd be interested in hearing them."

One could read news items that before the elections school children from parochial schools, together with their teachers, were taking part in the political campaign. Parochial schools often allow very right-wing organizations to use their facilities. I'm sorry but I'm not going to change my mind on the subject: I would not like to return to those days when the overwhelming majority of high schools were in the church's hands.

[Odin's lost eye]

Church run schools when they are in a minority to secular schools can be quite a good thing.
When church run schools are the only option as they were (and may still be) in Ulster (Northern Irland). The 'Billys' went to the Protestant schools and the 'Dans' to Catholic run schools. The childern from the two communities seldom met and mixed. As a result they were easily indoctrinated with all the mythology of their sect and with the ethos of hatred. It is this found to be the main thing that fuelled and prolonged the "troubles" there.
Where I lived in the 'teachers' at my daughter's primary school were 'inspired to declare the school a 'PEACE SCHOOL' this meant that my child and others whose parents were in some form of military employ (they were decsribed as 'Enemys of Peace') were 'barred from classes'. At 6 years old!
I hate the idea that any one, 'Holy Joe' or any other form of biggot, should be allowed any near a school. Except for the purposes of religious instruction and then only with the parent's express concent.

[Varangy]

********Varangy,

Why this "McCarthy"-ism? Why is it important to know which political party anyones votes for, which church (if any) someone visits?

What is your agenda? Do you collect this info for any higher purpose?

Debate people's ideas and arguments - not what they are!

Posted by: Viking | April 04, 2008 at 02:55 AM

Well said, Viking!

Posted by: Adrian | April 04, 2008 at 03:51 AM********

@Adrian, Viking and Eva (and everyone else)

I have no agenda, other than understanding bias. We all have them, no matter how we try to intellectualize around them or attempt to lie to ourselves as to their existence, they are simply unavoidable.

Ironically, my openness about my bias has led to rather vicious attacks --- i.e. I am attempting 'exercise my demons' and whatnot.

One can accuse me of, rather funny I think, of being a border-line-personality-that-doesn't-know-history (Right, Viking?). But one cannot me accuse of:

a) being dishonest

b) of not openly revealing any and all of my biases

c) not being forthright

d) not debating people's ideas and arguments (Please my response to Eva here:

http://frappansklise.tumblr.com/post/30621841

and let me know where I did not debate the idea and argument.)

So, why should I not expect the same disclosure of anyone else, especially one as opinionated (much like myself, I might add) as Eva? Or yourselves?

Regarding religion in Hun. schools, just as Hatodik Oszlop has done, I will reiterate my, very relevant background, just as I have mentioned previously. I come from a staunchly Hungarian Catholic family - one whose religion and faith informed them to their view on Communism.

I attended, like many in my family, Catholic schools. One of my father's relatives wrote a few influential books on Hungarian Catholicism and was an early writer for Új Ember.

So, I ask once again, politely --- Eva, what, if any, is your religion?

[Varangy]

My two fillér on this topic:

1) I am torn and undecided on this matter. I too am for a clear line between Church and State, but feel the backlash against the Church is exaggerated.

2) NWO is correct. Eva is clearly intellectually inconsistent, which she does not address in her follow-up comment.

As NWO eloquently states:

*******You and I may not like the growing influence of the clergy in the society and we may not agree with the politics of the clergy, but in the end if it satisfies a need in the people and appeases a majority of the people (regardless if it violates some fundamental tenet of liberalism)then it must be acceptable?*******

If we excuse/justify Kadarism for proving stability even while limiting freedoms, why can we not apply the same paradigm to the Catholic Church?

So which one is it, Eva? Kadarism and Church in schools = okay? Or Kadarism and Church in schools = not okay?

Eva avoids the question and responds to another, accidentally making NWO's point valid.

*****You're wrong on both fronts. The people of Tatabánya object and the mayor is also Fidesz representative in parliament.*****

I ask you, if the mayor of Tatabánya is Fidesz, does that not implicitly reveal the voters' preferences?

3) It is silly and ignorant to assume that State-run schools don't influence children with their own politics. Look at the States, the entire educational system is completely dominated by the American Left and their teachers' union. The teachers' union has significant political sway and self-interest in its role in the States. While I will stop short of calling it a religion, teachers do make explicit and implicit efforts to impress upon their pupils their politics to some degree. This applies from grammar school to (most especially) higher education.

4) One could also argue that since private, especially Catholic/Jesuit schools almost always show better performance than public schools, pupils are better off at such schools.

I should add, the large number of Jewish students at my Catholic grammar school is res ipsa loquitur.

5) Lastly, the theocratic state argument is completely off-base. Do we call the UK a theocratic state? After all the official church is the Church of England?

[Eva S. Balogh]

Odin: "Church run schools when they are in a minority to secular schools can be quite a good thing. When church run schools are the only option as they were (and may still be) in Ulster (Northern Irland). The 'Billys' went to the Protestant schools and the 'Dans' to Catholic run schools. The childern from the two communities seldom met and mixed."

I have nothing against a mix of public and parochial schools, but there must be a choice. If the city council in Tatabánya passes on the last public school to the Catholic church, then there will be no choice.

As for your very good example of Northern Ireland, the only thing I remember from the once a week religious instructions (compulsory in those days even in public schools) is that how we hate the Catholics and we don't pray to idols. The idols were of course the saints. One doesn't need that.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Varangy: "So, I ask once again, politely --- Eva, what, if any, is your religion?"

Nobody's business.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Varangy: " I come from a staunchly Hungarian Catholic family - one whose religion and faith informed them to their view on Communism. I attended, like many in my family, Catholic schools."

Well, in my mind the above only strengthens my belief that it is not a good idea to send a child to parochial school.

[Big G]

Varangy: "d) not debating people's ideas and arguments..." I notice your new Tumblr blog pages do not allow comments. As opposed to you old website: http://varangy.blogspot.com/ where, basically, you posted mainly in rather vulgar fashion ("Expat Douchebags" was a favored term) in response to anybody who posted a comment on your blog. On your new "Tumblr" page you don't allow debate. Your response?
How about http://frappansklise.tumblr.com/post/27860083
That is nothing other than slander against the good folks holding this debate. And, of course, without comments there can be no debate. Toad, you are a sad troll, and blog comment posts are your arena, and a glance at your various blog posts shows that you are an ideological racist when it comes to Gypsies and Jews.

[Varangy]

******Varangy: "So, I ask once again, politely --- Eva, what, if any, is your religion?"

"Nobody's business."******

@Eva

I take your attempt at evasion to indicate that you are Jewish or of Jewish descent.

Am I mistaken?

******Varangy: " I come from a staunchly Hungarian Catholic family - one whose religion and faith informed them to their view on Communism. I attended, like many in my family, Catholic schools."

Well, in my mind the above only strengthens my belief that it is not a good idea to send a child to parochial school.******

Because it makes us staunch anti-Communists? From your POV, I guess that makes sense. LOL.

*****Varangy: "d) not debating people's ideas and arguments..." I notice your new Tumblr blog pages do not allow comments. As opposed to you old website: http://varangy.blogspot.com/ where, basically, you posted mainly in rather vulgar fashion ("Expat Douchebags" was a favored term) in response to anybody who posted a comment on your blog.*****

Yes, I do post often in a vulgar fashion, indulging in ad hominem quite often. I have never denied this. (Expat Douchebags will be coming back into fashion soon.)

I am accused of many things, sometimes even rightfully, but one cannot accuse me of not employing logic. I think Erik of Pestiside once even called me hyperrational.

I always take the time to slice and dice my opponents' arguments. I even number my points against them for easy reference.

Unlike, for example, Eva.

Eva leaves most if not all direct points and arguments unanswered. Why?

For a Ph.D it should be facile to tear my ignorant arguments to shreds with even a modicum of logic, no?

BTW I also have held myself back for Eva's benefit. As I do not think she is ready for the rough and tumble of the blogosphere. Benefit that, Vandorlo, did not enjoy in the past.

*****On your new "Tumblr" page you don't allow debate. Your response?*****

I simply chose Tumblr b/c I wanted to play with it and like its clean interface. It annoys me that Tumblr doesn't have commenting features. I have never shied away from the comments on my blog, and I have always published and commented on emails sent to me. (Vandorlo, I got your email, but I am working on a post for it.)

Just for you and all those dieing to comment on my posts, I will reactivate my old blog and cease posting to Tumblr.

*****How about http://frappansklise.tumblr.com/post/27860083*****

I think those are definitely questions that need to be answered.

*****That is nothing other than slander against the good folks holding this debate. And, of course, without comments there can be no debate.*****

Slander, no. Insulting, probably. Again, my site never attracted many comments, so I am flattered that you actually think that I moved to a non-commenting site intentionally to avoid comments. But I will be happy to move back if you feel that this would be more equitable. In fact, other than a few commenters out there like NWO, Minsztrel and a few others, no one seems to be able to effectively and reasonably argue anything. Starting immediately, I will post at my old blog once again. Comments open as always.

http://frappansklise.tumblr.com/post/30850295

http://varangy.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-am-accused-of-stifling-debate-because.html

*****Toad, you are a sad troll, and blog comment posts are your arena, and a glance at your various blog posts shows that you are an ideological racist when it comes to Gypsies and Jews.*****

Please point out how exactly where I am ideologically racist among my posts. I'd love to know.

Politically incorrect, well, I plead guilty, Your Honor.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Varangy: "For a Ph.D it should be facile to tear my ignorant arguments to shreds with even a modicum of logic, no?"

What you don't understand that I don't want to waste my time on your wonderful logic and wonderful ideas about politics, people. They are horrid ideas and if it goes like this you will not be welcome on this blog.

[Lia]

"One could read news items that before the elections school children from parochial schools, together with their teachers, were taking part in the political campaign. Parochial schools often allow very right-wing organizations to use their facilities." Yes, this is sad, but true, I agree. But it is still my decision whether I want to participate or not. My own daughter was told by a classmate that we are 'bad Hungarians', because we wouldn't take her to the protests downtown in 2006. However, I take these opportunities to educate the other parents as best I can, without risking a backlash against my own kid. When someone sent me an SMS inviting me to Gyurcsany Feri's bucsubuli (going away party) on March 9, I told the sender that a) she is wasting her time on me because I'm American and don't vote here and b) I don't believe in a free lunch -- or free healthcare for that matter and I'd be happy to share my thoughts with her, which are based on international examples from true free market economies... Several parents have sought me out for my opinion since they know where I'm from. I make it clear up front that I'm not for either party and that I find the lack of leadership in this country disheartening as well as frightening. I then go on to explain my stance on the topics they are interested in. I find this has led to a healthy dialogue among several of us parents who are at least willing to listen to each other. It is not easy, but allowing the right wing whackjobs to take over the school isn't the answer, either. That said, I wouldn't want KISZ meetings held in the school either, quite frankly. Given the choice between strong parochial schools (peppered with some right wingers who are generally hot air bags anyway) and schools run by ex-commies, I'll take the church any day of the week.

[NWO]

Eva-

Varangy critiqued your response to me, so I don't need to do it as well. I agree with him (I know I am assuming a gender here), your response to my point evaded the central issue I was trying to raise, which was about intellectual consistency not the merits of only having the choice of parochial school in Tatabanya.

On the merits of this issue, actually, I believe if the State is going to offer free education as a basic right, I think it is incumbent on the State to offer something more than just a parochial school in a district (regardless of the assumed politics of that school). I would be loathe to send my children to a Catholic school, not because I was concerned about the quality of the basic teaching but because I am not interested in having my children inculcated in the ethics and theological that would likely come part and parcel with the school (this is regardless of whether the school was "liberal" or "conservative" or "reactionary"). On the other hand, I would support a policy that would allow parents to send their children to parochial school and even receive some tax credit for doing so, if there is tuition involved, assuming such opportunity is offered across denominations. Given the poor quality of the state schoold, by in large, parents should not be restricted to the State system, if there are alternatives available that in their view offer their children a better opportunity to learn and develop. What is more liberal than this?

[Eva S. Balogh]

NWO: "your response to my point evaded the central issue I was trying to raise, which was about intellectual consistency not the merits of only having the choice of parochial school in Tatabanya."

There is simply no inconsistency in my position, and you're absolutely wrong when you mix up state v. church on the one hand and economic bribe of the Kádár regime on the other. The two have nothing to do with each other.

As for the excellence of parochial schools versus state schools, you're wrong again. There are excellent state schools and poor state schools stemming from the schools' prerogative of admitting or not admitting certain students. As for parochial schools, there are a few, very few which are excellent. Most of them are no better or worse than the state schools. In any case, I don't think that a state should pass on the responsibility of educating the children of the country to the churches. Nothing good can come of it. Especially I find it unfair that the churches maintain their schools on the money the population as a whole pays in form of taxes. If the churches want to maintain their own schools, maintain them from tuitions and gifts of the faithful.

[New World Order]

Eva-

Frankly, I am not sure if you choose to distort my position to score "easy points" or if you really don't get it.

First, my view is that your argument in "support" of Kadarism is that it was popular and hence acceptable. On the other hand, in respect of religion and parochial schools, the "popularity" test for acceptance does not apply.

Second, I did not say all State schools are bad. I did not say all parochial schools are good (in fact-I am sure that is not the case). In fact, my argument has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the respective quality of the schools. It has to do with the preference for choice, something I actually believe is ALWAYS a good thing and you seem to believe is selectively a good thing. Anyway,to set the record slightly straight, I said (1) the quality of the state school system 9not just in Bp but around the Country), by in large, is poor and (I did not say this before but will not) getting worse (Do you disagree with this?); (2) all else being equal I believe in offering people a choice-not only in education but also health care (as I think you also believe in). Furthermore, as we agree, the size of the State must shrink substantially in the coming years, including in education. This will mean the private sector in some form must fill some of the gap.

Now maybe you don't think any public money-even through tax breaks-should be used to support parochial or private schools, that is your perogative. Actually, I think the risks associated with such State support for religion in the context of Hungary is not nearly the same level of risk as allowing the State have an effective monopoly on education.

[Eva S. Balogh]

I will very soon close this so-called "argument" because it is ridiculous and leads nowhere.

You said: "your argument in "support" of Kadarism is that it was popular and hence acceptable."

I wasn't talking about support I was talking about acceptance. There was no hope to change the system and Hungarians looked around in the region where the effects of the so-called socialism were much worse. Most of the people were apolitical and enjoyed the material benefits of the regime while these benefit lasted.

As far as the churches and their schools are concerned, I have nothing against them as long as the churches keep up these schools themselves and not milking the taxpayers (those whose huge majority are not religious) for their upkeep. And this is my last answer to you on this subject.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Lia: "My own daughter was told by a classmate that we are 'bad Hungarians', because we wouldn't take her to the protests downtown in 2006. However, I take these opportunities to educate the other parents as best I can, without risking a backlash against my own kid."

I don't want to disappoint you, but it is a waste of time. I used to belong to an internet discussion group (in Hungarian) which was completely overtaken by rabid right-wingers. No rational argument made the slightest difference. Eventually the more liberal members of the group gave up. I'm very sad that I have to say that because as a former educator I believe in rational discourse. But what I could do with my own students, I certainly was unable to do with these "true believers."

What really worries me is that even you have to admit that your daughter has to be careful because of possible backlash against her. Do you still think that this is the best school for her?

[Odin's lost eye]

The nub of the problem is: -
"All children of Tatabánya will have to attend parochial schools."
Never mind the reason why and how has happened. No one should compel children of any faith/creed to attend any school run by any form of cult, political or religeous outfit (In this I include my own church -CofE by default-) without the express written wishes of their parents or gaurdians.
My objection is that there is always a temptation on the part of the teaching staff to make a 'convert' to the ideas of the outfit running the place. If the school is the 'Only Game in Town' this temptation becomes even stronger. I understand that the schools of the Communist period taught the basics of that.
What I object to is COMPULSION! Where this has happened because of some quasi-political/religeous circumstance I find this an anathema.
I abstained from my church long ago when I realised that most of it's 'Holy Joes' were too bl**dy thin, too bl***y holy and too bl***y queer. My old vicar was fat, jolly old chap who had two children and one of us. When he had any money he used to drink in the pub with his parisioners. When 'the chips were down' he was always there for us.
BTW Varangy
**** "Do we call the UK a theocratic state? After all the official church is the Church of England". ****
No the CofE is the 'established church' only in the Kingdom of England. Each of the other kingdoms have their own seperate churches which are not 'established'. The monarch is 'Head of the Church in England' and appoints its leaders. It became so to get the church's snout out of the state's affairs -see Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I-

[Viking]

Lia said "The political influence of the church may be one side of the story, but children in faith-based schools learn that faith, hope and love are what matter most. I'll take the Church over any other institution any day of the week".

Good, welcome to my Saudi-sponsored faith-based school. We pray for Divine guidance 5 times per day, so we are really teaching the importance of communicating with God. We accept even non-Muslims, but non-male need to wear a head-scarf inside and to/from the school. It is similar to the Catholic school's dress-code.

Well, what an outcry if the above would be true in that small city of Tatabánya. Saudi-sponsored parochial schools would be the only game in town.

Wonder what the debate would be about then... It is the same God, so what can be the problem?

[Varangy]

********Varangy: "For a Ph.D it should be facile to tear my ignorant arguments to shreds with even a modicum of logic, no?"

What you don't understand that I don't want to waste my time on your wonderful logic and wonderful ideas about politics, people. They are horrid ideas and if it goes like this you will not be welcome on this blog.********

@Eva

My logic and ideas about politics and people are 'horrid', exactly because? I espouse contreverisal and/or politically correct views? Or I simply disagree with many, such as yourself? Perhaps both?

Regarding NWO's point on Kadarism/Church in schools, your comment above has not resolved your inconsistency.

Your latest is sort of funny:

****I wasn't talking about support I was talking about acceptance. There was no hope to change the system and Hungarians looked around in the region where the effects of the so-called socialism were much worse.*****

Er, the reason there was no hope to change system was because the system maintained itself ruthlessly.

What you would term 'acceptance' is the extinguishment of hope.

Sure, as you say, things got better in the 70s, but it really isn't hard to get better when you come from hell. Like the boiling frog in water, but reverse. You throw the poor breki in the pot and slam on a lid. You turn up the heat to beyond scalding for a while, and then dial it back down to just simmering. Probably feels great relatively. But you are still being kept in a pot of hot water.

And, sure our little frog is, I suppose, comforted because he sees the froggy in the Romanian pot get absolutely fricasseed.

Great argument.

*****Most of the people were apolitical and enjoyed the material benefits of the regime while these benefit lasted*****

'Material benefits', eh? How do you square your supposed 'material benefits' with something we call 'opportunity costs'?

Under Communism, Hungary was forced to pay enormous, perhaps infinite, opportunity costs, in terms of human capital, of social and individual freedoms and rights, dignity and economic growth.

That is, the difference between:

*Hungary as a free market, democratic society

and

*Hungary as it historically was

Want a good illustration? Just look at Austria. The difference while slowly, ever slowly, converging (thanks to free markets and democracy), is still significant. Be it economically, socially, infrastructure-wise, any other category you and I can think of. Perhaps skill in water-polo, notwithstanding.

But then I would gladly toss our history of water polo playing greatness for us to have avoided our fate post-WW II and followed Austria's route.

And I should also mention your comments:

****I will very soon close this so-called "argument" because it is ridiculous and leads nowhere
...
And this is my last answer to you on this subject.****

is, well, fair enough. But is it not exactly what 'Big G' accuses me of? That is, stifling debate.

'Big G', what say you?

Lastly, your consistent evasion of my question as to your religion -- has confirmed my initial hypothesis. And suggests exactly why you might be an apologist for Communism.

PS Eva, you are more than welcome to comment at my blog anytime (varangy.blogspot.com) on anything. I look forward to seeing you there among the comments.

[GDF]

Lia:
""One could read news items that before the elections school children from parochial schools, together with their teachers, were taking part in the political campaign. Parochial schools often allow very right-wing organizations to use their facilities." Yes, this is sad, but true, I agree. But it is still my decision whether I want to participate or not. "

Yes, it is your decision. And you seem to have the good sense to not let your children participate. But how many Americans are there around all the other schools and what else would stop the from being taken over by "the right wing whackjobs"?

What irks me in this whole debate is that I see even Americans debating whether church and state should be sperated or not. Especially in a country like Hungary, where religions are classified into traditional and non-traditional ones, with the traditional ones having far larger privileges then those not classified as such. I would like to remind you that the US Constitution's separation clause was added for exactly this kind of reason. Why is it then this acceptable to you in Hungary?

I would like to add that in Romania it is the Hungarian churches that are treated as second class entities, because there the Romanian Orthodox Church is the "official" state church. Wouldn't you prefer a separation of church and state to this?

Finally, I am disgusted at the insistence of this varangy, with his questions about Eva’s religion. Maybe he should get back under that rock, where he belongs.

[Varangy]

*****Finally, I am disgusted at the insistence of this varangy, with his questions about Eva’s religion. Maybe he should get back under that rock, where he belongs.*****

@GDF

We varangyok live in forests, under the avar, not rocks. But anyhow, why is Eva's religion irrelevant to the discussion? The discussion pertains to religion. Her silence speaks volumes.

We all have backgrounds and biases, but only some of us, are honest and confident enough to show them. Others of us, not so much.

Also, FYI there is no discrete 'separation clause' in the US constitution. What Americans understand as 'separation of Church and State' (the phrase appears no where in the US Constitution) is derived from the interpretation of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

[Varangy]

It should also be noted that:

"The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; ****the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself….**** The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC00779089&id=E0D5t1NG_WUC&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22people+v.+ruggles%22&as_brr=1#PPA254,M1

Interesting and still relevant to this discussion.

[Adrian]

I went to a school where church attendance was compulsory four times a week. Divinity lessons were also compulsory until the age of 15. In one of these lessons, I told the school chaplain that our compulsory attendence at chapel was a form of brain-washing. He was upset, but mastered his emotions and entered a debate with dignity.

Irrespective of who is financing schools or who is teaching in schools in Hungary there is too little or no debate. The chuches have always relied on revelation and authority. But the emphasis on rote learning of definitions and facts in all Hungaian schools is an expression of the same tradition.

If civil society is going to move forward in Hungary we are going to have to start teaching our children about argument and demonstration.

P.S. Varangy:

I'm probably some form of deist; I'm completely shocked that even in Catholic schools in Hungary they don't know much about the Bible; and I sing English hymns in the shower. I hope this helps.

[Viking]

Varangy wrote "We all have backgrounds and biases, but only some of us, are honest and confident enough to show them. Others of us, not so much."

So, if I would state that I am a Muslim, you would use other arguments on me?

No, you are using the old trick "Guilt by association" in the same way as anti-communists and communists (show trials) have always used it. You are just a bunch of lovers of totalitarian systems.

The libertarians from Sweden I know about was basically concentrating their effort on running illegal nightclubs, because that was the way they fought the "socialist state and its alcohol monopoly". Maybe Varangy should start with that instead. It may at least be appreciated by some...

[GDF]

varangy:
"We varangyok live in forests, under the avar, not rocks. But anyhow, why is Eva's religion irrelevant to the discussion? The discussion pertains to religion. Her silence speaks volumes."

The discussion is about separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with any participant's religion.

Only a varangy could conclude that only a Jew can have the position Eva takes. That is what speaks volumes.

[Eva S. Balogh]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Therefore to claim that the US Constitution is not quite explicit about separation of church and state is false. The two principal drafters of the Constitution surely knew what they meant by the First Amendment.

[Varangy]

******So, if I would state that I am a Muslim, you would use other arguments on me?******

@Viking

No, not at all. But I would have a better understanding of your interpretation of the 'facts'.

After all, many on this blog have accused me of 'having to exercise my demons' etc etc regarding Communism.

I wonder if Cubans or North Koreans are subject to the same when they escape their nation-prisons?

******No, you are using the old trick "Guilt by association" in the same way as anti-communists and communists (show trials) have always used it. You are just a bunch of lovers of totalitarian systems.******

I have accused no one of anything, but if anyone has shown sympathy for totalitarian is has been you and Eva. Ironic.

******The discussion is about separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with any participant's religion.******

@GDF

Eva has shown considerable enmity against the Church and is clearly logically inconsistent as to her arguments regarding Church and State. She, much like the rest of us, can do so much to exclude emotion from her reasoning. I have accused her of nothing, but I feel strongly her religious background informs her on this topic.

******Only a varangy could conclude that only a Jew can have the position Eva takes. That is what speaks volumes.******

I have not 'concluded' anything. Feel free to read any and all of my comments again. I do think it is cute that you are trying to play a victim/martyr card on Eva's behalf.

*****Therefore to claim that the US Constitution is not quite explicit about separation of church and state is false.*****

@Eva

Just so you know, I do support the general principle of the separation of Church and State in Hungary or anywhere. I stated so in a comment much earlier than this one.

When GDF stated:

****I would like to remind you that the US Constitution's separation clause was added for exactly this kind of reason.****

he/she was factually incorrect. As many an American are misinformed on this manner. Perhaps the facts don't matter to GDF or you, but they matter to me.

******Therefore to claim that the US Constitution is not quite explicit about separation of church and state is false.******

Again, I remind you: separation of church and state do not appear in the US Constitution. So how can it be 'explicit'?

You should look up the word 'explicit' in the dictionary.

*Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.

The US Constitution, for better or for worse, is not explicit about the separation of Church and State --- it is implicit.

******The two principal drafters of the Constitution surely knew what they meant by the First Amendment.******

They surely did. My guess is they intentionally left the interpretation to be derivative of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause as they harbored no "indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…"

Unlike yourself.

[R.]

Huh. I slog through 20+ comments only to find that, regardless of everyone's backgrounds (and despite personal enmities), you all basically support the separation of church and state.

[Varangy]

@R.

But some of us are less inconsistent than others of us.

[Odin's lost eye]

The real point of the original entry was written by Ms Balogh is in the first paragraph
**** "Yesterday I heard about a new school controversy: the last public school in the city of Tatabánya will be passed over to the Catholic church. Thus, there will be no choice. All children of Tatabánya will have to attend parochial schools." ****
Reading through the later comments it seems that this came about as a result of the actions of politico-religious party. When a person is elected to public office it is that person's duty to represent the best interests All repeat ALL of the electors and not just those who voted for his/her party.
The serious bit is the 'COMPULSION' without the option (perhaps for some political or religious). After all one 'lot' used to burn people alive to save their 'immortal souls' -See Mary 1 of England and Auto da Fe-

[Viking]

Varangy wrote "I attended, like many in my family, Catholic schools." Hhmm I thought you lived under the "horrible Hungarian Communist rule"? No inconsistency here?

Discussing with my wife, who definitively lived in Hungary before 1990, how things are managed in Sweden, her opinion is that Hungary was never as Socialist as Sweden is today.

For the first 10 years she really missed the "Good Old Times", especially the latter 80s when she had the money to travel 2 trips abroad every year. Of the money she could earn as a private person she only told the Tax Office 10% of. It was easier to get a better flat, then money did not play as big deal as today, you changed with eachother, etc.

FYI, especially Varangy, she was never Party member. She has always been apolitical. She did though for many years have a boyfriend who was active among the dissidents. After 1990 he was active in Parliament in different lobby organisations until his death.

Just to give some real-life background to this somewhat theoretical debate about what happened in Hungary 1944-1990.

[Varangy]

*******Varangy wrote "I attended, like many in my family, Catholic schools." Hhmm I thought you lived under the "horrible Hungarian Communist rule"? No inconsistency here?*******

None. Why? For your information, the school was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits. I suppose you and Eva approve.

*****For the first 10 years she really missed the "Good Old Times", especially the latter 80s when she had the money to travel 2 trips abroad every year. Of the money she could earn as a private person she only told the Tax Office 10% of. It was easier to get a better flat, then money did not play as big deal as today, you changed with eachother, etc.*****

You and your wife's rosy view of Communism is cute. I suppose neither you nor her see limitations on a myriad of freedoms as fundamentally immoral.

If you two still have some nostalgia about this, I suggest you move to Cuba.

*****FYI, especially Varangy, she was never Party member.*****

Please inform Eva about that. She claims, in her apology for Communism, that nearly all Hungarians were Party members and were forced to be. While some were clearly forced to --- many out of principle did not join. Kudos to your wife.

****Just to give some real-life background to this somewhat theoretical debate about what happened in Hungary 1944-1990.****

For you it is clearly theoretical, for me not so much.

[Varangy]

****Discussing with my wife, who definitively lived in Hungary before 1990, how things are managed in Sweden, her opinion is that Hungary was never as Socialist as Sweden is today.****

With all due respect to your wife. this is silly.

Sweden doesn't have a history of dictatorship. It is a mixed free-market economy with a large government presence in the economy and many redistributive policies with all the social freedoms and rights expected of a modern democracy.

FYI I have a relative who escaped to Sweden, became more Swedish than the Swedish (his Swedish is better than his Hungarian) and hasn't been back to Hungary since he he left (which I think is extreme), but telling.

[Sandor]

If Mr. Varangy is so demanding to know Eva's religion, how come he himself is not rushing forth to declare his.

This was clearly the ruse to start e bit of jew-baiting.
If someone is liberal, surely she must be a Jew! The rest goes by itself.

Well, Varangy, which synagog are you frequenting with your Jew-baiting?

[Viking]

Varangy wrote: "the school was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits."

So, can we now finally get an answer to the question: - Did Varangy go to a Catolic school in Hungary between 1947-1990?

Per definition a school that "was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits", was hardly a Catolic school. It was an ex-Jesuit/Catolic-school. They could hardly have teached according to its Jesuit-teachings, then why was it "was forcibly taken away".

I hardly define a building being a Catolic school, I speak about the teachings. If the Jesuits/Catolics were allowed to teach in Hungary during the period 1947-1990, what does that tell us?

Or Varangy actually went to school after 1990, that is of course another alternative...

[Varangy]

***If Mr. Varangy is so demanding to know Eva's religion, how come he himself is not rushing forth to declare his.***

@Sandor

Reading (and re-reading) the comments might help. I declared my Catholic faith in the comments above and as well as elsewhere. In fact that is exactly what Viking is trying to use to smoke me out, as it were.

***This was clearly the ruse to start e bit of jew-baiting.
If someone is liberal, surely she must be a Jew! The rest goes by itself.***

Please point out where I indulged in any sort of Jew-baiting.

FYI we don't know if Eva is Jewish (she refuses to disclose her religion), but we can certainly surmise. The following only suggests that she is Jewish (and is by no means a slur/slight):

1) her sympathy for Communism as social/economic system

2) her enmity for the Catholic Church (to be fair, she could also be a former Catholic)

3) her inconsistencies on her POV regarding Kadarism and the Church and State -- and her failure to address them. See NWO's earlier posts above.

4) her odd reluctance to declare her religion when it is clearly germane to the discussion.

****Varangy wrote: "the school was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits."

So, can we now finally get an answer to the question: - Did Varangy go to a Catolic school in Hungary between 1947-1990?

Per definition a school that "was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits", was hardly a Catolic school. It was an ex-Jesuit/Catolic-school. They could hardly have teached according to its Jesuit-teachings, then why was it "was forcibly taken away".

I hardly define a building being a Catolic school, I speak about the teachings. If the Jesuits/Catolics were allowed to teach in Hungary during the period 1947-1990, what does that tell us?

Or Varangy actually went to school after 1990, that is of course another alternative...****

Good luck trying to pin me down and identify me. Truly flattering. I, while telling the truth, will be annoyingly vague on certain parts of my life. My background and childhood is atypical, let's leave it at that.

After all, we all know that Bp. is more like an inbred village than a city -- and that is exactly why I remain anonymous -- and so do you.

[Varangy]

@Sanyi

I guess linking to this article:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/Jewish-Genius-10855?page=all

from one of my posts: (http://frappansklise.tumblr.com/post/30316859)

amounts to Jew-baiting in your mind.

If you say so...

[Viking]

No Varangy,

I do not try to smoke you out. I also, for security reasons, try to be anonoumys (I will never learn to spell that word...).

No we are just trying to understand your biases...

I do now, not believe that you really lived in Hungary during the pre-1990 period in Hungary as an adult. That would explain your obviuos lack of own experience and your reference to older relatives.

[Varangy]

***I do now, not believe that you really lived in Hungary during the pre-1990 period in Hungary as an adult. That would explain your obviuos lack of own experience and your reference to older relatives.***

Believe what you need to believe. I neither confirm nor deny your hypothesis.

[kincs]

Varangy wrote: “Good luck trying to pin me down and identify me. Truly flattering. I, while telling the truth, will be annoyingly vague on certain parts of my life. My background and childhood is atypical, let's leave it at that.”

After earlier writing: “We all have backgrounds and biases, but only some of us are honest and confident enough to show them. Others of us, not so much.”

He was certainly right when he wrote in between that: “some of us are less inconsistent than others of us”.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Viking: "Per definition a school that "was forcibly taken away from the Jesuits", was hardly a Catolic school. It was an ex-Jesuit/Catolic-school"

To enlighten people on the nationalization of parochial schools in Hungary here is some information. The nationalization bill was signed by parliament in July 1948. Negotiations concerning the fate of some of the parochial schools ensued between the state and the churches, but the Catholic Church (Mindszenty was still the prince primate of Hungary) refused to sign the agreement by which other churches managed to maintain a few of their most famous schools. The Hungarian Reformed Church could keep six schools, the Lutherans two, the Unitarians two and the Jews one. Between 1948 and 1950 there were no Catholic schools at all. In 1950, after another round of negotiations the Catholics got back eight of their schools. As for the Hungarian Reformed Church they were unable to maintain the six schools assigned to them and gave up several of them. I don't know the exact number, but I know that the famous Baar Madas Gymnasium in Buda was given to the state in 1950.

[Varangy]

Varangy wrote: “Good luck trying to pin me down and identify me. Truly flattering. I, while telling the truth, will be annoyingly vague on certain parts of my life. My background and childhood is atypical, let's leave it at that.”

After earlier writing: “We all have backgrounds and biases, but only some of us are honest and confident enough to show them. Others of us, not so much.”

He was certainly right when he wrote in between that: “some of us are less inconsistent than others of us”.

Posted by: kincs | April 08, 2008 at 10:03 AM

@kincs

You should really re-read those two statements. They are clearly not contradictory. The first refers to my identity, while the second refers to my world POV.

I am loathe to completely reveal myself. (As are you.)

But ironically, we all know much more about my biases than anyone else's on this blog. Including yours.

So who is being in inconsistent?

[Viking]

So, then there were Church-run schools in Hungary pre-1990. It makes you think how much wiggle-room there actually existed in Hungary during this period.

It also, for me, explains how some of the people I have met claimed that they went to a elite-school in Bp in the pre-1990 period. These schools were basically all these Church-run schools, like the Joszef Attila and the Piariszt Gimnazium (sorry for the spelling...).

So the Communists went to Church-run schools to educate the new elite, like Varangy...

[kincs]

Varangy:
Your inconsistency is obvious. We all have the right to remain anonymous. What is inconsistent is to demand that others reveal something about themselves while coyly reserving the right to be "annoyingly vague" about your own background.