How Christian Were the Founders? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1)
QuoteLAST MONTH, A WEEK before the Senate seat of the liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy fell into Republican hands, his legacy suffered another blow that was perhaps just as damaging, if less noticed. It happened during what has become an annual spectacle in the culture wars.
Over two days, more than a hundred people — Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors; people outfitted in everything from business suits to military fatigues to turbans to baseball caps — streamed through the halls of the William B. Travis Building in Austin, Tex., waiting for a chance to stand before the semicircle of 15 high-backed chairs whose occupants made up the Texas State Board of Education. Each petitioner had three minutes to say his or her piece.
"Please keep César Chávez" was the message of an elderly Hispanic man with a floppy gray mustache.
"Sikhism is the fifth-largest religion in the world and should be included in the curriculum," a woman declared.
Following the appeals from the public, the members of what is the most influential state board of education in the country, and one of the most politically conservative, submitted their own proposed changes to the new social-studies curriculum guidelines, whose adoption was the subject of all the attention — guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years. Gail Lowe — who publishes a twice-a-week newspaper when she is not grappling with divisive education issues — is the official chairwoman, but the meeting was dominated by another member. Don McLeroy, a small, vigorous man with a shiny pate and bristling mustache, proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming.
The article is quite long, but well worth reading. The author does a great job of balancing the two sides, I think.
The questions that come to my mind after reading this article:
- Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?
- Should this board be made up entirely of professors or other educators rather than lay people?
- Given that so many states already seem to rely on the Texas board, should the Federal government take over this aspect of public education to offer an option to the states (offer, not require inclusion)?
Good. We must fight the growing Martiniusism with every weapon in the arsenal.
America. :bleeding:
Did any gays kiss in front of the council?
It's already too late for America's youth anyway.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 10:44:32 AM
- Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?
Eh. I don't have a problem with this, but I question whether a politically motivated board can really capture the flavor of what was going on.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 15, 2010, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 10:44:32 AM
- Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?
Eh. I don't have a problem with this, but I question whether a politically motivated board can really capture the flavor of what was going on.
That's kind of my opinion. I do think the whitewash of the religious influence doesn't help the situation, but I'm fairly sure this particular group of people aren't the ones to show the balance of the forefathers. The idea that while there were Christian groups involved and important to the creation of the documents AND that those same people struggled to keep any religious language OUT of the documents is completely lost on them.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:32:20 AM
That's kind of my opinion. I do think the whitewash of the religious influence doesn't help the situation, but I'm fairly sure this particular group of people aren't the ones to show the balance of the forefathers. The idea that while there were Christian groups involved and important to the creation of the documents AND that those same people struggled to keep any religious language OUT of the documents is completely lost on them.
I suppose I'm mainly concerned about the whitewashing of a complicated topics, and how they will clearly downplay religious tension. If you read the diaries of Anglican missionaries in the Carolina back country, it's pretty eye opening. "And then they released the dogs upon me, for I wasn't Presbyterian. And then I said they were living in sin and in violation of the crown's law, because they had been married by a dissenter." Or the way Baptist Churches were harassed and persecuted in the 1740s and, arguably, up until the 1770s. Or the way Quakers were harassed and dispossessed of land during the Revolution, for refusing to swear loyalty oaths to the government.
This isn't going to come up, because the goal is to persuade kids we are a nation of God, not that religious tension has been part of American history and bound up in a variety of issues.
What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.
I mean, they weren't active in the field of religion, but politics, and as far as I understand from the superficial read of the article, even rightwingers concede that their religious beliefs did not explicitly inform their political decisions (e.g. they did not fill the US Constitution with references to the Christian mythology, but instead introduced the concept of the separation of church and state).
Consequently, even if they were devout Christians, they apparently considered their religious beliefs a private matter. So teaching about their religion would be like teaching about their sexual life or dietary preferences. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 11:46:43 AM
What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.
It is relevant to their (the modern busybodies) agenda - has nothing to do with any actual scholarly interest in how their religious views might have impacted the political agendas of the Founding Fathers.
And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 15, 2010, 11:43:50 AM
I suppose I'm mainly concerned about the whitewashing of a complicated topics, and how they will clearly downplay religious tension. If you read the diaries of Anglican missionaries in the Carolina back country, it's pretty eye opening. "And then they released the dogs upon me, for I wasn't Presbyterian. And then I said they were living in sin and in violation of the crown's law, because they had been married by a dissenter." Or the way Baptist Churches were harassed and persecuted in the 1740s and, arguably, up until the 1770s. Or the way Quakers were harassed and dispossessed of land during the Revolution, for refusing to swear loyalty oaths to the government.
This isn't going to come up, because the goal is to persuade kids we are a nation of God, not that religious tension has been part of American history and bound up in a variety of issues.
Keeping in mind that the things you're going over now are better suited for a university class than a middle- or high-school class, it's not surprising that not much of this is gone over in the texts. And if they were to be addressed, I'd say it should be a small bit in the creation of the Constitution, but delved in more deeply in the Religion portions of the classes.
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 11:46:43 AM
What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.
I mean, they weren't active in the field of religion, but politics, and as far as I understand from the superficial read of the article, even rightwingers concede that their religious beliefs did not explicitly inform their political decisions (e.g. they did not fill the US Constitution with references to the Christian mythology, but instead introduced the concept of the separation of church and state).
Consequently, even if they were devout Christians, they apparently considered their religious beliefs a private matter. So teaching about their religion would be like teaching about their sexual life or dietary preferences. :huh:
As Faeelin said, it's because religion and religious conflict has had a huge hand in creating who we are as a nation, just as racial concerns and the feminist movement have done so. To ignore this aspect of influence is to ignore a huge portion of what happened and why, and how to interpret it today. It is essential to know the why as much as the what in order to move forward with the same agenda as the founding fathers intended.
In general, I would oppose any inclusion of religious topics in high school textbooks when the inclusion is being done at the behest of groups like this.
You know it isn't about anything other than getting a vehicle for delivering their faith message. They could not care less about actual scholarship.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 10:54:07 AM
Did any gays kiss in front of the council?
More importantly, were any of them assaulted?
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.
You say this and yet a large portion of those deciding what goes into the curriculum are no more academics than you or I. In fact, a lot of those involved are politicians rather than educators. So if it's so obvious, why is it not happening?
The topics Faeelin brings up seem entirely appropriate in AP US History, which would include a hefty chunk of US high schoolers.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 11:55:54 AM
In general, I would oppose any inclusion of religious topics in high school textbooks when the inclusion is being done at the behest of groups like this.
You know it isn't about anything other than getting a vehicle for delivering their faith message. They could not care less about actual scholarship.
To ignore the opinion of an entire group out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics is to be just like them. You're absolutely correct in that they couldn't care less about actual scholarship, but it doesn't mean that they are 100% incorrect in their assertions.
I disagree with their agenda and the way they would include this topic, but I agree that it should be included in the texts as a basis for why our forefathers did what they did.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:54:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 15, 2010, 11:46:43 AM
What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.
I mean, they weren't active in the field of religion, but politics, and as far as I understand from the superficial read of the article, even rightwingers concede that their religious beliefs did not explicitly inform their political decisions (e.g. they did not fill the US Constitution with references to the Christian mythology, but instead introduced the concept of the separation of church and state).
Consequently, even if they were devout Christians, they apparently considered their religious beliefs a private matter. So teaching about their religion would be like teaching about their sexual life or dietary preferences. :huh:
As Faeelin said, it's because religion and religious conflict has had a huge hand in creating who we are as a nation, just as racial concerns and the feminist movement have done so. To ignore this aspect of influence is to ignore a huge portion of what happened and why, and how to interpret it today. It is essential to know the why as much as the what in order to move forward with the same agenda as the founding fathers intended.
I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.
I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.
Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.
Quote from: Fate on February 15, 2010, 11:58:15 AM
The topics Faeelin brings up seem entirely appropriate in AP US History, which would include a hefty chunk of US high schoolers.
Perhaps seniors taking AP US History, yes, but not for the majority of students. Since AP classes can (and often do) qualify for college credit, they generally use different texts than the general school population.
I have no clue how they select texts for it. Presumably since the point of the class is to due well on the AP test on that subject, College Board's recommendations are the deciding factor rather than some Texas bible thumpers.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 11:55:54 AM
In general, I would oppose any inclusion of religious topics in high school textbooks when the inclusion is being done at the behest of groups like this.
You know it isn't about anything other than getting a vehicle for delivering their faith message. They could not care less about actual scholarship.
To ignore the opinion of an entire group out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics is to be just like them. You're absolutely correct in that they couldn't care less about actual scholarship, but it doesn't mean that they are 100% incorrect in their assertions.
No, to ignore a group because I know that their stated motives are a lie to cover their religious agenda is not at all "being just like them".
Quote
I disagree with their agenda and the way they would include this topic, but I agree that it should be included in the texts as a basis for why our forefathers did what they did.
And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
I wouldn't trust a politically motivated dentist to decide on such matters. :ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artvehicle.com%2Fcontent%2Fasides%2FAV-37-1228768613.jpg&hash=98b16c0917a63053e419c7788c0622145287a527)
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:00:17 PM
I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.
I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.
Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.
It's been a long time since I read a high school text book on American History, but I do not remember this even being addressed in the books that I read in high school. According to Jeremy, his 8th-grade Constitution class didn't address religion or it's importance at all. It wasn't even addressed, much less discussed what affect the religious conflict may have had. The entire point of this year-long course is to discuss the who, what, and why of the most important government document of our nation, and not a word was spoken about religion. Carter and Jak (who had a different teacher) agree that they didn't discuss it at all, either.
It may be that while we understand its importance, the average student is not being taught even a modicum of the affect it may have had.
Quote from: Faeelin on February 15, 2010, 11:43:50 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:32:20 AM
That's kind of my opinion. I do think the whitewash of the religious influence doesn't help the situation, but I'm fairly sure this particular group of people aren't the ones to show the balance of the forefathers. The idea that while there were Christian groups involved and important to the creation of the documents AND that those same people struggled to keep any religious language OUT of the documents is completely lost on them.
I suppose I'm mainly concerned about the whitewashing of a complicated topics, and how they will clearly downplay religious tension. If you read the diaries of Anglican missionaries in the Carolina back country, it's pretty eye opening. "And then they released the dogs upon me, for I wasn't Presbyterian. And then I said they were living in sin and in violation of the crown's law, because they had been married by a dissenter." Or the way Baptist Churches were harassed and persecuted in the 1740s and, arguably, up until the 1770s. Or the way Quakers were harassed and dispossessed of land during the Revolution, for refusing to swear loyalty oaths to the government.
This isn't going to come up, because the goal is to persuade kids we are a nation of God, not that religious tension has been part of American history and bound up in a variety of issues.
That's true, but I think the Great Awakening and the 2nd Great Awakening should be at least mentioned. They had significant impact on the Revolution and the Reform/Abolition movements respectively.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
It wouldn't take much to incorporate a discussion of religious conflict in with the other topics addressed on what shaped the Constitution. I'm not saying dedicate a month to this discussion, but to include it as part of the already-discussed topics. To exclude it is to gloss over an important part of what made the Constitution what it is.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:07:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:00:17 PM
I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.
I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.
Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.
It's been a long time since I read a high school text book on American History, but I do not remember this even being addressed in the books that I read in high school. According to Jeremy, his 8th-grade Constitution class didn't address religion or it's importance at all. It wasn't even addressed, much less discussed what affect the religious conflict may have had. The entire point of this year-long course is to discuss the who, what, and why of the most important government document of our nation, and not a word was spoken about religion. Carter and Jak (who had a different teacher) agree that they didn't discuss it at all, either.
It may be that while we understand its importance, the average student is not being taught even a modicum of the affect it may have had.
I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.
Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:11:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
It wouldn't take much to incorporate a discussion of religious conflict in with the other topics addressed on what shaped the Constitution. I'm not saying dedicate a month to this discussion, but to include it as part of the already-discussed topics. To exclude it is to gloss over an important part of what made the Constitution what it is.
You are avoiding the question. There is a finite amount of time to discuss this stuff - what should be excluded to make room for this, if in fact it does not get adequate coverage right now?
Honestly, I think the most important topic that relates to religion when it comes to the US Constitutions is the effort made to ensure freedom of religion, and the pointed lack of mention of religion, in stark contrast to many political structures of the time. I suspect that isn't what they are thinking about though.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:11:49 PM
I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.
Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Obviously, you're not listening to what I'm saying if this is what you believe I would like to see happen. And since I'm not interested in getting into a discussion that has two faces, I'll end it now. When you want to discuss what I'm actually trying to say rather than your distorted version of things, I'll be happy to respond.
And in answer to your question, there is no need to get rid of anything. Rather, take a moment to discuss the Awakening (as Jimmy suggested) as a portion of what's already there.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:12:44 PM
Honestly, I think the most important topic that relates to religion when it comes to the US Constitutions is the effort made to ensure freedom of religion, and the pointed lack of mention of religion, in stark contrast to many political structures of the time. I suspect that isn't what they are thinking about though.
This is what I'm talking about including in the curriculum, not what the Texas Board members are pushing for. As I said before.
Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.
If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:18:18 PM
Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.
If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".
I'm fairly sure we all agree with you on this, Berkut. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least entertain the idea that maybe X should be re-evaluated, and since it was brought forward now, it seems the right time to do so. That doesn't mean that I would ever allow the Texas Board as it stands to be the ones to determine how to do so, but it does mean that it can be discussed and determined by academics. The concern I have is closing off the discussion completely simply because of who brought it to the table.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:11:49 PM
I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.
Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Obviously, you're not listening to what I'm saying if this is what you believe I would like to see happen. And since I'm not interested in getting into a discussion that has two faces, I'll end it now. When you want to discuss what I'm actually trying to say rather than your distorted version of things, I'll be happy to respond.
And in answer to your question, there is no need to get rid of anything. Rather, take a moment to discuss the Awakening (as Jimmy suggested) as a portion of what's already there.
So you still won't answer the question, and instead you think that an appropriate "amount" is a "moment" as opposed to zero moments that are currently devoted to it - and we know this based on the expert testimony of your son who doesn't remember any such "moments".
So you think that no mention is not enough, but a single "moment" is adequate? If that is the case, then aren't you making a big deal over nothing? I mean, if it is just a "moment", it won't even appear on a test, or in a paper. Heck, the students won't even know what "the Awakening" is referring to. I agree that is the only way to do it without removing some other content though - but I am unsure what the utility of this "moment" would be, compared to just ignoring it (assuming of course, that it is in fact actually ignored, which we don't really know).
The Awakening is definitely mentioned in Texas' AP US history classes.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:18:18 PM
Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.
If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".
I'm fairly sure we all agree with you on this, Berkut. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't at least entertain the idea that maybe X should be re-evaluated, and since it was brought forward now, it seems the right time to do so. That doesn't mean that I would ever allow the Texas Board as it stands to be the ones to determine how to do so, but it does mean that it can be discussed and determined by academics. The concern I have is closing off the discussion completely simply because of who brought it to the table.
I don't agree that because a group of religious nuts brings something up, that is a valid reason to start questioning the experts on any particular topic.
If the issue has any validity, it has it *without* it being raised by people with an agenda. the problem with your position is that it plays directly into their hands. They bring it up, a bunch of people agree that yes, there needs to be more discussion of religion, and then the textbook writers go out and give the people who make the buying decisions what they want, because they have determined the parameters of the debate by being the people who have initiated the discussion.
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us. I don't know what's taught explicitly (though I'd argue that my son's testimony is more valid than anything you or I could claim as it's been more than 25 years since either of us have looked at a text), so I couldn't give you a definitive answer, which is apparently what you're going for. What I can say is that having sat through a few of these classes as an observer, there is plenty of time to discuss this in the day.
Jimmy is probably the better person to ask as he's taught a similar class recently, and since he agrees with him, I'll happily defer to him... or grumbler for that matter. :)
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:24:57 PM
I don't agree that because a group of religious nuts brings something up, that is a valid reason to start questioning the experts on any particular topic.
If the issue has any validity, it has it *without* it being raised by people with an agenda. the problem with your position is that it plays directly into their hands. They bring it up, a bunch of people agree that yes, there needs to be more discussion of religion, and then the textbook writers go out and give the people who make the buying decisions what they want, because they have determined the parameters of the debate by being the people who have initiated the discussion.
I would argue that when ANY group brings up a topic it should be evaluated for validity. Some can be dismissed out of hand, while others may deserve a little more face time... like this one. And again, I think we all agree that the way it's being handled in Texas sucks and shouldn't even be entertained. I am assuming that more level-headed academics are making the first, middle and final decisions on what and how it's presented in the texts books.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
Quote
I don't know what's taught explicitly (though I'd argue that my son's testimony is more valid than anything you or I could claim as it's been more than 25 years since either of us have looked at a text),
Not really. Your son is a single person. He may be lying. He might have fallen asleep that day. He could be in some class that is not average or typical. Who knows? He is not a source of data at all.
I would trust any number of other sources before the word of some 13 year old.
What is more, my position is not at all based on MY knowledge of what IS taught, as I made clear. My position is simply that I have seen no reason to buy the idea that there is a problem simply because some religious fanatics say there is, even if your son agrees with them.
Therefore, if someone is proposing a change (you), I have to ask them why they want such a change, and how they intend to fit in this new content given a finite amount of time available to teach content.
Quote
so I couldn't give you a definitive answer, which is apparently what you're going for.
Of course you can't - that is my point. You are asking that something be added, based on you just admitting you don't actually even know what is taught, and are unable to say what should be removed to make room for what has been added - because in fact you don't know what is there to begin with - the fact that you don't know what to remove is *precisely* my point. You have not thought this through.
Quote
What I can say is that having sat through a few of these classes as an observer, there is plenty of time to discuss this in the day.
No, actually there isn't - this response is like someone saying we can easily pay for health care for everyone without raising taxes by "not wasting so much money".
Quote
Jimmy is probably the better person to ask as he's taught a similar class recently, and since he agrees with him, I'll happily defer to him... or grumbler for that matter. :)
While I would find grumblers position interesting, it would be on the basis of him being at least *something* of an "expert" in the field. I have already stated that I am perfectly content with letting non-politically motivated experts decide on these curriculum issues without interference from either religious nuts or busybodies who have no clue what they mean when they say "there should be more content about X in textbooks!"
Actually, my opinions are as much formed by the article as by my sons' memory of the classes they've taken. The impression given throughout the article is that this aspect of the creation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence isn't discussed in the current texts, or if done so is at the most minimal level.
And while I agree that I do not have the knowledge or ability to say at this moment what should or should not be cut out to discuss it (should that even be necessary), I do trust that experts in the field who are doing the actual updating would be able to. That I can't come up with something off the top of my head does not negate the potential changes that could - and arguably should - be made.
My point was and is that this topic is worthy of attention, that the Texas Board is not the ones who should be making these decisions, and that the religious conflict going on at the time of the birth of this country had an integral affect on what was written. If that is not being taught, which is intimated in the article, it should be.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:56:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 11:49:01 AM
And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.
You say this and yet a large portion of those deciding what goes into the curriculum are no more academics than you or I. In fact, a lot of those involved are politicians rather than educators. So if it's so obvious, why is it not happening?
You never addressed this, by the way.
If I were a teacher, I'd have my kids analysing the background to this conflict over textbooks. It has it all - the current meaning and use of history to advance social agendas, the ongoing nature of American democracy, the conflict between populism and academic rigour, decentralization and local states vs. centralization and federalism. All sorts of ramifications.
You could divide the class and have one half debate that religion is sufficienty represented in the current textbook the class is using, and the other half debate that more religion should be required - choosing the teams based on putting those most in favour of one side on the opposite team. Give them time to thoroughly review the text and do some research to support their points.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly). While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few). That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.
As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes. This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history. AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling. While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic. So a good bit of time could be freed up right there. And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum. (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes. This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history. AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling. While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic. So a good bit of time could be freed up right there. And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum. (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly). While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few). That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.
I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?
Nor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
As for what should be ditched, well, that would obviously vary from one school system to another, depending on what the current curriculum includes. This is just annecdotal, but when I was in school, in social studies we spent a whole year in grade school and another in junior high studying West Virginia history. AFAIK, that hasn't changed in WV schools since, and is pretty much in line with what people from other states have told me about their schooling. While I wouldn't want to say that state/local history shouldn't be taught at all, I think that is too much time devoted to the topic. So a good bit of time could be freed up right there. And that's just within the area of history/social studies, without touching other areas of the curriculum. (As an aside, I think that there should be more emphasis placed on history and civics overall, but that's a different discussion.)
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
So now we have a candidate for something to be cut - state and local history should be pared down in favor of more time spent discussing the role religion has played in US history.
Fair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?
If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?
So far, the only evidence provided that it does not get enough attention is the claim of people we all agree actually have an ulterior motive, and the word of a 13 year old who said it was not touched on in some particular class he took.
I am less than convinced. Obviously the word of the bible thumpers is completely uninteresting. The word of the 13 year old is slightly more interesting, but only very slightly - maybe this is covered in later classes in high school, or perhaps he wasn't paying much attention in the class he was in, and in fact it was covered.
*I* certainly managed to get through my secondary education with some knowledge of the role of religion in US history - did I hear that in class, or in some other setting, like my own reading? Kind of hard to say - I did plenty of outside the classroom reading on hsitory, so it seems hard to say waht actual knowledge I got IN the classroom. I am a poor source of information just like Meri's son is.
So what do the experts think? If in fact there is a reason to think religion does not get the attention it deserves - why doesn't it?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
I bet there is a bunch of people out there who would say:
1. That this was not a waste of your time at all, and learning about the history of your state/county/region is terribly important for a variety of reasons, and/or
2. Learning about how religion impacted various other historical events and times is perfectly adequately covered already, and is certainly NOT more important than learning about how Harvey County fought against Prohibition or something.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly). While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few). That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.
I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?
"Goes to motivation, your honor." You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion. Turnabout is fair play.
QuoteNor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?
You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class. I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution, there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.
QuoteFair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?
If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?
Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now? But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift. As best as I can tell, there's still too much emphasis on things like learning to recite the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Gettysburg Address, or knowing the exact date that Vicksburg fell, or the names of the 3 ships Columbus had on his first voyage to the New World. I'm not saying there's no value in those thing, just that context is important, and that religion was often an important part of the context of historical events.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
I had the same one. OMG we have Indian Mounds!!11
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly). While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few). That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.
I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?
"Goes to motivation, your honor." You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion. Turnabout is fair play.
So are you making an argument that in fact my motivation in this discussion is based on something other than what I have claimed is my motivation?
Seems like a rather obvious ad hom. Why?
I don't think there is really any debate about the motivation of the people on the Texas School Board - it isn't even really being debated. I don't think this is "turn about" at all, since we all agree that the BoE is using this as an excuse to push their faith agenda, and there certainly is not such an agreement about me having some secret motive beyond what I am simply stating as my position.
Quote
QuoteNor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?
You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class.
Actually, the entire discussion has been specifically about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in particular, not about American history in general, and my argument has been specifically about that, insofar as it extends to that topic.
Of course the role of religion in various aspects of American history is variously important - it varies rather wildly though, and any discussion about whether or not they are given enough consideration is going to be rather dependent on the particulars. You certainly cannot make a general observation one way or the other, since there is no one answer that fits all. My position here is that if one is going to argue that the experts got it wrong, then one needs more than the anecdotal tales of a 13 year old and the discredited wailing of a bunch of religious nuts.
I make no claim that the one is connected to the other - that is a strawman of your creation.
Quote.
I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution,
....which is specifically what is being discussed...
Quote
there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.
....you will need to find someone to argue this point with, other than me, since I agree with it. I guess that means any questioning of my motives probably apply to you as well?
Quote
QuoteFair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?
If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?
Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now?
Yes - Meri has stated that more time shoudl be given to the role of religion. That time comes from somewhere, so in fact she is arguing that less time should be given to *something* - however, she admits that she doesn't actually know what is taught, so cannot decide what other something should be shortened, or if we find time from some magical place, what other things should be excluded from using that time instead of discussing the role of religion.
Quote
But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift.
Now you are talking about an entire class of things, of which religion is just one factor - "factors that provide motivation". While I won't disagree with you, I will note this is very different from picking one particular factor, and arguing that THAT factor should be given more attention, both to the exclusion of yours "date and places" type information, and to other motivational factors, like racism, or regionalism, economics, politics, etc., etc., etc. You are making a rather different argument here than what either Meri or the Texas BoE is making.
It isn't a bad argument per se, but I won't really take a position on it - again, I would rather trust to the opinions of the professionals on these kinds of issues - I certainly do not claim any special expertise that would trump theirs.
While this discussion is all fair and good, this is an attempt at perpetrating a fraud. David Barton (wikilink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28author%29)) has disseminated false quotes that he has either found of "found" about the nature and views on religion of the founding fathers. This man is a liar, a fraud and not a professional at his appointed task. He has "produced" quotes from noted deiists and unitarians like Patrick Henry, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on how the country should be a christian country. Barton Bashing from positivesatheism.org (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm) for more info.
Texas is fucked, and now since california is broke and won't be buying new school books again for a generation, so may be the rest of america.
Having received a couple university degrees, while what academics have to say should be treated with great respect and consideration, but they have their own agendas to push as much as anyone else, an di"d be unwilling to give them carte blanche to write school curriculum without input of local sensibilities.
There's a creative tension at work between teachers, parents, school boards, academics, and the law / courts. No set curriculum however is perfect and can always be reviewed and tweaked.
Like many others, I have no problem with the concept of including more discussion of religion when viewed through the lens of a history class. Certainly religion was a very important factor in Canadian history (largely the stress between the English Protestant majority, and the French Catholic minority, but also including reasons for various other minorities to immigrate, as part of prohibition and various social justice causes, the importance of missionaries to exploring the west, adn as understanding residential schools, and so on).
The motivation of the Texas School Board *may* be a hidden one to push religion in general into classrooms, but I don't think that's grounds to disregard the entire idea.
As for "well, what else would you cut to make room for it"? Without a comprehensive list of what Texas kids *are* taught, it's impossible to say. Perhaps the type of material we are discussing is already being taught, so nothing needs changing. Perhaps after looking at every last item you decide that everything is more improtant and this aspect should be left out. But to say "well if you can't suggest something specific then we can't discuss it" doesn't seem quite the right way to approach it, since we don't know the extent of the Texas curriculum.
Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?
I must have missed that post...
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM
Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?
I must have missed that post...
Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...
Quote from: BerkutAnd what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
and
Quote from: BerkutAgain, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).
Purely anecdotal, but that was my experience. I can't count how many times we were taught Louis Riel, Confederation, and the fur trade...
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2010, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM
Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?
I must have missed that post...
Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...
Quote from: BerkutAnd what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
and
Quote from: BerkutAgain, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Uhhh, you most certainly did use quotation marks.
And I find it rather odd that you cite me discussing what should be ditched as evidence that I said "we can't discuss it". We are discussing it, so apparently we CAN in fact discuss it. Asking what we should toss in favor of adding more stuff certainly seems like a pretty reasonable topic for discussion when it comes to curriculum, doesn't it?
Is that not a fair question? If someone thinks we should teach more X, I think the FIRST question that should come to mind is what we ought to stop teaching in favor of X.
It's like people arguing that we should spend more money on some social service - do you find it unreasonable to ask them what we ought to get rid of to pay for it? Would you claim that someone asking that question is saying "we can't discuss it"?
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).
That is a very good point in fact - but I don't know how to avoid it, especially when it comes to history. It isn't like math, where you can assume that anyone in Algebra II has already had Algebra I.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 03:55:28 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 03:40:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 02:32:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 12:25:51 PM
Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.
But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.
She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly). While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few). That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.
I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?
"Goes to motivation, your honor." You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion. Turnabout is fair play.
So are you making an argument that in fact my motivation in this discussion is based on something other than what I have claimed is my motivation?
Seems like a rather obvious ad hom. Why?
I don't think there is really any debate about the motivation of the people on the Texas School Board - it isn't even really being debated. I don't think this is "turn about" at all, since we all agree that the BoE is using this as an excuse to push their faith agenda, and there certainly is not such an agreement about me having some secret motive beyond what I am simply stating as my position.
'Cause you have a burr up your ass about anything involving religion. Anytime someone's religious faith is brought up as a factor in any proposal, they're labeled as "fanatics" or "nuts". Fair enough if we're talking about a Fred Phelps or a suicide bomber, but the vast majority of religious folks aren't like that. I know that I'm not, and frankly I'm fucking tired of hearing that shit.
So yeah, I have an agenda, too--to not get lumped in with a bunch of assholes just because I believe in God.
QuoteQuote
QuoteNor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?
You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class.
Actually, the entire discussion has been specifically about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in particular, not about American history in general, and my argument has been specifically about that, insofar as it extends to that topic.
Of course the role of religion in various aspects of American history is variously important - it varies rather wildly though, and any discussion about whether or not they are given enough consideration is going to be rather dependent on the particulars. You certainly cannot make a general observation one way or the other, since there is no one answer that fits all. My position here is that if one is going to argue that the experts got it wrong, then one needs more than the anecdotal tales of a 13 year old and the discredited wailing of a bunch of religious nuts.
I make no claim that the one is connected to the other - that is a strawman of your creation.
Quote.
I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution,
....which is specifically what is being discussed...
Quote
there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.
....you will need to find someone to argue this point with, other than me, since I agree with it. I guess that means any questioning of my motives probably apply to you as well?
Quote
QuoteFair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?
If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?
Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now?
Yes - Meri has stated that more time shoudl be given to the role of religion. That time comes from somewhere, so in fact she is arguing that less time should be given to *something* - however, she admits that she doesn't actually know what is taught, so cannot decide what other something should be shortened, or if we find time from some magical place, what other things should be excluded from using that time instead of discussing the role of religion.
Presumably, that "something" would be topics that are given too much emphasis now, not other topics that are not given much time now. I have proposed state and local history as subject matter that might be given less time--and 2 other posters have made posts that at least imply that they broadly agree with me (in fact they seem to go further than me in suggesting that too much time is devoted to state history). No one has posted anything that disagrees with me on the matter, though you state that there are probably a bunch of people who think learning about state and local history are important (and I didn't say were unimportant; rather I suggested that they are less important than the time that seems to be devoted to them).
QuoteQuote
But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift.
Now you are talking about an entire class of things, of which religion is just one factor - "factors that provide motivation". While I won't disagree with you, I will note this is very different from picking one particular factor, and arguing that THAT factor should be given more attention, both to the exclusion of yours "date and places" type information, and to other motivational factors, like racism, or regionalism, economics, politics, etc., etc., etc. You are making a rather different argument here than what either Meri or the Texas BoE is making.
It isn't a bad argument per se, but I won't really take a position on it - again, I would rather trust to the opinions of the professionals on these kinds of issues - I certainly do not claim any special expertise that would trump theirs.
I certainly think that we should take advantage of the expertise of the professionals, but I don't think that means that nobody else has anything of value to offer. Which may not be exactly what you're saying, or mean, but you seem to at least imply it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 12:10:23 PM
That's true, but I think the Great Awakening and the 2nd Great Awakening should be at least mentioned. They had significant impact on the Revolution and the Reform/Abolition movements respectively.
Why bother? If you keep mentioning the root causes of every event you study, you'll never be able to stop. There is not an infinite amount of time to devote to history classes.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 04:27:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2010, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 04:12:59 PM
Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?
I must have missed that post...
Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...
Quote from: BerkutAnd what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
and
Quote from: BerkutAgain, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.
I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.
Uhhh, you most certainly did use quotation marks.
And I find it rather odd that you cite me discussing what should be ditched as evidence that I said "we can't discuss it". We are discussing it, so apparently we CAN in fact discuss it. Asking what we should toss in favor of adding more stuff certainly seems like a pretty reasonable topic for discussion when it comes to curriculum, doesn't it?
Is that not a fair question? If someone thinks we should teach more X, I think the FIRST question that should come to mind is what we ought to stop teaching in favor of X.
It's like people arguing that we should spend more money on some social service - do you find it unreasonable to ask them what we ought to get rid of to pay for it? Would you claim that someone asking that question is saying "we can't discuss it"?
You are correct I used quotations marks. Mea culpa. I intented to use apostrophes, so as only summarize what was said.
Whether something is a good idea is somewhat separate from whether something is feasible (either due to time or money). It's not that you shouldn't consider feasability, but it is perhaps not the first question that needs to be asked.
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2010, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 12:02:55 PM
What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?
If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).
QFT. I had no idea how important Nappy's wars or WW1 were to modern day reality from what I got in school. There are about half as many history classes as there needs to be. And I can suggest what I should have gone without in order to make room, too...
NOTE TO AMERICA:
1. The US was founded on a tax revolt, suitably spun. It was not, or ever was, a religious experiment.
2. Religion is a family matter, and if you want indoctrination, you need to do it AT HOME - don't count on the state.
3. As per #2, do what you like at home, but DO NOT pretend that your personal religious beliefs = education.
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 03:40:48 PM
You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class. I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution, there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.
You're underselling it, the Great Awakening had a significant impact on the world view of the founding generation and predisposed them to being less deferential to authority. This was certainly presented as a major factor in my College courses.
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm
Quote from: AnchorClanker on February 15, 2010, 05:40:26 PM
NOTE TO AMERICA:
1. The US was founded on a tax revolt, suitably spun. It was not, or ever was, a religious experiment.
2. Religion is a family matter, and if you want indoctrination, you need to do it AT HOME - don't count on the state.
3. As per #2, do what you like at home, but DO NOT pretend that your personal religious beliefs = education.
Not a religious experiment, agreed. But the original settlement could be argued to be a religious experiment. You have Quakers, Puritans, Catholics etc. founding colonies for religious reasons. But, put a Quaker, Puritan, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian and Deist in a room and you find out that you can't have government dictating religion or preferring one religion over another.
Furthermore, taking a tax revolt and turning it into a nationalist revolt (Turning that English Particularist revolter into an American Patriot revolter) you need to attack the right of kings to tax. You need to attack the Divine Right of Kings and turn it on it's head and focus on the inalienable rights of all men endowed to them by their creator (too many Deists and Unitarians in the room to use the word God or Jehova), as opposed to the Divine Right to Rule granted to Kings.
Religion is a relevant factor and it colours everything that happened. You can't not talk about it.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on February 15, 2010, 05:40:26 PM
NOTE TO AMERICA:
1. The US was founded on a tax revolt, suitably spun. It was not, or ever was, a religious experiment.
2. Religion is a family matter, and if you want indoctrination, you need to do it AT HOME - don't count on the state.
3. As per #2, do what you like at home, but DO NOT pretend that your personal religious beliefs = education.
You're side-stepping the question Ank. The issue isn't one of "religious indoctrination", but "including education about religion where appropriate", namely in history.
To pick an extreme example, you clearly have to talk about religion if you're discussing the Crusades, or 9/11. So to what extent can/should religion be mentioned when discussing other historical events? If you're going to discuss 9/11 (and think - there are already kids in gradeschool who were born after that event) part of it has to be to discuss militant islam - which is hardly the same as indoctrinating kids in islam.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 15, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
I had the same one. OMG we have Indian Mounds!!11
:D
I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.
I find it rather funny so much is being discussed about teaching history in our schools all the sudden...a subject almost completely ignored most of the time.
Also I went to school in Texas and I recall religion being mentioned alot. It frankly puzzles me what exactly they are trying to fix. But then I actually went to history class and paid attention.
Also I find it strange that the Texas system, which is about as populist and locally controlled and anarchic as all get out, would be a leader other states follow. I mean our system has always been on the bottom of education is almost every catagory. Why would other states follow our example?
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2010, 06:13:11 PM
I find it rather funny so much is being discussed about teaching history in our schools all the sudden...a subject almost completely ignored most of the time.
Also I went to school in Texas and I recall religion being mentioned alot. It frankly puzzles me what exactly they are trying to fix. But then I actually went to history class and paid attention.
Also I find it strange that the Texas system, which is about as populist and locally controlled and anarchic as all get out, would be a leader other states follow. I mean our system has always been on the bottom of education is almost every catagory. Why would other states follow our example?
Population. California and Texas drive the market standard. Text book publishers who sell books nationwide have to satisfy both, which given their broad political differences is difficult, so they generally churn out generic crap. However, California is bankrupt and won't be buying new books so the focus is all on Texas right now.
Well whatever they do to appease the God/Christianity types I am sure the result will be so dry and boring as to be utterly uninteresting.
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2010, 06:29:12 PM
Well whatever they do to appease the God/Christianity types I am sure the result will be so dry and boring as to be utterly uninteresting.
The phrase "America is a Christian Nation" in school social studies textbooks utterly uninteresting? Especially since the exact opposite of that phrase is US Law.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2010, 06:13:11 PM
I find it rather funny so much is being discussed about teaching history in our schools all the sudden...a subject almost completely ignored most of the time.
Also I went to school in Texas and I recall religion being mentioned alot. It frankly puzzles me what exactly they are trying to fix. But then I actually went to history class and paid attention.
Also I find it strange that the Texas system, which is about as populist and locally controlled and anarchic as all get out, would be a leader other states follow. I mean our system has always been on the bottom of education is almost every catagory. Why would other states follow our example?
Population. California and Texas drive the market standard. Text book publishers who to sell books nationwide have to satisfy both, which given their broad political differences is difficult, so they generally churn out generic crap. However, California is bankrupt and won't be buying new books so the focus is all on Texas right now.
The gimp nailed it on this one. It's all about market size.
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 06:54:26 PM
The gimp nailed it on this one. It's all about market size.
They do say that a great civilization is not destroyed by outsiders but rather commits suicide. The greed of the american citizenry will be the undoing of America.
G.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 11:54:44 AM
As Faeelin said, it's because religion and religious conflict has had a huge hand in creating who we are as a nation, just as racial concerns and the feminist movement have done so. To ignore this aspect of influence is to ignore a huge portion of what happened and why, and how to interpret it today. It is essential to know the why as much as the what in order to move forward with the same agenda as the founding fathers intended.
I disagree. Religion and religious conflict have had some impacts, but thety are minor. One could understand everything important about American history without knowing anything about religion other than its impact on settlement patterns. Things like The Great Awakening should be taught, but not as a central portion of a course on the time period - it is a sidebar.
Quote from: Grallon on February 15, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
They do say that a great civilization is not destroyed by outsiders but rather commits suicide. The greed of the american citizenry will be the undoing of America.
What does what you're saying have to do with the topic at hand?
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 07:55:15 PM
I disagree. Religion and religious conflict have had some impacts, but thety are minor. One could understand everything important about American history without knowing anything about religion other than its impact on settlement patterns. Things like The Great Awakening should be taught, but not as a central portion of a course on the time period - it is a sidebar.
Indeed. I can't think of a single major event where religious conflict was utterly integral to the story.
Quote from: Grallon on February 15, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 06:54:26 PM
The gimp nailed it on this one. It's all about market size.
They do say that a great civilization is not destroyed by outsiders but rather commits suicide. The greed of the american citizenry will be the undoing of America.
G.
Thanks for acknowledging our greatness. :)
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2010, 08:18:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 07:55:15 PM
I disagree. Religion and religious conflict have had some impacts, but thety are minor. One could understand everything important about American history without knowing anything about religion other than its impact on settlement patterns. Things like The Great Awakening should be taught, but not as a central portion of a course on the time period - it is a sidebar.
Indeed. I can't think of a single major event where religious conflict was utterly integral to the story.
Abolition and the other antebellum 19th century reform movements were principally driven by Evangelicals, the former being one of the main causes of the Civil War.
Of course American Evangelicals during the 19th century mostly prescribed to postmillenialism which led them to focus on helping their fellow man here and now, while in the 20th century Evangelicals have shifted to premillenialism and a focus strictly on conversion and salvation.
How can prohibition not be considered religiously motivated?
and timmy, don't use Evangelical about ante-bellum abolitionists. They were in their own view Christians.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2010, 08:12:08 PM
What does what you're saying have to do with the topic at hand?
Everything since I comment on the *real* core value of America: money - the pursuit of money - or happiness as the euphemism goes.
G.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2010, 08:31:21 PM
How can prohibition not be considered religiously motivated?
and timmy, don't use Evangelical about ante-bellum abolitionists. They were in their own view Christians.
:huh: The movers and shakers in the abolitionist movement were Evangelical Christians, Baptists and Methodist and many other sects. In fact much of their antipathy towards slavery can be laid at the feet of their interpretation of evangelical theology.
In the context of the 19th century American evangelical experience, this refers to the validity of the conversion experience, i.e. being born again. The evangelical argument against slavery was this; a man's soul can not be saved unless he is born again and takes Jesus as his lord and savior. A man can not do this unless he has free will and a slave by definition does not have free will. Thus African Americans in bondage were being denied access to divine grace and their eternal souls damned forever. This is why the evangelicals were radicals who demanded immediate abolition, while those like Lincoln who simply viewed slavery as theft of a man's labor and dignity were (in the absence of war) willing to compromise and pursue slow reform.
Antislavery abolitionists, viewing slavery as mortal sin, also cast doubt on the validity of the conversion experience of any man who owned slaves, thus deeply offending the evangelicals of the South.
This post brought to you by my 500 level class on the history of Christianity in American Politics. The above subject is what I wrote my final paper on.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 08:48:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2010, 08:31:21 PM
How can prohibition not be considered religiously motivated?
and timmy, don't use Evangelical about ante-bellum abolitionists. They were in their own view Christians.
:huh: The movers and shakers in the abolitionist movement were Evangelical Christians, Baptists and Methodist and many other sects. In fact much of their antipathy towards slavery can be laid at the feet of their interpretation of evangelical theology.
In the context of the 19th century American evangelical experience, this refers to the validity of the conversion experience, i.e. being born again. The evangelical argument against slavery was this; a man's soul can not be saved unless he is born again and takes Jesus as his lord and savior. A man can not do this unless he has free will and a slave by definition does not have free will. Thus African Americans in bondage were being denied access to divine grace and their eternal souls damned forever. This is why the evangelicals were radicals who demanded immediate abolition, while those like Lincoln who simply viewed slavery as theft of a man's labor and dignity were (in the absence of war) willing to compromise and pursue slow reform.
Antislavery abolitionists, viewing slavery as mortal sin, also cast doubt on the validity of the conversion experience of any man who owned slaves, thus deeply offending the evangelicals of the South.
This post brought to you by my 500 level class on the history of Christianity in American Politics. The above subject is what I wrote my final paper on.
I don't know that Viking's post should have gotten a reply other than, "Wtf are you talking about?".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 08:28:41 PM
Abolition and the other antebellum 19th century reform movements were principally driven by Evangelicals, the former being one of the main causes of the Civil War.
That's not a religious conflict. That's religious lunatics throwing rocks at the established order in an effort to force society to live by their sick ideals. Sort of like Prohibition or abortion.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2010, 08:58:47 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 08:28:41 PM
Abolition and the other antebellum 19th century reform movements were principally driven by Evangelicals, the former being one of the main causes of the Civil War.
That's not a religious conflict. That's religious lunatics throwing rocks at the established order in an effort to force society to live by their sick ideals. Sort of like Prohibition or abortion.
While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.
Quote from: Grallon on February 15, 2010, 08:33:51 PM
Everything since I comment on the *real* core value of America: money - the pursuit of money - or happiness as the euphemism goes.
I don't see how publishing schoolbooks for money relates to a society committing suicide. I'd like you to expand on your thoughts on the matter.
Quote from: dps on February 15, 2010, 04:41:01 PM
'Cause you have a burr up your ass about anything involving religion.
So this is really about YOUR issue then, and your imagination that this has something to do with MY beliefs on religion. Whya ren't I surprised?
Quote
Anytime someone's religious faith is brought up as a factor in any proposal, they're labeled as "fanatics" or "nuts".
Not at all. However, when religious people try to impose their religious view into textbooks, then I certainly call that fanatic.
Quote
Fair enough if we're talking about a Fred Phelps or a suicide bomber, but the vast majority of religious folks aren't like that.
The vast majority of religious folk don't try to shove their religious views into textbooks either - clearly we are not talking about the vast majority of religious folks.
Quote
I know that I'm not, and frankly I'm fucking tired of hearing that shit.
If it doesn't apply to you, why are you so sensitive to it - to the extent that you actually imagine people arguing about entirely different things making entirely different arguments?
It is odd that you are "tired of that shit" yet have actually invented someone making such an argument - apparently you aren't all that tired of it, since you have gone to the trouble of creating someone to get tired of it over out of your own imagination.
Quote
So yeah, I have an agenda, too--to not get lumped in with a bunch of assholes just because I believe in God.
Seems like a reasonable position, but who is doing such lumping? Only your strawman you are merrily burning up.
Quote
I certainly think that we should take advantage of the expertise of the professionals, but I don't think that means that nobody else has anything of value to offer. Which may not be exactly what you're saying, or mean, but you seem to at least imply it.
Nope, I imply nothing of the sort - anything I have said, I have stated rather clearly, I think.
Someone, namely Meri, has stated that she thinks we should spend more time talking about the religious aspects of some historical events. I have disagreed with her on the basis that she has not provided any reason to think that the religious context of the writing of the Constitution is not given adequate coverage already. In other words, *she* is claiming that the experts are wrong. Which is fine -experts certainly can be wrong - but I find her arguments unconvincing, especially given that she has stated very clearly that she actually has not idea what is taught.
You can make an argument that may overcome expert opinion - but you would actually have to make an argument - at least if you want to convince anyone.
Quote from: grumbler on February 15, 2010, 07:55:15 PM
I disagree. Religion and religious conflict have had some impacts, but thety are minor. One could understand everything important about American history without knowing anything about religion other than its impact on settlement patterns. Things like The Great Awakening should be taught, but not as a central portion of a course on the time period - it is a sidebar.
I considered the entire discussion a sidebar rather than a central portion of study. I do not agree with you, which is fine, but I wonder how much of the Great Awakening or religion is even mentioned now in your classroom.
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 09:07:27 PM
Nope, I imply nothing of the sort - anything I have said, I have stated rather clearly, I think.
Someone, namely Meri, has stated that she thinks we should spend more time talking about the religious aspects of some historical events. I have disagreed with her on the basis that she has not provided any reason to think that the religious context of the writing of the Constitution is not given adequate coverage already. In other words, *she* is claiming that the experts are wrong. Which is fine -experts certainly can be wrong - but I find her arguments unconvincing, especially given that she has stated very clearly that she actually has not idea what is taught.
Actually, I'm claiming that those writing the textbooks aren't experts, per the article cited. And I do have an idea of what is taught, but not enough so to say decidedly what should be minimized in favor of the back story of the founding fathers. I'd rather not say something decisively until I do, though I agree that local and state government could do with a paring down. As your comments haven't been very convincing to me that I'm mistaken in my opinion, either, I'd say we're at an impasse.
It's the appropriation of Evangelical Christianity of the abolition movement that I object to. They were not the only Christians involved, not to mention there were Evangelical Christians were very much against abolition as well. If you want to associate any religious group with abolition then you'd have to select the Quakers. You can only really be considered evangelical if you include all protestant churches into your Evangelical definition, which does not fit with the modern use of the word, or even the 19th century use of the word.
William Wilberforce was born again and was without a doubt an Evangelical Christian and his religion was a fundamental part in his view on Slavery. But among his opponents in the struggle for abolition (and successors in america) were also Evangelical Christians.
Okay but I don't think it's possible to ignore the importance of religion as a socially reforming movement throughout the 19th century, even if it's also right to take cognizance of its presence among reform's opponents.
The Quakers were spent as a political and religious force by the mid 19th century. And while it's certainly true that there were Evangelicals, especially in the South who were against abolition (justifying slavery via the curse of Ham), it is also true that in the North radical abolition was primarily pushed by Evangelicals and their churches and reform organizations.
An evangelical is a Protestant who believes in the need for a born again conversion experience, who emphasizes the death, resurrection and salvation of Christ, and one who respects the authority of the bible. The later has trended towards literalism in the recent century.
http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/
QuoteIndeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism–revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)–became "revivalism" as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical "Benevolent Empire" (in historian Martin Marty's words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women's movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and–most controversial of all–the abolition movement.
I just saw this, and while they're talking about colleges rather than high school it's on the same topic.
I'm surprised that Harvard doesn't have a religious studies department. I've been to a small liberal arts college and a state university and neither shied away from religion. The fact that Bard is one of the most liberal colleges in the nation didn't stop them from studying it in a serious way.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233413
QuoteHarvard's Crisis of Faith
Can a secular university embrace religion without sacrificing its soul?
By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 11, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Feb 22, 2010
It doesn't take a degree from Harvard to see that in today's world, a person needs to know something about religion. The conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians; between Christians, Muslims, and animists in Africa; between religious conservatives and progressives at home over abortion and gay marriage—all these relate, if indirectly, to what rival groups believe about God and scripture. Any resolution of these conflicts will have to come from people who understand how religious belief and practice influence our world: why, in particular, believers see some things as worth fighting and dying for. On the Harvard campus—where the next generation of aspiring leaders is currently beginning the spring term—the importance of religion goes without saying. "Kids need to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia," is something you hear a lot.
SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 77% >>
But in practice, the Harvard faculty cannot cope with religion. It cannot agree on who should teach it, how it should be taught, and how much value to give it compared with economics, biology, literature, and all the other subjects considered vital to an undergraduate education. This question of how much religion to teach led to a bitter fight when the faculty last discussed curriculum reform, in 2006. Louis Menand, the Pulitzer Prize–winning literary critic and English professor, together with a small group of colleagues tasked with revising Harvard's core curriculum, made the case that undergraduate students should be required to take at least one course in a category called Reason and Faith. These would explore big issues in religion: intelligent design, debates within and around Islam, and a history of American faith, for example. Steven Pinker, the evolutionary psychologist, led the case against a religion requirement. He argued that the primary goal of a Harvard education is the pursuit of truth through rational inquiry, and that religion has no place in that.
In the end, Menand & Co. backed down, and the matter never made it to a vote. A more brutal fight was put off for another day. But that's a pity—for Harvard, its students, and the rest of us who need leaders better informed about faith and the motivations of the faithful. Harvard may or may not be the pinnacle of higher learning in the world, but because it is Harvard, it reflects—for better or worse—the priorities of the nation's intellectual set. To decline to grapple head-on with the role of religion in a liberal-arts education, even as debates over faith and reason rage on blogs, and as publishers churn out books defending and attacking religious belief, is at best timid and at worst self-defeating.
Harvard's distaste for engaging with religion as an academic subject is particularly ironic, given that it was founded in 1636 as a training ground for Christian ministers. According to the office of the president, Veritas was only officially adopted as its motto in 1843; until then it had been Christo et Ecclesiae ("For Christ and the Church"). While it's true that other Ivy League colleges don't require undergrads to take religion (with the exception of Columbia, where readings in the mandatory Contemporary Civilization course include selections from Exodus, the Book of Matthew, Saint Augustine, and the Quran), it's fair to say that the study of religion at Harvard is uniquely dysfunctional.
Click here to find out more!
Religion at Harvard doesn't even merit its own department. Professors who teach religion classes generally belong to other departments—anthropology, say, or Near Eastern languages. A Committee on the Study of Religion oversees the courses, but it can't hire and fire, and it can't grant tenure. Diana Eck, the top scholar of world religions who runs the program, argues that its second-class status prevents it from drawing the biggest talent to campus—and, as a result, the most gifted students. There are great teachers of religion at Harvard, she says, but because they're members of other departments, their reputations don't enhance the religious-studies program. Eck mentions Emory, Oberlin, Swarthmore, Smith, Carleton, and Macalester as places where religion departments thrive.
Harvard likes to regard itself as the best of the best. Yet even public universities—the University of Texas, Arizona State, and Indiana University, for example—generate more excitement around the subject of religion than Harvard does. A new religious-studies program at the University of Minnesota was launched last year; already it has more than 50 majors. "I have just been amazed at the breadth of the embrace that we have received here," says Jeanne Kilde, a professor of classics and Near Eastern studies who runs the program. Last year 33 Harvard undergrads chose to major in religion, compared with 704 in economics, 408 in government, 217 in history, and 45 in classics. "Hist and Lit," another boutique major without an official department, had 155 majors. In religious studies, says Eck, "we patch things together the best we can."
Undergraduates with more than a passing interest in religion are pointed to the Divinity School, half a mile away from Harvard Yard, where they can take graduate-level courses about belief from people who are, by tradition, believers. This separation of "faith" from "reason" occurred in the early part of the 19th century, when the American university evolved into a secular place. Even now, in an era when a presidential candidate cannot get elected without a convincing "faith narrative," the scholars who study belief continue to reside in the Divinity School, and when the subject of religion comes up, the scholars on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences sniff at its seriousness.
Such general disdain, combined with the bureaucratic awkwardness of navigating between the Divinity School and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, finally caused American Catholicism scholar Robert Orsi, who had been at Harvard for seven years, to flee for Northwestern University in 2007. "There is [such a thing as] a critical study of religion," he says. "It is a very important and interesting part of the human story, and people are teaching it at small colleges and state universities across America."
SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 77% >>
In dozens of phone calls and several trips to the Harvard campus, I tried to understand the faculty's anxiety about religion. The facile explanation is that more than a third of elite university professors are nonreligious, a dramatically higher percentage than the population at large. But both believing and nonbelieving scholars clearly can teach about religion in a secular setting without crossing the line into proselytizing. And wouldn't students benefit from having their assumptions challenged in a rigorous way? (Fluency in religious history and texts, in fact, is the sharpest weapon against fundamentalism, as Sam Harris demonstrates in his polemic The End of Faith.) "My colleagues fear that taking religion seriously would undermine everything a great university stands for," the Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard's chaplain and a professor of Christian history, told me. "I think that's ungrounded, but there it is."
Steven Pinker says his main objection to the 2006 proposal that students be required to take a course in a Reason and Faith category was that it seemed to make reason and faith equal paths to truth. "I very, very, very much do not want to go on the record as suggesting that people should not know about religion," he told me. "But reason and faith are not yin and yang. Faith is a phenomenon. Reason is what the university should be in the business of fostering."
Pinker is a public intellectual, a celebrity on the Harvard campus, the kind of teacher who can draw 400 students into a lecture hall and who elicits star-struck stares in the Yard. His specialty is the evolution of language, but all his work, from The Language Instinct to The Blank Slate (a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize), coheres under the broad notion that a scientific, rational world view is the highest achievement of the human mind. As his wife, the novelist Rebecca Goldstein, put it to him on a day I visited them on Cape Cod, Mass., "All forms of irrationality irk you, but [religion] is the form of irrationality that irks you most." In Pinker's view, human progress is an evolution away from superstition, witchcraft, and idol worship—that is, religion—and toward something like a Scandinavian austerity and secularism. (Pinker is one of those intellectuals who speak frequently about how sensible things are in Europe; one suppresses the urge to remind him of the Muslim riots in the Paris and London suburbs.) A university education is our greatest weapon in the battle against our natural stupidity, he said in a recent speech. "We don't kill virgins on an altar, because we know that it would not, in fact, propitiate an angry god and alleviate misfortune on earth."
That insistence on the backwardness of religion is why, on a warm October afternoon in 2006, at a small faculty luncheon at a Cambridge, Mass., bistro called Sandrine's, Pinker launched his bomb. The topic of the meeting was curriculum reform, but Pinker homed in on religion, declaring that requiring students to take a course in a Reason and Faith category would be like requiring them to take a course in Astronomy and Astrology. "Faith," he said, "is believing in something without good reasons to do so. It has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these." His remarks that day ran in The Crimson and were picked up by the national press.
Click here to find out more!
"For myself," remembers Derek Bok, who was Harvard's acting president at the time, "that was one of the less thoughtful remarks that I heard. This was a rhetorical flourish he threw in there. It caught people's attention—it did. He's very good at that."
Menand—who was co-chair of the curriculum-reform committee and had come to think that Reason and Faith was "a really great idea"—was not surprised by Pinker's remarks. He does not see himself as an advocate for the study of religion per se, but he does want students to engage fully with the messiness and contradiction of clashing ideas. He and Pinker have been intellectual rivals since 2002, when he eviscerated Pinker's book The Blank Slate in The New Yorker. ("Oh, I was pissed," says Pinker. Both now characterize their relationship as collegial.) Menand believes that Pinker's "scientistic" world view—that is, submitting everything, from painting to romantic love to empirical measurement—leads to a narrow and sometimes wrongheaded understanding of things.
Neither Menand nor anyone else is suggesting, in any case, that Harvard elevate God's Truth over the progress made through enlightened rational inquiry. But science isn't the only—or even always the best—tool for understanding human experience, and to hold science up as the One and Only Truth is a kind of fundamentalism in itself. Furthermore, as Menand points out, scientific truths shift over time, dependent as they are on history and culture: just look, he says, at the recent "discovery" of "behavioral economics." A humanist, he cracks, would never have expected people's saving and spending habits to be anything but irrational. For Harvard—or any liberal-arts college—placing value on the study of religion poses no threat to secularism, science, or rationality. As Menand puts it, "We teach stuff we don't believe in all the time."
Menand's strongest argument, though, centers on relevance. In his new book, The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University, he takes the modern university to task for its narrowness. Professors exist in their slim silos of expertise, training graduate students in esoterica to perpetuate their own interests. But since only a tiny fraction of Harvard students pursue academic graduate degrees, Menand says, the academy is not serving its students very well. Menand believes—passionately—that, as he wrote in the final document summarizing the new goals and categories for curriculum reform, college is a time to "unsettle presumptions, to defamiliarize the familiar, to reveal what's going on beneath and behind appearances." Forcing kids to grapple head-on with the world view of a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist, say, would be a part of this unsettling.
SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 77% >>
By floating the idea of a religion requirement, then, Menand and the other members of the committee were essentially saying that religion matters. It matters in the world, and it matters to our students. In their adult lives, Harvard grads will have jobs that take them to far-flung places, and they will live with people who are dramatically unlike themselves. They may live in a town where the school board is considering teaching creationism or the library is aiming to ban Harry Potter. Just because the study of religion does not fit into the narrow categories the university has created for itself does not mean that students should not equip themselves—in a rational, secular context—with a vocabulary for thinking about it.
Menand insists that Pinker's rhetorical assault did not kill the religion requirement. In the political climate of the time—this was just after Larry Summers's spectacular flameout as Harvard's president—it was crucial to get curriculum reform passed, and in the interest of efficiency the religion requirement was bartered away for a broader category. But Menand agrees that Pinker's vocal antipathy contributed to a campuswide concern that the religion debate at Harvard could become a media sideshow and detract from the goal. "We dropped it because there was a ruckus," he says. In retrospect, he says, "I wish we'd hung onto it a little bit longer. It was a conversation worth having."
This year's freshmen, the class of 2013, are the first to benefit from the new General Education requirements that passed, finally, in 2007. During their tenure at Harvard, undergraduates now have to take one course in each of eight categories, including two in science and one in math. They have to take one course in a loose category called Culture and Belief, which includes religion courses but also classes in photography, mythology, and the literature of the quest. A student, in other words, can graduate from Harvard without having to grapple directly with questions about a world in which people define themselves and their histories according to their views of God.
Harvard students are increasingly "churchgoing, Bible-studying, and believing," says Jay Harris, the dean who administers the General Education program. "We have a very strong evangelical community. We have women walking around in hijabs." The disinclination of the faculty to bring religion front and center puts teachers at risk of being radically out of step with their students. Pierpaolo Barbieri, who sat on the Crimson editorial board at the time of the 2006 religion debate, agrees: "Growing up after 9/11, you need to fathom how other people think. With rationality, it would be very difficult to understand how someone could get on a plane and do that." Barbieri, who is now getting his master's in economics at Cambridge University, supported Reason and Faith in an editorial.
Click here to find out more!
On one of my visits to the Yard, I met a sophomore named Ryan Mahoney in a basement pub. Raised in Queens, N.Y., and educated, as generations of Irish Catholics have been, by Jesuits who saw in him some promise, Mahoney was forthright about a despondent feeling he had, in class and among his friends: neither the Catholic theology that framed his thinking nor the religious community that gave him comfort were appropriate subjects for discussion. He once overheard students in the dorm making fun of his rosary. "I do not think there would be any openness to discussing God in any of the classes I took last year," he said. "But acknowledging the fact that religion exists and that it's not lunacy to believe in God would be helpful." To dismiss the importance of the study of faith—especially now—out of academic narrow-mindedness is less than unhelpful. It's unreasonable.
With Johannah Cornblatt
Lisa Miller is NEWSWEEK's religion editor. Her book Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination With the Afterlife is due out from Harper in March.
© 2010
Stanford has its own department. :whistle:
Theology is a standard university level subject in the UK. My uni was particularly specialist in Buddhism. Very often you'd bump into a Buddhist monk or nun in the library.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 09:48:30 PM
The Quakers were spent as a political and religious force by the mid 19th century. And while it's certainly true that there were Evangelicals, especially in the South who were against abolition (justifying slavery via the curse of Ham), it is also true that in the North radical abolition was primarily pushed by Evangelicals and their churches and reform organizations.
An evangelical is a Protestant who believes in the need for a born again conversion experience, who emphasizes the death, resurrection and salvation of Christ, and one who respects the authority of the bible. The later has trended towards literalism in the recent century.
http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/
QuoteIndeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism–revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)–became "revivalism" as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical "Benevolent Empire" (in historian Martin Marty's words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women's movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and–most controversial of all–the abolition movement.
Quakers were the driving force behind the American Anti Slavery Society. That society and other secular organisations based on the liberal (Whig) tradition forming the Free Soil and eventually Republican Party were Abolitionist doesn't mean any thing to you then either? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that religion can be a person's driving factor in supporting Abolition. However the most famous US abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln (he decided not to move for a ban for political reason, but he most definitively was an abolitionist), was at best a deist, and had the concept existed at the time possibly been an atheist. You can't give credit to evangelical Christianity for the actions of some of it's followers when the defining factor for being pro or anti Abolition was not religion, but rather economic and cultural (with the obvious exception of Quakers). When two evangelical churches, one in Massachusetts and the other in South Carolina, have congregations with diametrically opposed views on slavery you can't credit the church or the church doctrine or theology for the virtue of the Massachusetts church and ignore the social and economic factors in Massachusetts life as opposed to South Carolina life. Religion is not a deciding factor except in a few rare cases, it is part of a rationalisation for a choice taken for social and political reasons. Show me southern evangelical abolitionists who credit their religion for their agitation against interest then I'll listen.
Edit: Not to mention that the first American abolitionists were Deists like Thomas Paine who were roundly condemned by the Evangelicals of the Great Awakening.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 09:01:50 PM
While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.
The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2010, 10:30:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 09:48:30 PM
The Quakers were spent as a political and religious force by the mid 19th century. And while it's certainly true that there were Evangelicals, especially in the South who were against abolition (justifying slavery via the curse of Ham), it is also true that in the North radical abolition was primarily pushed by Evangelicals and their churches and reform organizations.
An evangelical is a Protestant who believes in the need for a born again conversion experience, who emphasizes the death, resurrection and salvation of Christ, and one who respects the authority of the bible. The later has trended towards literalism in the recent century.
http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/
QuoteIndeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism–revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)–became "revivalism" as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical "Benevolent Empire" (in historian Martin Marty's words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women's movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and–most controversial of all–the abolition movement.
Quakers were the driving force behind the American Anti Slavery Society. That society and other secular organisations based on the liberal (Whig) tradition forming the Free Soil and eventually Republican Party were Abolitionist doesn't mean any thing to you then either? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that religion can be a person's driving factor in supporting Abolition. However the most famous US abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln (he decided not to move for a ban for political reason, but he most definitively was an abolitionist), was at best a deist, and had the concept existed at the time possibly been an atheist. You can't give credit to evangelical Christianity for the actions of some of it's followers when the defining factor for being pro or anti Abolition was not religion, but rather economic and cultural (with the obvious exception of Quakers). When two evangelical churches, one in Massachusetts and the other in South Carolina, have congregations with diametrically opposed views on slavery you can't credit the church or the church doctrine or theology for the virtue of the Massachusetts church and ignore the social and economic factors in Massachusetts life as opposed to South Carolina life. Religion is not a deciding factor except in a few rare cases, it is part of a rationalisation for a choice taken for social and political reasons. Show me southern evangelical abolitionists who credit their religion for their agitation against interest then I'll listen.
Edit: Not to mention that the first American abolitionists were Deists like Thomas Paine who were roundly condemned by the Evangelicals of the Great Awakening.
Of course the Quakers founded the Anti-slavery society, but by the 1830s-60s, it was the Northern evangelicals that were in the van. Also, there were Quakers opposed to slavery before Paine.
Though I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln, lets not twist the facts here. He was for gradual abolition and recolonization. It was only under the purifying fires of war that he became more radical and took advantage of the opportunity given him to free the slaves. He can't possibly be compared to those like Garrison and Weld that had labored for decades in favor of immediate emancipation. You're correct in your evaluation of Lincoln's religious beliefs, but only as they were before the war. As his politics were changed by the war, so was his faith. If you read his writing it becomes clear that his believe in God strengthens over the war. His speeches become much more spiritual and theological in nature.
How do you differentiate religious factors from social and political factors? I think that in most people, especially of the time they were closely linked.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2010, 10:43:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 09:01:50 PM
While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.
The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.
:huh: The changes wrought by the Civil War were vastly more revolutionary than those wrought by the Revolution, and they would reverberate strongly for more than hundred years.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 15, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
I had the same one. OMG we have Indian Mounds!!11
:D
I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.
Shit, that's depressing. We did have Germanic burial mounds, but also Vikings, Hanseatic League, Reformation/Thirty Years War and a trip to the concentration camp Bergen-Belsen as part of local history during our history class.
Quote from: Syt on February 15, 2010, 11:42:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 15, 2010, 03:43:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 02:35:08 PM
I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.
I had the same one. OMG we have Indian Mounds!!11
:D
I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.
Shit, that's depressing. We did have Germanic burial mounds, but also Vikings, Hanseatic League, Reformation/Thirty Years War and a trip to the concentration camp Bergen-Belsen as part of local history during our history class.
We had field trips to Native American pictographs at Paint Rock, Texas.
I remember seeing those Hünengraben outside of Lüneburg.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 11:21:04 PM
Of course the Quakers founded the Anti-slavery society, but by the 1830s-60s, it was the Northern evangelicals that were in the van. Also, there were Quakers opposed to slavery before Paine.
Though I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln, lets not twist the facts here. He was for gradual abolition and recolonization. It was only under the purifying fires of war that he became more radical and took advantage of the opportunity given him to free the slaves. He can't possibly be compared to those like Garrison and Weld that had labored for decades in favor of immediate emancipation. You're correct in your evaluation of Lincoln's religious beliefs, but only as they were before the war. As his politics were changed by the war, so was his faith. If you read his writing it becomes clear that his believe in God strengthens over the war. His speeches become much more spiritual and theological in nature.
Enough dead young boys can do that to you.
But I hope that my point about the abolition movement not being an Evangelical Christian movement is made.
Quote
How do you differentiate religious factors from social and political factors? I think that in most people, especially of the time they were closely linked.
The way you differentiate anything. You control for as many variables as possible and then you try to see a relationship between the two factors you are comparing.
In this case the religion (except for Quakers) of a person doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in determining the person's position on Abolition. Religion is very useful as a rationalisation for a choice already taken. The bible not only permits slavery, but it also calls on you to love thy neighbour as thyself. You can find support for either side in the bible. You will pick and choose which verses to weigh based on the choice already made. A person will watch fox news to confirm an opinion already held (same with msnbc), not to be challenged into forming a new one.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2010, 10:43:14 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 09:01:50 PM
While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.
The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.
:huh: The changes wrought by the Civil War were vastly more revolutionary than those wrought by the Revolution, and they would reverberate strongly for more than hundred years.
Not really. Blacks were still heavily disadvantaged, and the fall of the South had started with the industrialization of the North.
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 09:07:47 PM
I considered the entire discussion a sidebar rather than a central portion of study. I do not agree with you, which is fine, but I wonder how much of the Great Awakening or religion is even mentioned now in your classroom.
I don't teach US history right now, but when I did, both Great Awakenings were mentioned as evidence that people in general were dissatisfied with the then-current social values and the perceived goals of the opinion leaders of the time. Religious revivalism is a symptom, IMO, of a social malaise, rather than a cause of it (or a cure for it).
My main theme in teaching US history was the establishment/articulation of the US political/social ideals and the extent to which different groups, movements, and individuals actually lived up to those ideals (which lead us, of course, to why they didn't, which is what the kids walked away remembering). You cannot teach everything, and if one says "we need to teach more about X...." one must, as Berkut notes, continue with "therefor we will teach less about Y."
Quote from: merithyn on February 15, 2010, 09:16:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 15, 2010, 09:07:27 PM
Nope, I imply nothing of the sort - anything I have said, I have stated rather clearly, I think.
Someone, namely Meri, has stated that she thinks we should spend more time talking about the religious aspects of some historical events. I have disagreed with her on the basis that she has not provided any reason to think that the religious context of the writing of the Constitution is not given adequate coverage already. In other words, *she* is claiming that the experts are wrong. Which is fine -experts certainly can be wrong - but I find her arguments unconvincing, especially given that she has stated very clearly that she actually has not idea what is taught.
Actually, I'm claiming that those writing the textbooks aren't experts, per the article cited. And I do have an idea of what is taught, but not enough so to say decidedly what should be minimized in favor of the back story of the founding fathers. I'd rather not say something decisively until I do, though I agree that local and state government could do with a paring down. As your comments haven't been very convincing to me that I'm mistaken in my opinion, either, I'd say we're at an impasse.
Indeed we are - there is really no where to go once someone simply refuses to think through the consequences of their position. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.
At least you guys had decent mounds. Ours sucked. Though I guess we mercifully only had one semester of WV History.
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2010, 11:38:39 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 15, 2010, 06:03:37 PM
I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.
At least you guys had decent mounds. Ours sucked. Though I guess we mercifully only had one semester of WV History.
Um... we have a rock (Plymouth rock) in Massachusetts! :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 10:05:38 PM
I'm surprised that Harvard doesn't have a religious studies department. I've been to a small liberal arts college and a state university and neither shied away from religion. The fact that Bard is one of the most liberal colleges in the nation didn't stop them from studying it in a serious way.
:huh:
Harvard has the Harvard Divinity School, which hosts about 50 faculty members. The teaching of religious studies is done by a Committee on the Study of Religion which is an umbrella bringing together faculty from different department, yes, but most are from the Divinity School.
:lol: @ Tim.
I used to work a fair bit on projects with the Divinity School fundraisers, as we were another "poor tub" at the university. The rich tubs like the Medical School, the Law School, and the Business School hung together and the poor tubs had their own little clique going. It was very junior high-ish.
Quote from: Berkut on February 16, 2010, 09:21:54 AM
Indeed we are - there is really no where to go once someone simply refuses to think through the consequences of their position. :P
Indeed.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 16, 2010, 02:48:31 PM
Harvard has the Harvard Divinity School, which hosts about 50 faculty members. The teaching of religious studies is done by a Committee on the Study of Religion which is an umbrella bringing together faculty from different department, yes, but most are from the Divinity School.
And this is the way religion should be taught: as a specilized course for those who want to take a specialized course in it, but otherwise merly as an issue where it impinges on the core subject of other courses. This is much like how racism, or economics, or partisan politics is taught.
Requiring everyone to take a course in religion itself make sno more sense than requiring everyone to take one in women's studies or mass media. It would be nice to have the time to teach everyone everything, but it isn't practical.
Ditto for textbooks. I would love to have textbooks that go into detail on the religious controversies that distinguished Zwingli from Luther from Calvin for my world history class, but that would require leaving out something more directly relevant to "the narrative" - or else make the textbook hopelessly long.
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2010, 03:40:58 PM
:lol: @ Tim.
I used to work a fair bit on projects with the Divinity School fundraisers, as we were another "poor tub" at the university. The rich tubs like the Medical School, the Law School, and the Business School hung together and the poor tubs had their own little clique going. It was very junior high-ish.
As if I didn't know about the Harvard Divinity School before I came across this article. :rolleyes:
Moreover, did you guys even read the article? They specifically talk about the Divinity School.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 04:59:04 PM
And this is the way religion should be taught: as a specilized course for those who want to take a specialized course in it, but otherwise merly as an issue where it impinges on the core subject of other courses. This is much like how racism, or economics, or partisan politics is taught. Requiring everyone to take a course in religion itself make sno more sense than requiring everyone to take one in women's studies or mass media. It would be nice to have the time to teach everyone everything, but it isn't practical.
Well universities often make you take one out of the subset. I believe I was required to take one gender or race class and one "world cultures" class which I think including the religious classes. But yeah, everyone shouldn't be forced to take everything.
Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2010, 04:59:04 PM
And this is the way religion should be taught: as a specilized course for those who want to take a specialized course in it, but otherwise merly as an issue where it impinges on the core subject of other courses. This is much like how racism, or economics, or partisan politics is taught. Requiring everyone to take a course in religion itself make sno more sense than requiring everyone to take one in women's studies or mass media. It would be nice to have the time to teach everyone everything, but it isn't practical.
Ditto for textbooks. I would love to have textbooks that go into detail on the religious controversies that distinguished Zwingli from Luther from Calvin for my world history class, but that would require leaving out something more directly relevant to "the narrative" - or else make the textbook hopelessly long.
I honestly saw the topic as being a paragraph or two in a chapter on social factors pertaining to the creation of the Constitution. Something to be addressed among the myriad of other things that make up the environment of the times. I do remember that our text had something along those lines. At no time did I consider it to be necessary to have an entire chapter dedicated to the topic, much less an entire class.
And were I to write it, the paragraph would explain the various religious conflicts going on, and how that helped the forefathers decide that they wanted nothing to do with a state religion.
I understand what you're saying, grumbler. I'm just failing to see how it would take so much time to explain that small bit. In fact, when/if I'm teaching a US History class (which I hope to do one day), I'm fairly sure I'll take five minutes to explain that, then move on with the subject matter. I really do feel that to ignore that aspect is to ignore the reason behind the concept of separation of church and state. There was a reason for it beyond deist and atheist men writing the document. That reason is why people fight so hard today to maintain the separation.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2010, 06:33:16 PM
The phrase "America is a Christian Nation" in school social studies textbooks utterly uninteresting? Especially since the exact opposite of that phrase is US Law.
When they teach it to the kids? Oh yeah.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 16, 2010, 05:18:51 PM
As if I didn't know about the Harvard Divinity School before I came across this article. :rolleyes:
Moreover, did you guys even read the article? They specifically talk about the Divinity School.
Then I guess I don't understand your reaction. How is Harvard shying away from studying religion ? The article itself doesn't make that clear either, pointing rather to the «bureaucratic» problem of navigating different faculties, the physical distance of a school from main campus, and then to some comments by a star prof.
Of all the bureaucratic problems that happen in a University, taking multi-faculty courses and hoping into the inter-campus shuttle is not quite insurmountable. Although it may be well so that Harvard's programme on that topic fails to attract students. I'll ask around.
Quote from: garbon on February 16, 2010, 05:57:07 PM
Well universities often make you take one out of the subset. I believe I was required to take one gender or race class and one "world cultures" class which I think including the religious classes. But yeah, everyone shouldn't be forced to take everything.
I took a religion course as an undergrad but I can't remember if it was required or not. I was a history major with a focus on classics and medieval history so it would have been kind of weird for me to NOT have an overview course on the Abrahamic faiths, even if it wasn't a requirement.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 17, 2010, 03:36:06 PM
hoping into the inter-campus shuttle is not quite insurmountable.
If I had to take an inter-campus shuttle to get to class...I ain't going.