Jim wrote:
> > 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.
>
> While those views have changed in recent years, I think it's an
> exaggeration to say there once was a consensus of one group being
> inferior to another.
I'll have to disagree with that. Prior to the beginning of this century
women were considered to be incapable of even such simple responsibilities
as voting and were, effectively, seen as "possessions" of their husbands.
Even the most cursory examination of the literature of the Victorian era
(including that of Freud, of course) demonstrates that these were widely
held views, not those of a minority. In terms of African-Americans, you
could hardly argue that in pre-civil war days Blacks were seen as clearly
inferior to Whites by most of our society. Even in the North, a _lot_ of
opposition to emancipation existed, and few Americans--Northerners OR
Southerners--viewed Blacks as even approaching an equal status with
Whites. I'm sure Louis could add any number of other similar examples to
illustrate the point.
> Of course, I knew you would bring this up, and rightfully so.
> I realized after my post that even today there isn't necessarily
> a consensus on racism being bad or some other ism. We assume
> that everyone agrees, both they don't necessarily...
Unfortunately, in our modern society there are an increasing number of
people who _don't_ agree that racism and sexism are wrong or harmful to
our culture. In the sixties when many of us were out protesting against
these injustices we assumed that all that was necessary was to demonstrate
that these views were erroneous and people would change them.
Naive, weren't we?
> I guess I meant that these topics seem "safer" because you're
> more likely to arrive at a consensus than with something else
> (e.g., abortion, gay rights).
Or my favorite controversial topic: "Drug legalization!" :-)
> > Does a consensus make something valid?
>
> Good question, good point. I once heard a speaker say "Since when is
> consensus ever a criterion for truth?"
Simple example: We elect politicians by consensus . . . ;-)
> >Simply because a consensus exists doesn't make that consensus
> > either accurate or valid for us to base academic decisions on.
>
> True. It may change how we deliver the material, though...
Only to the extent that we have to overcome prejudices to address some
forms of material while we won't have to do so to address others.
> For example, research suggests that most people believe
> spanking is okay, so based on consensus, I could probably talk
> about "why spanking can be effective" and not have too many
> people getting upset about it. But that doesn't mean that
> particular viewpoint is correct, or the only viewpoint that
> belongs in the classroom.
You should try teaching that spanking isn't the best form of
child-rearing in my community. Not only is it the birthplace of the
Republican party (they have a MONUMENT to the party here), but our major
local industry (and employer) is Southern Michigan Prison, the largest
walled prison in the world! Here, the concept of NOT spanking a child is
considered abuse--after all THEY were raised with a "fear of God"
instilled in them by their parents, why shouldn't their own children be
raised that way? :-(
> I don't envy your teaching assignment. I'm far too timid to
> tackle such a wide array of controversial subjects. And I do
> mean tackle -- I think you have to get into the stuff very
> deeply, not just ask "What do you think about this?"
You're right there. It doesn't help to state that "gay men are no more
likely to molest children than are heterosexual men" for example
(actually, they are statistically LESS likely to do so, but . . . )--you
have to clearly demonstrate WHY that fact is true and even then you have
to overcome the "But God says homosexuality is evil, so homosexuals MUST
do evil things . . ." type of arguments as well.
> On the other hand, I'm curious what you mean about "overcoming the
> influence of religious indoctrination." Can you give some
> examples?
Of indoctrination or of overcoming those influences?
Examples of indoctrination include such concepts as "Homosexuality is
evil (or unnatural, or inspired by Satan, etc.)," "Sex outside of (or
before, etc.) marriage is evil and wrong," etc.
Examples of overcoming religious indoctrination or intolerance would
include one of my favorite questions for a class dealing with the drug
war: "If there is a Christ and he were alive today, would he build more
treatment centers or more prisons?" I also ask if it makes any rational
sense to anyone that (according to polls) the majority of the people who
support the Pro-life movement also support capital punishment!
> How this come out in the classroom? How does it present a conflict?
Try pointing out the advantages for our society of:
1. Teaching kids _honestly_, factually, and in a non-judgmental manner
about human sexuality and drugs.
2. Legalizing drugs for consenting adults (on the Amsterdam model or on
that of California Judge Jim Grey) and thus removing the major cause of
property and violent crimes in the US today.
3. Using rehabilitation and treatment instead of just punishment in the
case of criminal offenders--particularly sex offenders.
> I really am curious -- I'd like to know how someone who teaches what
> you teach handles such an issue.
Short answer: With respect for the religious values of the student but
insistence that in a Social Science classroom we focus on Scientific, not
theological, arguments and principles. I make it clear that I respect the
student who holds strong religious values--but that my respect is NOT
limited to the student who holds Christian values alone. I explain the way
in which other religions view the same topic (i.e., Buddhism has a very
different view of both suicide and homosexuality than the one held by
Christianity) and that if we are to accept religious arguments as valid in
the class, we must by necessity give just as much weight to the views of
Buddhists, Pagans, and even sincere Satanists as we do to Christians.
Since that would make ALL the material meaningless--each of those
religions would contradict the others on some point or another--the only
logical approach we can take is to suspend our own religious training to
the extent that we examine the subject at hand from a strictly secular and
scientific perspective. Usually that sets a reasonable tone unless I have
a religious extremist in my class (i.e., a Biblical literalist who openly
argues for laws to be based solely on the Bible--which I DO get in my
classes fairly often).
> > 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.
>
> That depends on how you voice your opinion, and what subject is being
> discussed.
Simple example: One of the courses I teach regularly is "Minority Groups
in America." The first time I taught the class some years ago, the PR
department wanted to feature it in a press release (I was a Freedom Rider
and civil rights activist in the 1960s and I think they wanted to
capitalize on that fact) so they requested a syllabus to review. When they
discovered that one of the minority groups I intended to cover in the
class was the glbt community, they went ballistic and I was contacted by
both the Dean of Instruction and a college vice president "urging" me to
drop that part of the course because it wasn't "appropriate" in our
community (I didn't--and they didn't publicize it).
> I think a religious institution has a right to make decisions
> on what it believes to be part of the acceptable academic
> curriculum, and if you don't agree with it, I think you have
> to be quiet or teach elsewhere. I don't mean that you
> cannot disagree, but I think when you have too many
> disagreements, it's probably best to be part of a different team.
I agree.
On the other hand, I teach for a _public_ institution, a very different
matter. While I _do_ believe that a religious institution has a right to
make such decisions, I likewise believe that if those decisions take it
outside the range of "reasonable" education (i.e., if they teach "Creation
Science" instead of evolution) or if they openly promote one religious
perspective over another (including secular humanism) that institution
should NOT be eligible to receive public funds in any form including
student loans and grants.
The State has no right to infringe on the rights of religion--but neither
does the public have any obligation to support the exercise of those
rights financially.
> It irks me that sometimes some people talk about religious educators as
> only being concerned with telling people what to think, not
> how. There surely is some truth to that, but on the other hand,
> what is the point of having any kind of doctrine or theology if you
> can't teach it
None--but that assumes that you are teaching it to a willing and
interested audience. If, on the other hand, your students are NOT taking a
class in theology or moral philosophy, but rather one in psychology then
teaching religious values is no more appropriate than teaching Ethiopian
history.
> I had a friend who was looking for a teaching position last
> year and he got highly offended when a religious university
> asked him about his religious orientation. His comment was
> "That's none of their business." He didn't like it when I
> said, "Sure it is. If the school sets forth a curriculum
> that has certain beliefs, why would they want to hire teachers
> who would come in and turn those beliefs upside down."
I agree totally.
On the other hand, I don't believe such an institution has any right to
receive any form of public funds, given that their curriculum is, as you
point out, based on their religious beliefs.
> On the other hand (how many is that now?), I realize that in a
> religious institution there is probably some lack of latitude for
> presenting a different point of view, and sometimes that is
> probably counterproductive to critical thinking.
Here, we agree completely. And to me, that is clearly to the student's
detriment.
> > If, for example, I were to treat the conservative religious
> > views on homosexuality as being pure bigotry (which they clearly are)
>
> I disagree. Bigotry is defined as "bitter, unreasonable
> intolerance toward an idea, person, thing..." (New Webster's
> Dictionary of the English Language)
I'll accept that definition with reservations (would YOU accept Webster's
as a valid source of definitions in your specialty? :-), so long as you
include "group" among the things toward which intolerance is held.
> The conservative religious views on homosexuality is that it is
> contrary to God's law. And this view is based on passages that
> scripture that speak against homosexuality. How is that bigotry?
1. The attitude is NOT just that the act is contrary to "God's law." The
attitude is that homosexuals should be _punished_ for their "sin." The
Bible--and MANY conservative Christians (particularly fundamentalists)
state that a man should be put to death for "lying with another man as he
would a woman."
2. In exactly the same chapter of the same book of the Bible (Lev) that
contains the injunction against male homosexuality, we also find
injunctions against eating shell fish or pork, wearing clothing made of
two or more textiles, having contact with a menstruating woman, etc. Yet
ONLY homosexuality is singled out as a target by conservative Christians
from among the "laundry list" of offenses.
3. The conservative Christian does not merely _hold_ those views, s/he
actively attempts to make them legally binding on those who do not share
his/her belief.
4. Some of the statements by the leaders of the so-called "Moral
Majority" or the Christian right make it abundantly clear that it is not
just homosexuality but homosexuals themselves who are to be despised. Look
at Jerry Falwell's statement about AIDS in which he stated publicly that:
"AIDS is not God's punishment to homosexuals--it is God's punishment to a
society that TOLERATES homosexuals."
Sorry, but that's bigotry to me.
> I would consider homophobia as a better example of bigotry --
> the irrational fear, even hatred of a homosexual person.
Sorry, but the literal definition of homophobia (fear of homosexuals or
homosexuality) doesn't do justice to the religious right who make it very
clear in words AND deeds that "queers" should be punished.
> Jesus said, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." So even
> if you consider being gay to be wrong, you are still
> admonished to love that person.
You're also admonished to honor your parents, place personal gain well
after charity, and a lot of other things modern Christians totally ignore.
Hate the sin--love the sinner becomes a meaningless statement when the
actions of the religion result in suppression of rights among a group of
people whose only "failing" is that they refuse to accept the authority of
that religion to determine how they should live and who they should love.
And KUDOS to the Netherlands for ignoring the pressure of such groups
this week by becoming the first nation on Earth to recognize gay marriage
as legally valid!
> > Why should public
> > academic institutions become involved in supporting or teaching the
> > principles of religion--do the Sunday schools teach evolution?
>
> Maybe we're talking about different things here.
Nope. The original thread came from the idea of teaching creationism in
the schools. While it's expanded since, that's still the core
issue--whether or not public academic institutions have the right and/or
obligation to teach religiously based perspectives in non-theological
courses.
> > 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.
>
> I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying religious training, or
> teaching religious principles -- that really should be more under
> the purview of the religious deonomination, church, whatever.
>
> I'm simply pointing out that many people in this country are
> religious, and they hold religion as important in their lives.
> And if you completely ignore it and never bring it up, I
> think you do a disservice to those students.
But what kind of disservice do you do to them by teaching them from a
religious perspective instead of a purely factual one? YOU may believe in
your religion, but many others do not--is it fair to those who follow
different beliefs to force them to learn a subject from the perspective of
your religion? Would you allow your children to be taught psychology by a
person who believed it should be taught from a Satanic perspective? How
would that differ in any way whatever from doing so from a Christian one?
Once again--public funds should NOT be used to teach religious values or
(apart from theologically oriented classes) to provide religious training.
If an institution wants to support that kind of education, they should do
so on a combination of church support and tuition alone--NOT using tax
dollars from individuals who may not share their values and religion.
> Psychology research has been notorious about ignoring religious
> beliefs and religious adherence as an important variable.
Try getting a grant to study NEGATIVE effects of Christianity on mental
health and you'll see why.
It's easy to raise funds to study religion from a supportive
perspective--but if you want to explore the relationship between, for
example, religious indoctrination and intolerance or religious training
and violent crime, for example, the money will dry up rather quickly.
Try an experiment yourself. Go into your classroom and attempt to present
the topic of religious socialization as a form of brainwashing and see how
quickly your institution steps in to stop you. But if you can't express
any negatives about religion, why should you present any positives either?
It's better to leave it out altogether.
> And because of that, I maintain that sometimes studies
> completely miss something very valuable.
Perhaps--but it's also likely that studies will miss even more of value
if they let their research be guided by the religious beliefs of the
researchers.
> I'm not suggesting promoting religion -- I'm just not understanding why
> someone would be opposed to religion that they would never bring it up.
Perhaps because if you DO bring it up, you aren't allowed to express
anything but a positive attitude toward it--and that would be academic
dishonesty for many of us who don't share your beliefs.
> Example: I teach marriage and family, and the other day we
> were talking about the reasons why people having children.
> I suggested that one reason was religion -- some religions
> in particular stress having babies as part of their creed.
> The question I posed then is "Do you think this is true?"
> Do you see a problem with that?
None at all. You neither limited your inquiry to ONE religion
(Christianity), nor did you (according to your statement above) imply
either approval or disapproval of this view--instead you presented it as a
simple statement of fact and allowed your students to examine your
conclusions objectively.
Any of us would use such examples in our classes to good effect. It's the
question of teaching religious dogma and theology, not history, as though
it were established fact (instead of totally a matter of personal belief)
that many of us object to so strongly.
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 "
