CNN/AP: Harvard committee recommends returning religion to core curriculum

[DeepModem Mom]

Harvard committee recommends returning religion to curriculum
October 4, 2006

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvard University, founded 370 years ago to train Puritan ministers, should again require all undergraduates to study religion, along with U.S. history and ethics, a faculty committee is recommending....

***

The report calls for Harvard to require students to take a course in "reason and faith," which could include classes on topics such as religion and democracy, Charles Darwin or a current course called "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't."

"Harvard is no longer an institution with a religious mission, but religion is a fact that Harvard's graduates will confront in their lives," the report says, noting 94 percent of incoming students report discussing religion and 71 percent attend services.

"As academics in a university we don't have to confront religion if we're not religious, but in the world, they will have to," Alison Simmons, a philosophy professor who co-chaired the committee, said in a telephone interview Wednesday....

***

In addition to ethics, "reason and faith" and the "United States and the World," students would be required to do coursework in two other areas: science and technology, and "Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change."...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/04/harvard.curriculum.ap/index.html

[Ninja Jordan]

1. This really 'latest breaking news'?

Harvard is a private university and can teach what they want.

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. Harvard students attend Harvard in reliance of a certain promises.

In consideration of the money it takes from students, Harvard owes its students a certain level of education. I think it's a betrayal to inflict religious courses upon students paying for a secular institution.

[Ninja Jordan]

6. Does it apply to current students?

I assumed the policy would kick in with an entering class.

[philosophie_en_rose]

8. The clip said "all undergraduates."

But it would make more sense to have changes only apply to the incoming class.

Still pretty lame, imo, but it's at least fair notice.

[Bucky]

13. Is Harvard actually "secular" and if it owes them a Level of Education...

then I'm sure that a core course in theology or religious studies is certainly a valid topic for study in the core curriculum. I just dont' get how this is a problem--it's religious studies, not religious indoctrination.

[philosophie_en_rose]

34. You can't change graduation requirements for current students.

Moving the goal posts to graduate is wrong.

On the second issue, I have no problem with religious studies as a field, but religious studies have no importance to many of us. It also implies that religious texts are true or valid. And, if the school controls what religions are available to learn, it is a form of indoctrination.

Studies of religious subjects as a cultural or literary topic or even as a religious course should be available as options in existing cultural or other areas. But a specific requirement to learn a religion is altogether different, because the other subjects allow students to opt out and choose other areas of interest.

[One_Life_To_Give]

47. What does "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't."

What does "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't."
Have to do with being required to learn a religion?

This sounds far more like requireing students to learn about the influence of religion on society. Not learning about religion.

[AnnieBW]

78. Why Do Europeans Hate God?

Maybe because they had 2000 years of fighting numerous religious wars over whose brand of Christianity was correct? Because they had the Inquisition, the Witch Craze, the Albegensian Crusade, Reformation and anti-Reformation, and more currently, Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland. Yeah, I'd be sick of the whole charade, too.

[One_Life_To_Give]

90. Which has what to do with my post?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. There's a difference between indoctrination and studying religion as

a phenomenon. You can be an atheist and still study the effects that religion has on society or history.

[philosophie_en_rose]

35. Why should religion be singled out?

If religion is important to history or society, shouldn't it be mentioned in the context of classes in those subject areas? Being forced to pay to attend a specialized class is the same as paying for proselytizing and religious texts. I can get that for free.

Again, I don't oppose religious studies as an option for students to fulfill cultural or other non-science requirements. However, I strongly disagree with subjecting people to religion against their will.

A required religious studies course requirement (with no other options) that does not place religion in those contexts forces students to pay for religious studies. I personally find that repulsive. For instance, I don't need to study the details of the Old Testament (which I find perverse) to understand Christianity in the context of American history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. You might ask that question about any area of study

I spent 11 years as a college professor, and I've heard students argue against foreign language requirements ("Why can't I just take a course in French culture?"), math requirements ("All I need to know is how to balance my checkbook"), science requirements ("I'm not going to medical school or anything"), philosophy requirements ("Who cares about all that stuff?"), and literature requirements ("A bunch of boring books!").

Besides, as has been pointed out repeatedly, this is not indoctrination. If you are so hyper-sensitive about religion that the thought of learning the facts about Buddhism or Islam or the psychology of religion or--and I've seen this listed in course catalogues--the secularization of modern society is "repulsive" to you, I'd have to wonder what kind of bad experiences you've had in the past to make you so hostile. Again, it's not indoctrination, but objective study.

I believe that everyone should learn about the major political and economic movements of recent history, including Marxism and Fascism. Does that mean that I want students to become Marxists or Fascists? No, but they should know about these movements that had such a profound effect on world history. Some students think they shouldn't have to read The Communist Manifesto in their poli sci classes, because they think that "Communism is bad."

Whether it's good or bad isn't the point. It's a phenomenon that has shaped the world we live in.

[philosophie_en_rose]

43. Your personal attacks are absurd, and also prove the issue.

First, my background is as relevant to this issue as yours. That is to say, not at all. Though I am sorry that your alleged students found you and your alleged university irrelevant.

Second, I did not object to religious information provided in a sensitive and neutral manner within the context of other subjects; as courses available to students under other umbrella areas such as history or political science; or as part of a voluntary religious studies major. But simply that religion does not uniquely require a mandatory area of study. Religious courses as options within a literature, history, or political science requirement offer students the choice to study specialized topics in depth. Whatever relevant parts of religious philosophy could obviously be discussed as background in other areas (politics, history, etc.) or in more general courses.

But, if you contend that religion should be studied for itself, you beg the question of why religion is uniquely and separately valid to all students. It's not. Your students complaints' are distinguished by the fact that philosophy, languages, and other areas teach skills unique to the umbrella category. Philosophy teaches critical thinking, etc. What skill, what unique outcome arises from an independent religious requirement? Religious events and beliefs are part of history (among a variety of other and equally valid topics) and certain cultures to be studied in those lights, but religious studies itself is indoctrination when taken out of a broader context and then forcibly inflicted upon students.

To use your analogy, it would be like taking Marxism out of the history or political science departments to require a "Marxism" requirement. Regardless of one's feelings about Marxism or its importance in history, a specific requirement to the exclusion of other beliefs would elevate Marxism. And even if one could take "I hate Marxism 102" along with "Marxism recipes" and "Marxist farming" and "Marxim rocks!," it is unnecessary to create a specific academic requirement to study any particular aspect of Marxism. The scope of information necessary to understand marxism in the context of historical events does not require particularity to that degree. What is it about religion that "everyone should know?"

Think of it this way. Sex permeates history. People have always had sex. And, sex acts are a large part of history and culture. So seminars about sex as an option? Sure. Sex Study Major? Yay! But a uniform sex requirement in its own right? Not for a general degree. Porn 101? Abstinence 202? Fine options I guess, but hardly something everyone should have to do to graduate.

To a large degree, I think the issue is the scope of religious information. For instance, English is constantly evolving, and we can directly trace our language back through the ages. Every word that comes out of your mouth can likely be traced to more ancient roots - which can be traced back and back ad nauseum. But that does not necessitate a unique and specific category of ancient-ancient root studies. Learning latin and greek roots is, in my experience, very helpful. However, it is neither possible nor necessary to require a specific course about ancient philology to have a genuine or strong understanding of modern languages.

The problem with religion as the primary focus is that it is inherently propaganda. Unlike some, I respect students' rights to have faith or to have no faith at all. Heartfelt religious beliefs and rigorous academic criticism about religion are incompatible. Students should be free to explore religion on their own terms. The laziness of your students should not deprive everyone of that the ability to make that choice for their own reasons. Again, my position does not deprive anyone of academic or personal opportunities.

Not to mention - who decides what religious information to provide? You? Because even major religions vary a great deal on basic information within each religion, let alone specific denominations. The fact that you think that something traumatic must happen or that one must be "hypersensitive" to expect a level of sophistication and respect again brings up the question of whether religious instruction can truly be divorced from the professor's subjective religious expectations.

In addition, religion is extremely personal. Another reason religious education is unnecessary is that there is an existing and better opportunity to learn about religion.

Not that it matters, but I have a very diverse and largely pleasant personal religious background. I have been to services throughout the globe. But I am not a Christian or a Buddhist or Amish or a Scientologist. My beliefs are not threatened by the mere presence of contrary ideas, but 1) there is no unique interest served by a religious requirement, 2) religious information out of context is propaganda, 3) religion is a private matter, and 4) religion is one part of history and culture, but does not define it.

Just to clarify - I think the Old Testament is vile; not every religious topic. Either way, it does not mean that the OT should never be addressed, but it is an indication that sensitive topics ought to be handled with delicacy. And certain topics

[AliceWonderland]

71. This is not what Religious Studies is about

Speaking as a Humanities/Religious Studies graduate student, this is not what RS is about. It encompasses philosophy, history, literature, critical theory, feminism, ethics, semiotics, and many other elements. I just finished a class where we picked apart John Dominic Crossan's discussion of parable as metaphor... and we ended up arguing about Derrida, whom Crossan draws on extensively in his book.

We can argue which subjects should be required for, say, a liberal arts degree, but RS is a perfectly legitimate candidate.

Personally, I favour a model of, "complete 3 out of the 5 required subject areas below." But there's nothing wrong with a required core curriculum. I had to study economics, and personally/ethically, I feel that economics, as we study it, does a great deal of harm in the world. Now, I wish I had taken the chip off my shoulder and paid more attention -- it's useful to *know* about things.

[Nevernose]

37. Relgious instruction is VITAL to study ANY literature.

Okay, that was hyberbolic. More specifically, VIRTUALLY any great literature written in English (which was also hyperbolic -- it's late :)).

Everything really good and really famous (the "canon") written until the 20th century has references to Greek and Roman mythology in it, and everything really good and and really famous written after the 12th century has Christian mythology in it. Most of it needs a good understanding of religion(s) to understand it, even the stuff written yesterday.

Harvard, once again, is an example for all schools of higher learning to follow. It's not a vocational school: it's a place of higher learning, where the undergraduate courses in literature are as important as the stuff that merely "gets you a job."

I do have a problem with replacing a mythology course, or variations thereof, with a course in Darwin. One is science, the other is faith/fiction. If they want to reurn it to being a religious school, fine, but do it honestly.

For the record, most doctoral of divinity students from the Unitarian faith attend Harvard; until recently, it was literally the only place for Unitarians.

[philosophie_en_rose]

40. .

Not everything 'good' (according to whom btw? religious people) has roots in Christian mythology. That's really ethnocentric. And, as I explained, I don't see a problem of studying religion as background in other subjects or providing an option in other areas. Students should be thorough, but I do not need to study - for instance - ancient root languages to learn to speak English.

[Nevernose]

42. No, but most of it does

If you want to debate the Canon, then thousands of books have been written on that subject have been written over the years. And while "it" does include, now, much that wasn't included before (women's voices, non-Christian voices, non-white voices), most of what is considered to be classical literature contains references to mythology, and usually Western.

Of course not everything good has its roots in Christian mythology, but most stuff written in the Western language that most students of Harvard (Americans), and citizens of this civilization, speak, comes from that language.

It's a pragmatic issue for me. I'd include history classes as well, and outlaw degrees in things like "business."

A college degree should be a college degree, and you should either have one or not. That to me means literature, languages, history, math, and science. And maybe humanities. Many vocational degrees are simply bullshit designed to make the parents of stupid children feel better. :evilgrin: If everyone can get one, then what's the point?

[damntexdem]

50. Comparative religion and the like is hardly "inflicting religion"; ...

but I question that the need is so great as to require a course in the core curriculum -- there is little enough room in most core curricula for the subjects to which students need to be exposed.

[Blaq Dem]

2. Remember when prayer was in school?

Blacks were lynched. When black school children tried to go to an integrated school, the white kids called them names and spat on them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Most of the country never had school prayer

It was largely confined to the South, where the religious spectrum runs all the way from Methodist to Baptist, and in the Northeast, where school officials were fearful of the new Catholic and Jewish immigrants in the early 1900s and wanted to turn them into Protestants.

It was largely unknown in the Midwest and West.

[Bridget Burke]

56. I went to school in Texas in the 50's & 60's.

There was NO regular prayer. Perhaps a bit at certain events--I seem to remember thinking that they were saying the Our Father wrong.

But every morning was just the Plegallegence & My Country Tis of Thee.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. And the fundies try to convince young parents

(born after 1962) that before the Supreme Court decision, all American public schools were steeped in evangelical Protestantism, with prayers and Bible reading in home room, teachers leading grace in the lunch room, and creationism taught in biology class.

Unless they ask their own parents, these young parents will have no way of knowing that the picture their leaders are painting is false.

[bluestateguy]

3. When the hell will they pick a new president?

How long is it going to take?

[aquart]

4. "Why Americans love God and Europeans don't" is a course at Harvard?

Not Bob Jones University?

[Anakin Skywalker]

7. There Should Be an Economics Course Named: "Why Europeans Have Higher.....

Standards of Living and Americans Don't"!

[patrick t. cakes]

39. there

should be a gyn course titled
"why americans are fat slobs"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Professors often give their courses snappy titles

That's probably a crowd-drawing title for a course that would be called "Religiosity and Secularism in the Western World" or something similar in a drier version of the course catalogue.

[mwooldri]

9. There's nothing inherently wrong with R.E. in the curriculum.

As long as Religious Education (RE) is done correctly. Classes in RE were mandatory at school for me, and I went to school in the liberal bastion of the United Kingdom, where we had all kinds of religion shoved down our throats (Christianity of course, Islam, Sikhism, Hindu, Buddhism, Atheism, Naturalism, Pagan....). My sister had it worse; she was required to sit a GCSE in RE. When the "official church" is the Church of England, we could have been made to do Christianity only with an Anglican slant.

There's nothing wrong with the main concept of prayer in schools either. We were passed the letters to take home and have our parents sign if we wanted to opt out of school assembly (with the religious aspects in it). To my knowledge only two people in my year opted out, and they went to another room, received a "condensed" version of the assembly and caught up on their homework - though the guy I remember who opted out happened to pretty much opt out of school period; I think his dad encouraged him to work on the farm more than do schoolwork. I must admit I grew up in a very "white" environment; my form group was the most diverse with two non-whites in the class.

In essence we can have religion in our schools as long as it is not one single religion being forced down everyone's throats, and if there is any kind of religious assembly that people are given the option of opting out of that part of school.

Mark.

[Blaq Dem]

10. Prayer can be done before the childs walks out the door

It doesn't have to happen in school. What if a child comes from a home where prayers are done totally different. What then? Religion is a personal matter.

On the otherhand, I agree, kids can learn about different religions as long as they're not forced by the government to practice one of them.

Schools really should teach ETHICS.

[philosophie_en_rose]

11. Yeah, but our queen does not head the "Church of America."

Separation of church and state guarantees (in theory) freedom from religion.

[iverglas]

63. yeah, and what a lot of you nice yanks don't seem to get

is that in the rest of the world we have effective anti-discrimination legislation. THAT is why religious practices in the schools are not allowed in Canada, for instance (and also why personal religious practices are accommodated in the schools). Individuals and minority groups may not be subjected to adverse conditions because of their religion, and that is what religious practices in the schools do to anyone who doesn't share the religion. We gots rights, and we are very much not afraid to pull them out and start throwing them around if somebody annoys us.

The UK will not likely be having religious practices in schools much longer, if many are left now. The culture has become too diverse and the culture of rights too well entrenched. Surely most people in the US are aware that your culture, despite all the fancy church-and-state stuff, looks to us like a theocracy most of the time, when compared to the complete irrelevance of religion in our own political lives.

Religion is an aspect of culture, whether any of us non-religious people like it or not. It's a fact. England had a coherent and strong national identity for centuries that was tightly interwoven with the Church of England, for rather obvious historical reasons -- that being the history of the US too, of course. That is simply how things were in days gone by. Conflicts arise, and get dealt with in different cultures in different ways at different times. You folks, for instance went off in a huff over religion, a foolishness if I've ever heard of one, and then threw a revolution; we up north here had some constitutional conferences and came up with a constitution that guaranteed religious freedom -- and language rights. You had a civil war; we have many federal-provincial conferences. It's not like you came out as the jewel in the crown of freedom and rights, and we came out in a dungeon somewhere. Really.

Few USAmericans really have any notion of what the church-state relationship is in the UK, or what the nature and function of a constitutional monarchy are, and many are wont to have hysterics about things in other cultures that are of purely symbolic value in this century. Yup, the Queen is the head of state of Canada. If she dared to open her mouth on a matter of Canadian politics, let alone, her god forbid, lift a finger, she'd be out on her ear. But the symbolism, the legitimacy that flows from that arrangement -- which gets its legitimacy from us, in our constitution -- is the little tiny circular spring in the clockworks that says to elected politicians that there are rules that they have to follow, just in case they forget.

And if you think we'd trade that for George W. Bush ...

[AliceWonderland]

72. Actually, Newfoundland had denominational schools until

1997, I believe. I went to a convent school because of it -- the RC schoolboard. That has since changed, but it was surely there. I have my theories why that would be more disastrous (for all of us in the world) in the American context... but really, Newfoundland is an extremely parochial society, and the point may be that even Newfoundland made some radical, secularizing changes to its system of education.

One more quick point -- I don't think the Queen would be "out on her ear" if she opened her mouth on Canadian politics, but it would be a huge controversy, at least in Canadian terms. Lots of debate on the CBC, that sort of thing. But I agree with the point of the legitimacy that flows from the arrangement... psychological purposes are served, too.

[bling bling]

12. That's good.

Religion is a huge part of our society and societies around the world. That's a fact. It's also a fact that religion has played a huge role for nearly all human beings and all societies throughout the development of civilization. So I don't see any downside in educating students about it so that they are well informed on the topic.

I think teaching World Religions would be good too, as religion is closely tied to many cultures around the world. I think it's important that we try to learn about and understand each other as much as possible (which includes understanding each others cultures and religions).

The religion classes I took in college were some of the most interesting and thought provoking classes I ever had. I am very glad I took them and would not feel at all upset had they been mandatory.

I say all this under the assumption that the teachers will not be influencing the students to think a certain way about religion, nor will they focus on the negative aspects of a religion they disagree with, etc.

[Bucky]

15. By the nature of their vocation, most theology teachers are inclusive

I was required by my college to take 9 hours of theology and this was at a super conservative Catholic university. Just about all the profs in the theology department were confirmed conservative Aquinists--except for the one Presbyterian and one Jewish professors who taught relevent upper level courses. And yet every teacher I had there gave me a fair well-rounded understanding of what we studied, from principals of divinity to Bible studies. I remain philosophically very not Catholic, but the exposure to that system of thought gave me lots of important insights and helped round me out as a moral creature.

[KitSileya]

85. In Norway, which has a state church,

all non-vocational students have to take a course in religion and ethics in their senior year in high school. There they learn about different denominations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, either Hinduism or Buddhism, and paganism. That accounts for 4/6th of the curriculum, the other 2/6th being devoted to philosophy and ethics.

I teach this course, and when pupils ask me why they have to learn these things, I compare it with language learning. You have not learnt any language unless you've learned at least two different languages, because without knowledge of other languages you cannot know about languages - meta-language escapes you. The same with ethics and culture - if you do not know what they believe in other countries, how can you make informed decisions about faith, philosophy and ethics? If you do not know that things can be done differently, you are like someone in a sensory deprivation chamber - a fish who's spent their entire life in water and does not realize there's some places without water, where they breathe air. In addition, how are you to understand other parts of the world if you do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of the underpinnings of their culture? How can you understand your own culture if you do not know it was built on Christianity - that the Lutheran-evangelical church was part and parcel of the attempt to subjugate Norway into a vassal state by the Danes, for example? How can you understand American culture if you are not familiar with the two 'prongs' of primary European settlement - the capitalists of Jamestown and the puritans of Plymouth Rock?

Harvard should be allowed to teach what they want, but I think they should not change the graduating requirements for current classes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Many secular institutions have religious studies departments, including

Yale, the University of Minnesota, and Oregon State.

The Yale Department of Religious Studies is totally separate from the Yale Divinity School, which trains clergy and other church workers for Protestant churches. One of the faculty members when I was there was an Orthodox Jew who taught classes in Buddhism. The purpose was not to turn us into Buddhists but to give a neutral explanation of the basic teachings of Buddhism and how it has developed in the countries where it is practiced.

As a graduate student in Japanese language and literature, I found it extremely useful to learn about Buddhism. You can't understand Japanese literature or history or even contemporary culture without a background in Buddhism.

Similarly, the fact that I'm well-versed in church history and theology gave my recent trip to England a certain depth that it might not have had otherwise.

[bling bling]

20. That's an interesting graduate degree.

I wish I knew more about that subject because I find it interesting.

I used to have a lot more time on my hands and I used to scan the newspapers of about 15 or so different countries around the world every day (I read the english language versions). The Japanese newspaper was my favorite. It was kind of like LBN -- after each article you could go to a discussion room about the article. Almost everyone that participated was an english language teacher in Japan who were from another country. Some of them knew only basic Japanese, apparently there are some schools who hire english speaking people to literally just speak english to the students without even having to do any translations.

Anyway, the discussions were fascinating to me. Of course, most of the discussions were from the perspectives of people from Europe and Australia but they were still enlightening and thought-provoking. Some people discussed how they felt that many of the older Japanese people they met were very prejudice against non-Japanese. Women discussed sexual incidents that occurred by opportunists on the super fast subway as people were coming and going. They would talk about the nightly bath, which I gathered was a more or less universal activity there as a way to keep warm in the evening because their apartments were cold and without heat. They discussed politics a lot. And the topic of the U.S. military base there came up all the time because it was a topic in the news a lot for various reasons.

I don't think I've conveyed it well but it was truly like being transported to another world in some ways to hear them talk about it. I spent almost as much time there as I do on DU now! Unfortunately, the board became infiltrated by some pesky, immature people. The regulars soon left after that and the interesting and intelligent discussions turned into juvenile flame wars so I stopped visiting it awhile ago.

The intrigue about Japan that was aroused in me never went away, though. I might even start reading the news there again, now that I've been reminded about it (that is if I can break myself away from here and in order to share the time with something else!!)

[IndianaGreen]

19. Those Puritans burned witches at the stake

and did other horrible things in the name of religion. Way to go Harvard, back to the Dark Ages!

[davidinalameda]

21. and horrible things are still done in the name of religion

good things have been done in the name of religions as well and are still happening

why only focus on the bad?

[daleo]

24. Can you name a few good things done by organized religion?

Charities come to mind, but proper government programs do a much better job when they are well run (e.g. unemployment insurance is superior to the church poor box).

Organized religion can provide some solace during grieving, but not everyone derives comfort from preachers. I don't mind a little God talk at a funeral, but a religious sermon is more likely to leave me feeling alienated than anything else.

Each to his own, I guess, but organized religion has done a ton of evil through the ages. It is still going on.

[davidinalameda]

26. okay

retirement homes
hospitals
foodbanks
schools
assistance to the poor
lecture series

anti-slavery movement
modern civil rights movement

the anti-war movement has strong religious roots; COs during wartime

you want more?

[daleo]

28. All of those have been done by the civil authorities

And better in my opinion.

Organized religion was supportive of slavery for centuries (millenia?), so I don't think it can take much credit for that.

Some movements (anti-war) have drawn strength from the better sort of religious organization, but organized religion has been supportive of war more often than not.

[davidinalameda]

31. you're certainly entitled to your opinion

show me a state run retirement home that treats it's patients better than inmates; government run hospitals are, pardon the image, bleeding while charitable hospitals provide some of the best care in the country

private schools are, for the most part, so much better than their public counter-parts, at least the one that is affiliated with my church-they offer scholarships to low income kids to make sure that the neighborhood kids aren't priced out


actually, slavery was society based and religion, for better or for worse, reflectd society

you had religious organizations in this country and I believe in England stand up to the status quo regarding slavery and civil rights, long before any other groups

you need to be careful of generalizing and lumping all people of faith and faith-based organizations together

[daleo]

33. I was speaking of the whole world, not just the U.S.

I am in Canada, and our provincially run hospitals and retirement homes are pretty good. Our public schools are generally good too, some are very good. Same with our public universities. The same would probably be true in Europe.

I wasn't saying people of faith aren't good people. It seems to me that they are often good in spite of the teachings and dogmas of organized religion, though. Most usually ignore the worst stuff (e.g. they don't actually stone gays, as their books usually command).

[davidinalameda]

54. I can't answer for Canada

just the US

[iverglas]

61. how's the gummint up here doing on the environment?

Check out how the United Church is doing.

http://www.united-church.ca/waterfocus/
http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/action/campaign.asp
"Fall 2006 – Spring 2007 Campaign Water:
Life before Profit! (Part II)"


In the process of shaming my mother into stopping buying any more of the obscenity that is bottled water, I got to point out that our old church didn't approve. (I left that church and religion altogether nigh on 40 years ago, she is inactive but a believer.) That fact held some persuasive value.

How 'bout same-sex marriages? The UCC and a few others were doing them before the gummint was. And they and a few others were part and parcel of the whole challenge to the gummint's refusal to allow them.

Of course the UCC was also ordaining women before the gummint got around to anti-discrimination legislation a few decades ago, and ordaining gay men and lesbians before the gummint got around to extending Canada Pension Plan benefits to same-sex surviving spouses/partners and even sexual orientation anti-discrimination protection.

Woman down the street from me belongs to the Witness program at a UC in town. They monitor political demonstrations, and record and testify to any police excesses.

Yeah, she could do that without belonging to a church. I don't belong to a church and I'm not doing it. Wrong to exploit moral authority you shouldn't have? I do generally think so, in the case of churches. But I'm gentle with my disapproval when they use it for good.

And I think a lot of people in the GLBT community in particular would be quite firm in their approval of what the churches did in Canada on their behalf that nobody else could really do. I can't marry people, and I don't actually think churches should be permitted to marry people -- but hey, if you've got it, exploit it for good purposes; until life is perfect, having imperfect people doing good things isn't all that bad.

[bling bling]

27. Well,

I'm don't mean to argue with you about your viewpoint on organized religion because I can easily see your side. If I were on a debate team I could easily argue why organized religion would be something we'd be better off without. I could also easily be the devil's advocate on that point. The topic of organized religion is one in which I can easily see many sides, for some reason.

However, I can name a few good things done by organized religion, at least on a local level. My husbands grandparents live in a small town that is tightly knit together by their religion. For example, whenever there is a funeral, the whole town participates. The service is at the church, the women in the church bring all kinds of food for dinner and dessert, the family is surrounded by people they know and care about. Sure, most of the good works done by the church is of charity. They have spaghetti suppers and what not to raise money for children's books, they have bake sales to raise money for the shelter or what have you. But above the charity, it brings people together and gives them a sense of community in a way that proper government programs cannot. And there's something to be said for that in and of itself.

[daleo]

29. Religion can create a sense of community

Although it is often through a sense of excluding others.

Extended kinship networks, social clubs, etc. can also provide a sense of community.

I will admit the last few years of the return of religious wars, superstition, and religious bigotry have soured me on organized religion. But I grant there is probably some good there - certainly many good people are drawn to religion, no matter how negative the dogma may be. Sometimes it seems like they do good in spite of their faith, rather than because of it.

[cali]

86. Sure,

Odd you even ask that question when we're discussing Harvard, which was originally an institution set up by organized religion, as were many of the great universities and colleges. It's silly to try and parse whether religion has engendered more evil than good, in part because it's likely that the evil that has flowed from organized religion, along with the good, would have transpired anyway, merely in different guises, and backed by different institutions. It's about human nature. It's humans that create institutions, and use and misuse them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Actually, IG, no witches were ever burned in North America

The New England Puritans executed "witches" by hanging.

And if you've read the previous posts on this thread, you'll know that the course is not meant to be religious indoctrination but neutral and objective study of religion as a phenomenon.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Still, those Puritans were quite a despicable lot

Witchcraft, Religious Fanaticism and Schizophrenia -- Salem Revisited

By Thurman Sawyer and George Bundren

In the summer of 1692, Giles Corey was pressed to death because he refused to answer an indictment. Furthermore, some nineteen more souls perished because of the refusal to admit to alleged crimes they committed. Even two dogs were sentenced to death in the middle of the hysteria that broke out in Salem, Massachusetts. The crime they refused to admit to participating in, (or in the case of Corey not answering to) was the crime of witchcraft.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2000_fall/salem_witch.html

[enigma000]

48. Not all Puritans were responsible for the Salem Witch Trials

That was a horrible event that led to the deaths of 20 innocent people. Still, that was just one town in New England. Besides, there are jurisdictions today where 20 innocent people or more are executed every week.

[One_Life_To_Give]

51. But they became the Congregationalists

One of the most liberal of the protestant denominations.

[Critters2]

69. Congregationalists became the United Church of Christ

One of the most liberal Protestant denominations.

Critters,
UCC but decidedly NOT Congregationalist

[One_Life_To_Give]

89. Tue but our history still comes thru

The Calvanist era.

[iverglas]

46. if I can say so with no intent to offend anyone

I think you just made your point. ;)

I'm not sure that I favour compulsory courses in much of anything at a university level -- I'm used to Canadian universities, which are much more "adult" in their approach to students -- but I do think that religion(s)-as-fact should be taught, at least at some point in one's academic career, on the same basis as anything else as fact, as you have been saying.

And I'm with you on the English history benefits -- in fact we attended several church services there for the cultural/historical aspects of the experience (including that my gr-grfather had played the organ at Salisbury Cathedral). It just pissed me off no end that I couldn't explore Westminster Abbey, which I was at for the history, without having the Lord's Prayer blared at me over a loudspeaker and being instructed to stand still and shut up while it went on. I walked out.

Knowledge is never really a bad thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

55. Well, W. Abbey IS still a functioning church, not an art museum

:shrug:

They still have services every Sunday and evensong every weekday at 5:30.

[iverglas]

59. yes, but that was kinda my point

It is a church holding my history (the public's history) hostage.

I *chose* to go to evensong at Salisbury -- for my own reasons,the music, architecture and family connection, which were not incompatible with a church service; I had other opportunities to explore the cathedral without religion bothering me or vice versa. And Sunday service in Wellingborough for the same reasons (sadly, the incense smoked me right out halfway through, true but still a good excuse); and Sunday service in Bath for the heck of it. The fact is that religion *is* an integral part of a culture, just as the MP jokes the comic who did the walking tour of Bath told the night before are (always read the papers when you travel; you'll get the jokes that none of the other tourists do), and religion is particularly integrated in the case of English history/culture. I chose to go on his walking tour so I didn't talk when he was talking, and ditto for the church services.

But I went to Westminster for the history, not the religion. I wouldn't have wandered in to an actual service and got pissed about the interference: you're right, it is a functioning church, and that is a factual part of the church/history integration.

But the lord's prayer over a loudspeaker every hour on the hour, and stand still and shut up? Gimme a break, really. We were told it was to "remind" us that this was a church. And that, to me, really is just holding history hostage.

And the fact is that Westminster IS a museum, as well as being a church. Not an "art museum", an historical museum. It holds a warehouseful, a millennium's worth, of unique artefacts that are vital to any study / appreciation of English history and culture. And graves of poets and monarchs are graves, not relics.

And a church that is in possession of that much history of such importance simply doesn't, in my rather well-reasoned opinion, get to place its arbitrary conditions on the public having access to it. I won't interfere in their religious practices, they don't interfere in my cultural/historical experience. Seems fair to me.

[daleo]

23. Maybe they can include that in the curriculum

Along with:
- child abuse by priests and clergy of all sorts
- oppression of women by most world religions
- oppression of homosexuals by most world religions
- oppression of free-thinkers by most world religions
- suppression of science by most world religions
- support of slavery by most world religions
- religious wars through the ages
- and so on.

[bling bling]

25. One class I took addressed all of those things.

I took a history class that examined religion throughout history and examined all those things.

For example, it included topics of the oppression of women. We examined the way women were treated by the Greeks, by the Romans, and how the introduction of Christianity impacted women specifically. We analyzed articles written by Christians such as St. Augustine and many others in terms of their general regard for the woman's role. We examined how the Catholic church regarded women, etc.

It was positively one of the most enlightening classes I ever took. I personally think that particular class should also be mandatory for everyone. But that is really more of a history class than a religion class.

[daleo]

30. That seems reasonable to me

I think there is scope for religious topics within philosophy courses too. Some reading of Plato is a good idea for anyone, in my opinion. If a religion course stuck to things like that, it would be ok. But I still don't think it should be mandatory.

[bling bling]

41. Well, Bush DID say that his favorite philosopher is Jesus.

But seriously, on a personal level I have a difficult time understanding what exactly the distinguishing factors are between religion and philosophy. If I were forced to choose a religion to adhere to I would choose Taoism. But technically it's not a religion, it's a philosophy. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind if it were a religion with churches because I think I would very much enjoy learning from and being around other people who share my regard for Taoism. Just as I enjoy coming here to learn from and discuss things with people who share my political perspectives.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. They do examine these things

Why do the embittered anti-religionists insist on acting as if Harvard wants to turn its students into Southern Baptists? Or old-style Puritans?

Whatever your opinion of religion is, the Harvard proposal is NOT indoctrination. Read what they're actually proposing before you go off on your personal prejudices.

[Bucky]

44. "Read what they're actually proposing before you go off..."

Well, obviously you've been drinking the tinfoil flavored Kool Aid. Don't you know that everything THEIR tribe believes in is bad and must be opposed by OUR tribe? If you compromise on any of this, you're practically Neville Chamberlain. :P

[daleo]

65. The article doesn't say they will study any of those things

"The report calls for Harvard to require students to take a course in "reason and faith," which could include classes on topics such as religion and democracy, Charles Darwin or a current course called "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't.""

That's all I read in the article.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. Well, it's a "for instance" kind of list, not an exhaustive list

And as I indicated in another post, "Why Americans Love God..." could be the type of sarcastic title that professors sometimes give to courses. My guess is that it's more accurately described as "Religiosity and secularism in Western countries."

[daleo]

67. I guess we would have to see the curriculum

There is a lot of ground they could cover, which could include some or all of the items in my list. But it is a big topic, and they could skip a lot of the controversial parts. Done right, the course could be ok. Done wrong, it could be bad (e.g. indoctrination). Harvard would probably do it right, but a lot of universities might not. And Harvard tends to be the trend-setter for U.S. (and world) universities.

My university courses never had amusing titles like that. Just boring titles like "intermediate calculus" or "government and politics".

[AliceWonderland]

73. Good grief, you really think the title of the course has no irony?

Yikes. It's clearly a course which compares the role of religion in the United States vs. Europe. It sounds fascinating to me -- would probably encompass comparative politics, history, and sociology, for a start. Sign me up.

I'm actually astonished at some of the posts in this thread. I had no idea it was this difficult to distinguish between religion as a belief and Religious Studies as a discpline. I think someone had a good analogy above -- it would be like saying we can't teach WWII history because it would be indoctrinating students into fascism.

[daleo]

74. I didn't say that

I said ironic course titles weren't used at the time and place I went to university. You read too much into it.

Most people aren't objecting to the course. They are objecting to the idea that the course would be mandatory.

[cali]

45. Oh, please

it doesn't take much to recognize that studying religion and foisting doctrine on students are two very different things.

[Critters2]

68. Harvard is affiliated with the UUA

and the direct descendants of the Puritans, the United Church of Christ, is one of the most liberal churches around now.

People and groups grow and change.

Oh, and Puritans in North America never burned witches at the stake. Those accused of witchcraft (all of whom denied the charge) were hanged or crushed to death. Not a huge difference, but still.

It was the enlightened Europeans who burned witches at the stake--and lots of 'em!

[heliarc]

82. The Ivy League

Schools apart from Yale, have some of the most underdeveloped Arts programs in the world, and the reason for it is their Fire and Brimstone style Puritan background. Departments based on analysis of "Drama" rather than real theatrical production... Studio Arts programs that require an overwhelmingly saturated accomplishment in Art History rather than technique. These schools reek of the old time Religion, and it ain't the most progressive, that's for damn sure. Besides the point maybe, but I've never felt as much racism directed at me as I did by the security on the Harvard campus and in general in Cambridge.

[Critters2]

87. The direct descendants of the Puritans are the United Church of Christ

probably the least "fire and brimstone" denomination in Christianity. And that racism is almost certainly the result of wealth, not religion.

[heliarc]

92. Their dedication to the arts leaves much to be desired.

And Racism can be a byproduct of both wealth and religion.

[Peace Patriot]

49. Requiring college students to take a religion class is tyranny.

Harvard is coming a bit late to this fascist mind-set, isn't it?

Must be some big rightwing donor.

[Critters2]

70. Harvard is not a public university

If it wants to require daily chapel services, it would be within its rights. Those who don't like it are perfectly free to study elsewhere.

[daleo]

75. But Harvard is very influential

It is the elite school in North America, so it is a trend setter. Also, it may not be public, but it gets a lot of public money (research, etc), so the public has a legitimate interest in what it does.

[heliarc]

83. Religion departments aren't necessarily Divinity Schools

Religion classes can be taught by atheists too... (I prefer when they are... they are more informative that way)... what would be tyranny is the requirement of a "DIVINITY" class... THAT would be fascist. And you may be right... it seems like these classes have a really Eurocentric bent... A survey class would be better. Probably would do a lot of Northeastern Whitebread Prep School Christians a lot of good to learn about other religions, but

[yurbud]

52. unless they are requiring belief in specific religion, it's a good idea

I got involved with evangelicals for years because no one else was talking about their issues beyond dismissive catch phrases, and it took several years to see the inherent problems on my own.

Any time you are ignorant on a top, you are more vulnerable to spin and exploitation.

[Chovexani]

62. Bingo.

Education is key to fighting these bastards.

[yurbud]

77. is that a pic of the founder of your religion?

[Chovexani]

79. Hee, nope

But Homey D. Clown is truly a god among men. :D

[yurbud]

80. damn, I'm getting the alzheimers--I forgot that was Homey

the sullen, insulting clown.

[yurbud]

53. people need to learn more ways to deal with it beyond being dismissive

or the patronizing, "it's all good" crap.

I bring this up with my students when teaching critical thinking and tell them they are free to hold supernatural beliefs, but they can't use those to argue with people who don't share those beliefs. They need to come up with a natural justification for their position as well.

We need to deal with this stuff matter of factly, not treating it like herpes, but not treating it like a baby's favorite blanky either.

[brentspeak]

58. This is an issue that involves 0.00001% of the U.S. population

If even that much (ie. incoming Harvard freshmen).

[heliarc]

84. Hehe

And not even Harvard Professors care about incoming Harvard Freshmen... They've got to wait till Graduate school till anyone pays attention to them.

[Chovexani]

60. I think comparative religions should be taught

In a "Such-and-such faith believes X" sort of way, rather than, "X is true". I went to private school until age 14, and we took field trips to different houses of worship and learned about how people's beliefs shape their worldviews. I'm eternally grateful for it.

Religion is a powerful force in the world. If nothing else, people need to know what we're up against in terms of what fundies are basing their crazy ass shenanigans on.

[WindRavenX]

88. yup

It's part of a liberal arts education.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. Not necessarily a bad thing

We are talking about college here, not high school. The way religion courses are taught in most accredited universities is as a survey or history course. Indoctrination probably isn't a part of it.

My wife and I attended a Presbyterian College where we had to take Old Testament and New Testament survey classes. These courses were very well taught and not an ounce of indoctrination was involved. They were really history lessons. We also both took a World Religions course.

She and I both credit these courses for our eventual movement to the Unitarian Universalist church. Many people who take good courses in religion wind up being more universalist in their beliefs.

Just a thought.

[ozone_man]

76. For the most religious nation in the developed world

I guess it's only fitting. As long as they give Darwin equal footing. But they should really include Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to offer the modern day rational perspective on religion and faith.

The current course "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't" sounds very interesting though. Maybe this is the one that should be manditory.

[heliarc]

81. Puritans were like the Taliban...

Harvard has such a disregard for the arts and for cultural advancement that it's really laughable that they would consider themselves worthy to make such recommendations. Please... They Lump their film department in with their Studio arts Department... and they still call their Theater program the "Dramatic Arts" department. That is so old fashioned it reeks. I wonder if they even produce any art as a part of the curriculum.

[Nikia]

91. If religious studies is taught like it was at my college

It is not indoctorination.
It was a relatively small department with the only professor practicing the religion which he or she taught was the Buddism professor. I had a few Christian friends who took Christianity themed courses in that department who even complained that the atheist professor teaching it was trying to discredit Christianity. I know a number of students that took courses in the department who were not religious or at least not of the particuliar religion that they were studying who did so to better understand history, religion, philosophy, or other subjects.
As far as exploring contraversial subjects, many liberal arts colleges embrace studying contraversial subjects. At the liberal arts college that I graduated from, the college catalog and college president repeatedly told us that part of their mission was to teach us how to think critically, to challenge our beliefs.
Students choose to attend a particuliar college. Smart students will be aware of the graduation requirements and will not choose colleges where they disagree with the curriculm. I did that to some extent. I did not attend a college with lots of required courses because I wanted academic freedom. If a student really does not want to take a religious studies course, the student can attend another college without this requirement. By the way, there are already many colleges that do require religious studies classes so this isn't a revial of anything in a larger sense.