> From: "Rick Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: darwinian slip and a thought
In some cases, for the sake of brevity (and because I agree with you or
concede your point), I have snipped...
> > > 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.
I've snipped the rest because you make very good points, especially from the
historical perspective. My point was really I don't think we've ever had total
agreement on the status of blacks, women, or whatever, but that's not the
same thing as consensus. I was thinking of consensus not as general
agreement but total agreement.
> 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.
Do you really think there is an increasing number? Do you have any
research to support this claim? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with it -- I'm
just not certain I see this trend.
> Naive, weren't we?
Some of us still are :)
> > 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.
In yesterday's lecture, we discussed "what role should spanking play in discipline?"
And a few weeks ago, we had a parents' panel, and we had parents very
much divided on the issue. Like most people, I'm biased, but tried really
hard to present spanking as a potentially efffective form of discipline AND
spanking as a link in the chain of abuse.
> > 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.
Well, that person is entitled to believe what they want. By religious
indoctrination you seem to suggest that they've been brainwashed into
believing an incorrect idea.
Is your goal to present the idea that "Hey, not everyone agrees with you?"
or "Hey, you're religion has made you an intolerant fool?"
> 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?"
Ooh..good one. Yesterday my minister asked me "How would you respond
to someone who claims to be a Christian, and wants to smoke marijuana,
and sees nothing wrong with it?"
> 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!
I don't support capital punishment at all, but I try to understand those who
do. One major distinction they make between pro-life (or as the critics who
see the incongruity of their position, "pro-birth") and pro-capital punishment
is that babies are innocent and criminals are not.
I think there is a little more division on this one in the religious community.
> > 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.
No thanks :) I don't envy this teaching assignment.
Maybe that stuff needs to be taught in the home.
> 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.
What drugs are we talking about here?
I go back and forth. I'm all for reducing crime, but I don't think any of us want
to remove a law simply because of so many problems created by people
disobeying it.
Plus, whenever you increase society's access to a substance, don't you
increase the likelihood of abuse and dependence? I'm not an expert in this,
but my health educator friends support this contention with plenty of
research.
Are you saying you agree with these positions, or you simply want to
introduce the questions into the classroom? I'm all for "Should we make
drugs legal or not?" That's great. I'm not cool on "Why we should make
drugs legal"
> > > 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'm not sure that's the best example. I bet you'd get a different reaction
today -- there certainly has been SOME change in the public's acceptance of
glbt people.
> 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.
Agreed. Even some in the religious community agree with you. As soon as
you say "Hey, we need to promote my religion here," you open the door to
the promotion of all sorts of religious groups.
> > 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 think I need to clarify my position (again). I'm not talking about teaching
religious values. I'm talking about being open to discussing them in the
classroom. You seem to be very open to that. I completely understand that
in a public institution it is inappropriate to promote or teach religion and
religious principles. I just think that sometimes this gives the non-religious
or anti-religious person the leeway to completely stomp it out of the
curriculum.
> > 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."
I don't know any Christian who advocates for punishing a homosexual.
So, I'm not sure who you're talking about here.
> 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.
There are other offenses you omitted, such as adultery. I'm not a biblical
scholar, but let me say a few things. For one, homosexuality is not only
condemned in the Old but also the New Testament. Further, these other
"offenses" are not mentioned in the NT. Why? Because clothing or certain
foods are not about establishing moral laws but ceremonial ones (can
anyone with a background in Judaism help here?). The Jews were to uphold
certain rules as a way to purify themselves. Christians are not under the
law, but grace, so there is no justification for upholding ceremonial laws.
> 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.
What's wrong with that? I don't want booze sold in my county, so I vote
against it. But I acknowledge that others my view it differently, and vote
differently. But, to some students and community people, I'm a religious
bigot because I'm telling other people how to live their life. If you want to
drink, fine, just don't cause harm and I'll stay out of your business.
To me, more often those of us in the religious community aren't so much
trying to get others to agree with out moral system (which we are
CONSTANTLY accused of) as much as we are trying to uphold our moral
system and keep the disagreers from telling us how to be. It certainly works
both ways, doesn't it?
> 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.
Understandable, but Jerry Falwell no more speaks for most Christians then
does Jesse Jackson speak for most blacks.
I don't know Falwell personally, nor do I know Pat Robertson, and have never
heard them speak much. But I tend to be suspicious of religious people who
constantly seek to be in the public view. And worse, the media seems to
like to put these guys in the limelight more than the typical religious leaders.
Who got more press -- Falwell for his comments about "Tinky Winky" or
Mother Theresa for her tireless efforts? Who do you think Christians (most
of us) are more likely emulating???
> > 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.
Uh...well..there are two ways to look at that. One is -- all Christians stumble
because we believe that everyone sins and makes mistakes. So, I'd be a liar
if I said I am always following biblical principles.
But if by the word "ignore" you're suggesting that we do this on a consistent
basis I don't agree. Anyone can claim to be in the kingdom, but not
everyone really is. You follow around a group of Christians who have
sincerely dedicated their lives to Christ and a group who claim the label and
do little with it and you're going to see some major differences in their
behavior.
> 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.
I don't think that would send too many shockwaves around here.
I would do it too -- if it was to facilitate people's discussion and
understanding of religion and religious behavior.
But, to me, there is a difference between presenting it as "Is this
brainwashing?" and "This is brainwashing." I would certainly think others
would agree.
> 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.
Sez who?
I did a talk at the honors college last year, and presented on the psychology
of the religious person. And I've repeated it to a few groups since then.
It is a balanced presentation of healthy and unhealthy religious behavior,
based on research. It neither promotes nor condemns religion, but looks at
how it is enacted in our culture, and how that is influenced by a person's or
group's psychological mindset? Why would anyone be torked (sp?) off by
that?
Jim
************************************************************************
Jim Guinee, Ph.D.
Director of Training & Adjunct Professor
President, Arkansas College Counselor Association
University of Central Arkansas Counseling Center
313 Bernard Hall Conway, AR 72035 USA
(501) 450-3138 (office) (501) 450-3248 (fax)
"FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!
It comes bundled with the software."
**************************************************************************
