Academic Freedom Bill of Rights: or, Doesn't Everyone Love Orwellian Language?

[St Leo]

This may well paralyze lectures into a stand-still, but fortunately university exams don't have to have anything to do with lectures and aren't covered by the bill.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon

I guess it's not a big deal that he got confused then.

No. He actually brought it up as I'd only briefly mentioned it in the lecture. We actually spent most of the tutorial arguing about Mill and euthanasia.

Fun argument though, although I think it made the other students uncomfortable.

I guess that it will resume next week.

I remember those days in my economics courses. Screw the other students. Maybe some will rub off on them.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Not tolerating the wrong ideas of others may be a good thing.



No, just the logical conclusion to your words.

And, yes, absolutely monarchy should be discussed in poly sci and history classes (if you say absolutely monarchy, the logical reading would come to the same response).

Of course it should, just as religion in art but as a historical happening - not as the reason behind what has happend/are the goal for future.

If your claim should be valid, then everyone should be teached deeply in greek and roman godbeliefs because they are also a great part of our current legal and ethical system.

[Agathon]

I remember those days in my economics courses. Screw the other students. Maybe some will rub off on them.

Perhaps. But I think they were just astonished that we would go for it. I would have been less intense, but he brought it up five minutes before the end of class.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course it should, just as religion in art but as a historical happening - not as the reason behind what has happend/are the goal for future.

Religion was the reason behind the art. In order to really understand the art, you have to understand the religion behind it.

then everyone should be teached deeply in greek and roman godbeliefs because they are also a great part of our current legal and ethical system.

To the extent those beliefs had an effect, then yes. We should definetly learn Roman and Greek law in studying our own law. If it was based on their ancient Gods, then that is important to be studied.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon

I remember those days in my economics courses. Screw the other students. Maybe some will rub off on them.

Perhaps. But I think they were just astonished that we would go for it. I would have been less intense, but he brought it up five minutes before the end of class.

[Agathon]

then everyone should be teached deeply in greek and roman godbeliefs because they are also a great part of our current legal and ethical system.

No. Because I'd have to bloody do it, and it's a pain in the ass.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Religion was the reason behind the art. In order to really understand the art, you have to understand the religion behind it.

You are right, but will you seriously claim that you have to make human sacrifces to understand the art of different central american cultures ? You may have to belive in the religion to make sense out of the art that the culture produced, but does that demand that current education must be guided by faith - that will certainly make a mees because people stuyding a certain period/area has to believe in the religions practiced at that time/place.

then everyone should be teached deeply in greek and roman godbeliefs because they are also a great part of our current legal and ethical system.

To the extent those beliefs had an effect, then yes. We should definetly learn Roman and Greek law in studying our own law. If it was based on their ancient Gods, then that is important to be studied.

I agree. It is nessecary to know the background, but you don't need to base the future on religion just because that was what happend previously.

[Imran Siddiqui]

will you seriously claim that you have to make human sacrifces to understand the art of different central american cultures

No, learning about something is not the same as performing it. That's why religion should be studied in the university.

does that demand that current education must be guided by faith

Once again, you said:

"religion has only one place at a university, and that is at the theology faculty."

I've just showed you that religion has a place in many different disciplines. I'd wonder how you'd learn the Crusades if religion has no place in history.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon

then everyone should be teached deeply in greek and roman godbeliefs because they are also a great part of our current legal and ethical system.

No. Because I'd have to bloody do it, and it's a pain in the ass.

You missed the point that they should be teached as religions at level with christianism. I guess that that would make your lessons more "interesting" to perform.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You missed the point that they should be teached as religions at level with christianism.

Well I do think they should be taught as level with Christianity, depending on where they had influence.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
"religion has only one place at a university, and that is at the theology faculty."

I've just showed you that religion has a place in many different disciplines. I'd wonder how you'd learn the Crusades if religion has no place in history.

To be fair with him, I think he spoke about the actual belief in the supernatural. Religion as a human phenomenon is interesting for plenty of disciplines. Religious "truth", as a Godly phenomenon, is only interesting for Theology.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

will you seriously claim that you have to make human sacrifces to understand the art of different central american cultures

No, learning about something is not the same as performing it. That's why religion should be studied in the university.

does that demand that current education must be guided by faith

Once again, you said:

"religion has only one place at a university, and that is at the theology faculty."

I've just showed you that religion has a place in many different disciplines. I'd wonder how you'd learn the Crusades if religion has no place in history.

Actually you have made my point stronger. We both agree that it may be nessecary to learn about a religion to understand history, art etc, but if the education is based upon a specific religion, how are you going to get the correct picture ?

My point has been that relgion as a belief has only one place in university, and that is in the theological department.

Religion as a part of history, art etc doesn't crave that you are a beliver of that faith that concerns the period/place you are interested in, which participation in the theological studies imply.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the education is based upon a specific religion, how are you going to get the correct picture

If the subject deals with one specific religion (like Christian art or Muslim art) then the education about that specific religion would be warrented in order to understand the subject.

My point has been that relgion as a belief has only one place in university, and that is in the theological department.

But you have to know the belief in order to study history for example. If you don't know the belief, the history will not make as much sense.

Religion as a part of history, art etc doesn't crave that you are a beliver of that faith

Who said you have to be a believer in the faith?

You just have to learn about the belief. The belief has to be taught.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To be fair with him, I think he spoke about the actual belief in the supernatural. Religion as a human phenomenon is interesting for plenty of disciplines. Religious "truth", as a Godly phenomenon, is only interesting for Theology.

Ahh, merci !!! A frenchie understanding the meaning of my denglish