notMichaelJackson

We often hear about keeping God out of public schools, but what about public universities?

I attend a public, liberal university, and last semester I had two courses that were "linked" to each other. Each had three units, and our first one was about the Crusades and their impact on the modern world. We had to read much about the theologies and histories of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. We also had to read an article by one of our professors called "How do we know what God wants?"

I'm not an atheist, but if I was I might have objected to this.

Is teaching the doctrines of world religions (and the assumption that God exists) against the First Amendment?

Also, there is a Christian club at our university (which, oddly enough, is headed by my cousin). If I'm not mistaken, funds are given to them by the student activities people, who get some of their money from Illinois taxpayers. Why all the heat about people voluntarily gathering for private prayer in public schools but nothing about a government funded Christian club?

Mageth

Why all the heat about people voluntarily gathering for private prayer in public schools

Voluntary prayers are not prohibited in public schools, as long as they're not disruptive (and since you said "private", I'll assume they're not), and are not led or endorsed by teachers or administrators.

... but nothing about a government funded Christian club?


I did a quick search and found these two relevant cases:

Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) - Court rules that a state university cannot refuse to grant a student religious group "equal access" to facilities that are open to other student groups.

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 817 (1995) - Court finds student activity funds can be used to fund a Christian perspective student magazine called "Wide Awake."

I'm not too up on the application of the First Amendment to public universities, but I would imaging many of the restrictions and liberties are similar to those for public grade schools, but perhaps held a little less strenuously because of the "voluntary" nature of universities and the fact that students at university are generally considered adults and thus not subject to the same kind of captive influence of younger students in grade school. Thus, discussing religion openly in a public university class might not be considered an establishment problem. (It doesn't bother me as much, that's for sure.)

Those are just my thoughts, so take them with a grain of salt. Others might disagree with me.

ebolamonger

As far as I know, teaching the "facts" about a religion is not against the First Amendment. Teaching with the assumption that god exists would be, I think, but it'd be awfully hard to prove if it's just a teacher's assumption and it's very subtle. If it was written into any text, it'd be wrong. That'd be pretty easy to prove.

I think there is a very, very fine line when it comes to classes about religion. You can have a class about the histories and belief systems of many religions that is purely educational and not coercive. However, it's extremely easy for a teacher to use this time to proselytize. And the line between "telling people what other religions are all about in a factual way" and "trying to convince people that one religion--or even any religion (as opposed to no religion)--is correct" is blurry. I think it's important that people learn about the basic facts of other belief systems--makes you more aware, clues you in to reasons for historical events, people's motivations, etc--and I think that the facts can presented in an unbiased way.

edited to add again: the 1st amendment says that the government cannot endorse a particular religion. To have the religion class be truly fair, you'd have to teach about all possible religions and teach about atheism, I'd think.

I dunno. I don't want ANYONE shoving doctrine down my throat in my history class. However, learning the basics about religions can help explain parts of history and some areas of psychology, as far as human motives and behaviors.

-nikki-

Undercurrent

Not at all. It is the teaching that certain doctorines of religions are true for no other reason than because they are doctorines of religions which is counter to the first ammendment.

You mention atheists objecting to this, but at least as often it is theists who object to learning about religions other than their own, because of lack of understanding of the distinction between learning about a religion, and participating in one.

notMichaelJackson

We had to read an article titled "How do we know what God wants," which was by a professor at my university. That was crossing the line, but I didn't say anything about it because I didn't care that much.

Undercurrent

I wouldn't call that nescessarily over the line. It would depend on the follow up to it. If the point of reading the article was to give an example of the range of religious opinion on such issues without endorsing that opinion, it is no big deal.

If, on the other hand, if the content of the essay was meant to be normative, than that would be over the line. For example, if you were given a test with the question, "How do you know what God wants?" and were graded on the similarity of your answer to the content of the essay, then that would be bad.

Of course, this in no way makes the question, "What is professor such-and-such's opinion on how one knows what God wants?" an illegal exam question. You can be expected to know about other opinions on religious matters so long as you're not expected, as a course requirement, to agree with them.

Buffman

notMichaelJackson

I attend a public, liberal university, and last semester I had two courses that were "linked" to each other. Each had three units, and our first one was about the Crusades and their impact on the modern world. We had to read much about the theologies and histories of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. We also had to read an article by one of our professors called "How do we know what God wants?"

I don't imagine that these were compulsory courses. Additionally, I don't see how you could study "The Crusades" without a background in the three major religious faith beliefs involved.

The "article" about knowing what God wants also sounds very appropriate when studying The Crusades because it is quite obvious that each combatant claimed that God was on their side...but no objective reporter interviewed God to find out which side He truly favored. (The winners...The Muslims.)

You did not mention the other course to which this one was "linked."

scombrid

I could very easily imagine an article titled How do we know what God wants? being written from a scholarly standpoint, especially in a course studying the Crusades and the major players in those conflicts. It's instructive to look at all the sects out there a examine their means of determining god's will, particularly when they share doctrine but interpret it in many different ways. If he'd made you read something like We know what god wants. I'd agree on the face of it that he crossed the line.

How was the article that you guys had to read actually structured?

I'm picturing something that examines the reasoning different sects have for believing X. A modern example is Christian versus Muslim interpretation of the Al Queda attack on the WTC and Pentagon. The fundy islamic nutters believe that Allah struck a blow to the infidels. The fundy xtian nutters believe that Yahweh allow infidels to strike a blow as punishment. In the context of your course I image How do we know what God wants would go into examining such topics as why the Europeans knew that god wanted them to forcefully convert the Muslims.