www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Dirty Dozen: Twelve Outrageous US College Courses

I guess we can conclude that those in academia are the most enlightened?

I am not picking on you, (I think it's great that you're a teacher--my field is just as bad as yours) it's just that the facts just don't seem to demonstrate that American Higher Education and its principle of academic freedom has given us much enlightenment. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that it's one of the causes of the mistranslations in the Creed and Divine Liturgy...but that's for another thread.

Because man can know, and the truth is the standard.

I have been told of a student a secular university who once doubted that he could know anything; his professor took a lighter, grabbed his hand, turned on the lighter and said fire is hot.

That student, by the way, is now a very good and holy Catholic priest.

Sure, there are trivial truths about experience that we can know. I will say that there are things, such as the basic principles of logic, that we can know to hold for all of our experience. But that we have knowledge of transcendent truths is not so certain. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Well, one problem is that there is no clear conception in our society of what the Academy is supposed to be about. Also, we need to distinguish between the academy in service to the Church and the academy in service to the public. The Catholic university, for example, has a certain duty to the faith of the Catholic Church. The University of Wisconsin does not. Peace in Christ,

Joe

You also ask a great question Gordo. But, it is academic freedom that allows us to ask these questions and that requires all claims to substantiate themselves. I don't think that there is absolute academic freedom in the public university. But the ideal of academic freedom should spur us on to call into question those areas where the public sector, the agenda of beaucrats, etc. is influencing the discussions. And I do think that the concept of academic freedom should be questioned. It is precisely through the questioning of academic freedom (and our standards of academic freedom) that it substantiates itself. Peace in Christ,

Joe

But all universities are bound by truth (with a small "t") otherwise they simply cannot justify their existence or reason for academic freedom. You must admit that much of what is done in the name of academic freedom and scholarship is willful nonsense which destroys a lot of youthful souls at the public's expense.

And, of course, it is the job of academics to point this out to their fellow academics and students. I do this myself. When we examine certain forms of deconstructionism and skepticism, I point out that the authors rely on certain conventions of logic and language in order to make their claims. A thoroughly radical skepticism and relativism is self refuting. But the way to address this is not to deny people the right to publicly express and argue for such a radical view, but rather to let them argue it and then refute it. And I agree that all human beings are bound to small-t "truths." Identifying those small-t "truths" and what distinguishes them from "Big T Truth" is itself a subject of inquiry. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I don't see why my tax money has to pay "teachers" who want to tell young people that all truth is relative, just like I don't want the National Endowment for the Arts paying "artists" to put a crucifix in urine and calling it art. If they want to do these things, let them do it on their own nickel. This of course would force a lot of academics and artisits to get new jobs (yourself excludedd of course) which is probably a good idea.

pax,

lm

IM,
So how would you have us approach this issue? We live a secular, pluralistic society. Other taxpayers have ideas concerning what tax revenue should and should not support in the public colleges and universities that are different from your own. Who gets to decide? Who gets to determine what constitutes truth? When we decide that the electorate gets to determine what teachers may and may not teach in the public universities, then academia becomes subject to the whims of the majority (whoever that majority might be).
Ryan

Ryan, well said. If I am allowed to prohibit the teaching of relativism as a theory because I pay taxes, then why can't a feminist prohibit anti-feminist arguments? After all, feminists pay taxes too. Satanists pay taxes. We could remove everything from the University that might possibly offend anyone who pays taxes, but then we might as well shut down the university. In Christ,

Joe

Well, I would begin with the first organic law of our country, the Declaration of Independence which states that all men (and I believe this would mean women and female unborn babies too) are endured by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. The right to teach relativism or atheism is not listed as one of the inalienable rights -- in fact these "isms" fly in the face of this Document which references a Creator. If this document is nelgected we are really just British citizens in rebellion.

From there, one would have to consider the Constitution and what it actually says as opposed to what the Judges say it says. I would also rely heavily on the natural law which can be known by man without faith if, he is of good will.

How's that for a beginning.

So in other words, the ideology of 18th century English Deists is the only ideology permitted to be spoken of in the US?

Seriously though, you should read the first amendment of the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, etc." That means that people do have the right to be atheists and to argue publicly for atheistic positions. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I am serious.

Atheism is not a religion, though I understand that it is a firmly held belief. It gets no protection, therefore, under the first amendment--neither would the occult which is an anti-religion.

If people want to propose atheism in the market place, fine. I just don't see that the government has a duty to pay for it, or exclude religion from the marketplace or government. There were many states, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, that had official state religions, that model might work.

As you can see, I am very big on the idea of paying attention to foundational documents, like Declarations, Creeds and Constitutions and what they actually say.

Okay, fair enough. But, doesn't your position entail that the Constitution is true beyond question? If we had state religions, how many of those states would be Catholic? And what do you think would happen to Catholics in those states where the Southern Baptist Convention became the official religion? If we want to look at history, we would find that the Puritans put baptists in the stocks, or drove them out, or hung them if they could also be accused of being witches. Go back to the 19th century when Whigs were arguing that Catholics were necessarily anti-American. States could pass a law requiring fidelity to the state and US Constitution above the pope and those who refused to obey could be called fanatical terrorists and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. Does this sound farfetched? I don't think it is farfetched at all. If you look at our nation's history, there are numerous occasions where whole peoples were quarantined (Japanese) or simply wiped out (Native Americans) or lynched (African Americans).

The constitution as interpreted by the founders didn't work. It justified slavery, genocide, and religious repression. And, yes, they had abortion, pornography, homosexuality, etc. back then too. Peace in Christ,

Joe

The Constitution, as Lincoln successfully argued, was a compromise with slavery which was doomed to fail. There have been other amendments and the Declaration itself protects the right to life.

All of your examples bring up the fact that eternal vigilance (and virtue, not academic freedom) is the real price of liberty.

Abortion and homosexuality didn't seem to be serious problems at that time.

I will grant you this, the Constition failed in one way. John Adams hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "Our government was meant for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

I would add one supraconstitutinal principle (which I think is implicit once you've granted a Creator)--when in doubt (as in the Terri Schiavo case)--look to the best interpreter of the natural law the world has ever known--Peter.