Jim wrote:
> THat's a really good point, but don't you think sexism and
> racism are in a different category, mostly because there
> seems to be a consensus in our culture that sexist and
> racist ideologies are harmful?
Not too long ago there was a "consensus" in our culture that women were
weaker and less capable than men and that African Americans were inferior
to Caucasians.
> Religion, on the other hand, rarely yields a consensus, even within a
> particular religious community (e.g., capital punishment comes to mind).
Does a consensus make something valid? There is a "consensus" in America
(according to polls) that psychic phenomenon are frequently manifest, that
Christianity is the only "true" religion, and that the average welfare
recipient is an inner city black woman with a poor education, several
illegitimate children and a desire to remain on welfare for the rest of
her life (the actual "average" recipient, btw, is a rural white woman in
her twenties with 2 _legitimate_ children, who was recently divorced,
abandoned, or widowed and who will spend 2.1 years of her entire life on
welfare--long enough for her children to reach school age so she can
work). Simply because a consensus exists doesn't make that consensus
either accurate or valid for us to base academic decisions on.
> For the record, I rarely find anything in the classroom to be
> dogmatic about, and I try to stay away from discussions I feel
> overly passionate about, unless it really needs to be covered.
> I guess that's an advantage of teaching in a low-consensus field
> -- you can throw out some different points of views and let the
> students chew on them.
I teach in both psychology and sociology (as well as occasional political
science courses), so I tend to deal with a number of rather controversial
topics (abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, homosexuality, the
drug war, racism & sexism, adolescent sexuality, etc.) on a day-to-day
basis. The single greatest handicap I have in teaching students to think
critically in those classes is overcoming the influence of religious
indoctrination (I live in a _very_ conservative, very fundamentalist,
area) so that the students can see _both_ sides of the issues instead of
just one.
> Maybe you're right -- maybe there are just some things that
> just can't be integrated into the classroom.
The problem with integrating any aspects of religion (or at least Western
religion) into the classroom is that, unlike any other topic, the
instructor is NOT permitted to honestly voice an opinion contrary to the
popular view. If, for example, I were to treat the conservative religious
views on homosexuality as being pure bigotry (which they clearly are), I
would rather rapidly have complaints lodged against me with the
administration. Were I to do _precisely_ the same thing regarding racist
views on African Americans I would be considered a good instructor. That
difference isn't based on the nature of the prejudice being
addressed--only on the religious basis of the prejudice. Given that kind
of difference, it becomes impossible to honestly address issues in a
classroom if religious issues are included.
> On the other hand, it seems that non-religious scientists are
> free to ignore, even trample over religious beliefs, even to
> the point where they begin to teach science as something
> completely accurate and fool-proof.
You'll note that your concern is strictly one sided. Why should public
academic institutions become involved in supporting or teaching the
principles of religion--do the Sunday schools teach evolution?
Religion has no role in the academic classroom (religiously funded
schools excepted, of course). The cost of such institutions is borne
partially or totally by the public and the public has no obligation at all
to pay for religious training. If it is reasonable to include the
Christian version of creationism in a school and treat it as a serious
subject, then it is just as reasonable to include Native American
versions, African versions, Hindu versions and the creation myths of every
major culture to an equal extent. Of course that would take so much time
(and be so confusing for the students) that nothing would be
accomplished--but the alternative of selecting only ONE of these myths to
treat with respect is patently discriminatory and unfair to practitioners
of the other religions. To me, it's a lot more rational to simply keep the
classroom for _scientific_ topics and the church for religious ones (areas
such as theology, humanities, and history excepted, of course).
People are entitled to whatever religious beliefs give them comfort or
provide a basis for their world view. But they are NOT entitled to impose
those beliefs on others--or require others to be taught about them if they
don't choose to be. Teaching creationism does precisely that, and
therefore is completely unacceptable in a society that is not a theocracy.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
