Religion and American exceptionalism

[Comrade-Z]

Harvard has been looking to revamp its core curriculum for some time now. Personally, I think it's just fine the way it is. But apparently the Harvard administration thinks that we need more religious and nationalistic indoctrination:

Report Recasts the Core (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514668)

More from the Harvard Crimson (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514669)

For instance:


The expectation that all students engage with American history hearkens back to Harvard’s 1945 Red Book program, which emphasized the inculcation of American civic values.

“The world is different, but the idea is the same,” Menand said.

The Red Book resulted from an effort by then-University President James Bryant Conant ’14 to define general education and civic responsibility in the wake of the Second World War.

Like the Red Book, today’s report reflects the influence of recent global events. “I wouldn’t say we discussed 9/11 in the committee,” Menand said, but “I think most Americans think the event put into focus the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world in a way people hadn’t thought about very clearly.”

Under the new proposed Core, taking a course involving religious study would also be mandatory. It seems there really is big money flowing into religion these days. What the hell is going on? Surely a sign of decadence, no? I mean, it should just be impossible for educated, scientifically literate students to take religion seriously these days. Sooner or later, I have to think that people are going to say, "Enough! This is getting ridiculous! This is not Iran!"

[Guerrilla22]

Oh of course, I'm a international relations major, so I've heard this nonsensical argument put forward by the likes of Francis Fukuyama, Charles Krauthammer and other political and soical elites from our countries "greatest universities". American exceptionalism equals nothing more than a weak justification for imperialism by those who benefit from it the most.

[Comrade-Z]

Exactly, American exceptionalism is just a way of justifying U.S. imperialism without seeming too brazen about it.

At Harvard, the most popular class, by far, is already a neoliberal love-fest, Social Analysis 10/Ec 10, taught by an economic advisor to the Bush administration, Gregory Mankiw.

Ec 10 sees its demand rising (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514684)

Economics exposed: A critique of Ec10 and the Economics department at Harvard (http://www.badideafactory.net/disguide/ec10.htm)

Oi-vey..... :(

[Guerrilla22]

I'm sooo tired of having to read about it also. This is why no left wingers will ever prosper at so called elite universities, because of their political econmoist mentality, I just wish the books coming out of these institutions, especially Harvard and Johns Hopkins wouldn't be studied by the poly sci departmnets at every other university in the country.

[Lenin's Law]

The elite schools, the Harvards and Yales and so on need to have a large amount of political bourgeois propaganda in their classrooms as they represent the future of the American ruling class. I'm not saying everyone there is of course, but by and large, the children of the ruling class are sent to the best schools in the country, so obviously they cannot be led astray with the 'wrong' ideas.

Unfortunately, as the "leaders" of American academia, the books published at the elite universities are often carried over and distributed by other universities as well. Just as many local papers simply regurgitate news stories coming from the New York Times or LA Times.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 02:37 PM
Under the new proposed Core, taking a course involving religious study would also be mandatory. It seems there really is big money flowing into religion these days. What the hell is going on? Surely a sign of decadence, no? I mean, it should just be impossible for educated, scientifically literate students to take religion seriously these days. Sooner or later, I have to think that people are going to say, "Enough! This is getting ridiculous! This is not Iran!"
I am an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with studying religion, provided it isn't indoctrination. You honestly don't think its important to understand religous beliefs and the role they play?

Also, your little cheap-shot at Iran is counter-productive at a time when the imperialists are mobilizing to attack that country. Just thought I'd mention that.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by mauvaise foi+Oct 5 2006, 06:46 AM--> (mauvaise foi @ Oct 5 2006, 06:46 AM)
Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 02:37 PM
Under the new proposed Core, taking a course involving religious study would also be mandatory. It seems there really is big money flowing into religion these days. What the hell is going on? Surely a sign of decadence, no? I mean, it should just be impossible for educated, scientifically literate students to take religion seriously these days. Sooner or later, I have to think that people are going to say, "Enough! This is getting ridiculous! This is not Iran!"
I am an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with studying religion, provided it isn't indoctrination. You honestly don't think its important to understand religous beliefs and the role they play?

Also, your little cheap-shot at Iran is counter-productive at a time when the imperialists are mobilizing to attack that country. Just thought I'd mention that. [/b]
I definitely see something wrong with being forced to study religion. I don't want to study religion, not even in a "comparative" sense. It is complete and utter hogwash, and any effort to confer intellectual legitimacy to it is utter rot. It would be different if they were going to be classes on religion from a historical or sociological perspective which would confront the question of "why do humans get involved with this?" just like there are classes that study Greek mythology and its relationship with Greek society. But those classes don't posit Greek mythology as a serious alternative for providing moral guidance in present-day society. But that's exactly what this "Reason and Faith" section is going to be about. It's designed to replace, more or less, the existing "Moral Reasoning" core requirement, and its classes are going to offer religion as a serious alternative to reason for arriving at decision-making. There is already a bit of this in some of the Moral Reasoning core classes as it is, but this change will solidify and institutionalize this approach. I'm sorry, but being taught in a mandatory class that religion is a serious alternative to reason is like being taught that 2 + 2 = 5.

Even if I was a political and religious apathetic who was opposed to indoctrination of any kind (be it so-called "communist indoctrination," religious indoctrination, whatever) and supportive of freedom of though, I would still feel this way.

My criticism of Iran is most definitely productive. Things not supported by solid evidence (such as religions and hobgoblins) should not have a place in public policy anywhere in the world. Furthermore, it should be readily apparent to any half-thinking being that, historically, U.S. intervention has been the absolute worst catalyst for increasing religious fundamentalism in the Middle-East; that the U.S. has gladly supported "Islamist" regimes and continues to support them all throughout the Middle-East, so long as they remain subservient to U.S. imperialism (just the other day, Bill Frist was calling on the Afghan puppet government to bring the Taliban back into the regime for the sake of "stability" in Afghanistan, despite the Taliban's continued oppression of women and heretics); that U.S. imperialism doesn't care jack shit about fundamentalism in Iran; that the U.S. government's sole reason for being opposed to Iran at this moment is that Iran threatens the hegemony of U.S. imperialism and its imperialist proxies, most notably Israel. Consequently, it should be plainly obvious that the best way to combat fundamentalism is to keep the U.S. the hell away from these societies and to allow societies to experience their own secular "Enlightenments."

[LoneRed]

C-Z do ou go to harvard? you seem to know a good amount about it.

[red team]

Homer: Woo-hoo! I'm a college man! I won't need my high school diploma
any more! [sets fire to it and starts singing]
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
S-M-R-T!
I mean, S-M-A-R-T...

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 08:37 AM
I mean, it should just be impossible for educated, scientifically literate students to take religion seriously these days.
nothing new under the sun....here, anyway.


Nothing remained to the French and German bourgeoisie as a last resource but to silently drop their free thought, as a youngster, when sea-sickness creeps upon him, quietly drops the burning cigar he brought swaggeringly on board; one-by-one, the scoffers turned pious in outward behavior, spoke with respect of the Church, its dogmas and rites, and even conformed with the latter as far as could not be helped. French bourgeois dined maigre on Fridays, and German ones say out long Protestant sermons in their pews on Sundays. They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religion muss dem Volk erhalten werden" – religion must be kept alive for the people – that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm) Emphasis added.

There is a bit of a U.S. peculiarity on the role of religion. The English Revolution came early and occurred under a religious banner: Calvinism, the Puritans and so forth. Cromwell and all that.

Unlike, say, the French Revolution.

A lot of the early settlers of the U.S. were Puritans and similar types; it gave religion here a bit more vitality and staying power.


I don't want to study religion, not even in a "comparative" sense. It is complete and utter hogwash, and any effort to confer intellectual legitimacy to it is utter rot. It would be different if they were going to be classes on religion from a historical or sociological perspective which would confront the question of "why do humans get involved with this?" just like there are classes that study Greek mythology and its relationship with Greek society.

Comparative religion can sometimes involve studying religion without endorsing it. Though I'm not saying Harvard promotes that; Harvard did begin as a Congregationalist (i.e. Puritan) religious college and still includes a Divinity School.

But in general: if you think about it, learning about all the mutually contradictory religious beliefs on the planet does tend to undermine naiive faith. There's a reason why children of religiously mixed marriages are less likely to be religious.

[Comrade-Z]

Unlike, say, the French Revolution.

An even better example is the Russian Revolution. Assuming you take the line that it was ultimately a bourgeois revolution, as bourgeois revolutions go, it was freakin' awesome--atheism, internationalism, women's liberation, etc. Even today the Central Asian "republics" maintain a lot of the Soviet Union's secular influence, such as abortion legislation which is quite liberal. China has also made great strides in terms of atheism and such. Heck, doesn't Vietnam even have abortion on demand? I think that's just awesome, for a weak, third-world country to be at that level. (Of course, if the U.S. was still in there, I doubt that would be the case!)


But in general: if you think about it, learning about all the mutually contradictory religious beliefs on the planet does tend to undermine naiive faith. There's a reason why children of religiously mixed marriages are less likely to be religious.

I must agree: unless you have been brought up in an atmosphere of firm dogmatic confidence in one and only one religion, you are likely to drift away from religion as you mature. This is true of just about everyone I've ever met.


C-Z do ou go to harvard? you seem to know a good amount about it.

Yeah, you could say I'm in the process of exploring the seedy underbelly of the training grounds for U.S. capitalism. Although there are some good elements here as well.

And it's a different kind of reaction than I'm used to. Less folksy, less ignorant, less traditional, more sophisticated, more neo-liberal, more of an imperial realist approach, more pseudo-tolerant, generally more of a sly fox to pin down.

[Guerrilla22]

Comparative religion can sometimes involve studying religion without endorsing it. Though I'm not saying Harvard promotes that; Harvard did begin as a Congregationalist (i.e. Puritan) religious college and still includes a Divinity School.

True there's nothing wrong with studying comaprative religion, however the fact that Harvard is creating a curriculum based around teaching religion at the same time as the tired "American exceptionalim, benign imperium" view of international relations screams "OUR CULTURE IS SUPERIOR!" along with promoting the typical American paternalistic worldview.