Hot Air » Blog Archive » Harvard faculty committee recommends adding religion to core curriculum

Harvard faculty committee recommends adding religion to core curriculum

posted at 8:45 pm on October 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

A religious lefty(!) friend(!) told me the other day she thinks Bush was right about the Third Awakening.

I’d say this is as good a sign as any.

Although this might be better. Chart grabbed from the Pew poll summary:

FYI, Pentecostals are the folks who speak in tongues. Quote:

In seven of the 10 countries surveyed, majorities or pluralities of pentecostals say there should be a separation between church and state. But in each of these countries, sizeable minorities of pentecostals say that their government should take special steps to make their country a Christian country. And in three countries, including the U.S., pentecostals who favor separation of church and state are at least slightly outnumbered by pentecostals who say that the government should take special steps to make their nation a Christian country.

There’s a word for this, isn’t there?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

I’m sure once the Harvard faculty gets through with it, “religion” will be indistinguishable from leftism.

Farmer_Joe on October 5, 2006 at 9:06 PM

What’s a ‘renewalist’?

Kevin M on October 5, 2006 at 9:15 PM

For that matter, what’s ‘christianism’?

Kevin M on October 5, 2006 at 9:17 PM

Harvard committee recommends returning religion to curriculum

Why do I have the feeling liberals are up to something no good?

januarius on October 5, 2006 at 9:35 PM

Also from the poll:

And the religious services attended by U.S. renewalists tend to be quite different from the ones attended by others; more than half of U.S. pentecostals who report attending church say that the services they attend frequently include people speaking in tongues and manifesting other signs of the Spirit; the same is true for roughly three-in-ten charismatic church attenders in the U.S.

Jeebus!

And then there’s this:

And more than half (52%) of American pentecostals say that the government should take special steps to make the U.S. a Christian country, compared with only 25% among Christians overall.

So, 25 percent of all Christians want “special steps” to make this a Christian country? What is that supposed to mean exactly?

Watcher on October 5, 2006 at 9:46 PM

You linked to Andrew Sullivan? Are you feeling okay? As for his article, he’s just upset that he doesn’t fit in to any Christian denominations.

raz0r on October 5, 2006 at 9:47 PM

They already teach a religion. It’s called “secular humanism”

HerrMorgenholz on October 5, 2006 at 9:55 PM

Is this teaching of “religion” going to be about islam and the evils of Christianity?

SouthernGent on October 5, 2006 at 10:11 PM

I’m wondering if there are any judaism classes? Are they next to the Islam ones?

Defector01 on October 5, 2006 at 10:26 PM

Not to go off the deep end or anything but I firmly believe that leftist Christians are not true Christians. There are certain lines that are crossed; for instance:

a “true” “progressive” leftist argues that gays have the right to marry, which is akin to saying that homosexuality is a legitimate identity trait, whereas the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination;

accepting Christ as your Savior (becoming a Christian) means that you ask him to forgive you for your sins, meaning that you acknowledge what is sin and what is not;

if you believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, you believe it is not a sin and therefore have rejected Christ’s forgiveness for sin (you have also rejected a portion of the Bible, which is essentially Christ Himself).

Hope everyone enjoyed that theology lesson. You don’t even have to be a Christian to agree that yes, that is reasonable logic.

JamesVersusEveryone on October 5, 2006 at 10:39 PM

This post is one of the worst examples I’ve seen of a sort of post I’ve found here too often recently and that seems quite disadvantageous to a blogger and his presumptive intention to say something. The body of the post is about two different things that are related so generically that the post has almost no topical coherence. The–what to call it?–main quasi-topic isn’t mentioned in the title, and the topic announced by the title is never actually mentioned, let alone considered, in the post. I could easily have had something to say in reply to a post on religion in America, but here there’s so little in the way of an opinion overtly stated and supported that I don’t know where to begin.

I think my high level of participation in the comments shows my high regard for the site and the hosts. Maybe on that basis, one will tolerate my attempt at a constructive critique and consider its product.

Kralizec on October 5, 2006 at 10:53 PM

One of the teachings of Jesus I take most to heart is, “Do not judge others,” and this is why I tend to be socially liberal (though definitely pro-life). Perhaps others are called and qualified to judge who are the good vs bad people, but I’m pretty sure that’s not my place.

mikeyboss on October 5, 2006 at 11:16 PM

I could easily have had something to say in reply to a post on religion in America, but here there’s so little in the way of an opinion overtly stated and supported that I don’t know where to begin.

Well, I don’t have a whole lot to say on this topic. And I also don’t have much time to mull the subject over because there are news feeds to monitor and other stories to follow up on. Which leaves me with a conundrum: do I post the religion links I noticed earlier and let the commenters have at them? Or do I sit on them and risk other bloggers posting them, and then I don’t even have fresh news to offer you guys anymore?

The truth is, if I only posted on subjects that I have strong, thoughtful opinions on, there’d be maybe three posts here a day. Sometimes you just gotta throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. At the very least, you got to read two articles that you might not have otherwise heard about.

I take your point, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying, there are competing considerations.

Plus, people seem to be into the religion meme today.

Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 11:21 PM

Case in point: I just stumbled upon this. Do I have much to say about it? Not being religious, no I don’t. Do I think our readers would be interested in it? Yes I do. Will I be posting it tomorrow, likely with little or no commentary? Chances are good.

Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 11:24 PM

Commenting first on AP’s link in his post above this…

The answer to fearing the loss of teenage participation in church is NOT to make church more like the world. Logic can’t get more broken than this:

The world is evil. The teens from our church are turning to the world. We need to take steps to get them back. I know, let’s pump up the volume, color our hair and pierce our skin.

You’ll keep a few of them around a bit longer, but at what cost? You are doing the work of your enemy for them. As young people rush toward maturity, they become free agents. You do what you can to establish a foundation for them, and you stick to it.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Now on to Andrew Sullivan. It disturbs me how right he is about so many things Christian, and yet misses the little tiny thing that homosexuality is opposed by God. I have to agree with him that those who would wish to make this country become a “christian” one aren’t doing it right. I’m not comfortable with his labelling of such folks as Christianists. Far from the first time I’ve heard the term, but I can’t be sure who came first, Sullivan or Sobran, they both use it.

Finally, the core topic. I find myself extremely sceptical about Harvard’s proposal. At first blush you want to cheer and say finally, someone woke up and realized that the universities are not teaching reality, and that their students will have to face religion in their lives. However, knowing that the actual belief system of the vast majority of professors is strongly “godless” to borrow Ann’s term, I can’t bring myself to expect much of such a decision, even if it does come to pass.

As much as discussions of far less divisive topics gets colored to the bent of the professor’s own ideology, how badly would “historical” discussions of religion in America get skewed?

Still, it was a nice thought to read about, and one can hope.

Freelancer on October 6, 2006 at 3:54 AM

Freelancer, I agree with you about the universitites. It sounds almost as if they want to teach their students how to ‘deal’ with religion, rather than ‘about’ religion.