Robert K. Vischer wrote:
Let’s focus
on the assignment to
interview a Christian family about Easter and present the findings, as
that
seems, at least in my view, to be the least egregious. If Williams had
given similar interview assignments covering other faith traditions at
other
holidays, wouldn’t that be palatable? If he was even-handed in the
religious coverage of his assignments, it seems that the assignments
could be
defended as attempts to let students gain insight into the lived
realities of their
community’s faith traditions. The problem with learning about
religion simply as an external object to be studied in a textbook is
that it
necessarily tends to foster an impression of religion as a relic.
Nothing
eviscerates the vibrancy of faith like boiling it down to a two-page
textbook
synopsis. Certainly Williams should not be allowed to present the
resurrection as historical fact, but is there any problem giving the
students access
to individuals who do view the resurrection (or Passover, etc.) as
historical
fact?
Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in an entirely
different context, might be appropriate. But would you care to lay odds
on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to
find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to
none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions.
Ed Brayton
|
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
