In the US colleges and universities philosophy classes are usually taught using the Socratic method which means that a controversial topic such as abortion, gay marriage, and even fundamentalist dogma may be discussed to get the students to critically examine their assumptions. Since this is a public college no one is forcing the students to attend or even change their beliefs, just to discuss the reasons behind their positions.
But I think that it may overstep the line when instead of asking the students to "critically examine their assumptions", or presenting them with the evidence that their assumptions are a lot of horsepucky, the teacher
tells them that their assumptions are a lot of horsepucky.
Now, it has been asked why this is different from blowing away belief in Cinderella, and I'll say again --- the bleedin' First Amendment. It's not perfect, but it's the law, it's what's there, it's why the forces of rightness won the Dover Panda Trial.
This guy Bitterman may well have broken the law by what he's reported to have said.
Perhaps, if he wanted to be a nice guy and make a technically more accurate statement. However, Genesis contradicts itself in just the order of creation in the two exclusive stories. Therefore, logically, at least part of the chapter must not be literally true and so 'myth' is a fair description.
But your argument here is that you're right and they're wrong. Of course
I agree with you.
But if you were a creationist standing up for a teacher who taught creationist blah, I bet you could explain how "evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, and so 'myth' is a fair description". And if I was a creationist, then I'd agree with
that.
Democracy is tricky, isn't it?
Only if it is forced upon a church in the middle of a sermon, or upon a religious college as part of the curriculum standards. To argue that some concepts, such as fundamentalist religious dogma are off-limits for discussion in a philosophy class in a public, tax-supported college or university is itself the real violation of state/church separation.
But there's a difference between "off limits for discussion" and "off limits for pronouncement from on high".
If some guy had told his students that Genesis
was literally true, and had been sacked for
that, would you be complaining that Genesis was "off limits for discussion", and talking about "intellectual freedom", or would you realise that he had in fact been doing something illegal?
™ Version 4.2
