ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (03/27/91)
I am considering taking a detailed course on Christianity at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have the option of the courses 1.New Testament 2. Old Testament 3.Jesus I was a bit surprised to find that a state funded school cannot teach relgious doctrine, and I have been told that courses 1 and 2 are taught from sort of a secular point of view. So, I am a bit puzzled about what to do. On the one hand, I would love to do a detailed study of the Bible under a learned instructor, but on the other hand, I don't know if these courses are really a study of the Bible. If anyone has ever taken such a course at a state/federally funded school, especially in the University of North Carolina system, I would appreciate knowing your reaction to the course(s). Thank you, Elizabeth ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu [As I understand it, a state school cannot teach doctrine in the sense of encouraging you to accept it. This would be a violation of separation of Church and State, because it would be an arm of the State propagating religion. Thus a State school is going to be limited to an intellectual approach, or to approaches to personal values that present multiple alternatives and challenge you to make your own choice. This actually provides a lot of rope. Whether the Bible courses are "really a study of the Bible" depends upon the instructer and what you mean by a study of the Bible. One thing to check first is whether it is a study of the Bible as a 1st Cent. document or the KJV as a work on English literature. Sometimes English depts. will teach courses on the grounds that the Bible is an important basis for English literature. This could be interesting, but it's probably not what you are thinking of. The entry in your catalog should settle this. If not, try talking to the faculty member or looking at the required text. Let's suppose that it is really a Bible course, which I'd guess is most likely. In a najor State school it's going to be taught from a critical perspective. The teacher is almost certainly going to believe that the Bible has legendary elements, and will spend significant time talking about scholars' attempts to reconstruct the process by which it was transmitted, orally and through multiple documentary sources. If you are sufficiently committed to inerrancy that you don't want to hear such arguments, you shouldn't take the course. I would guess that in today's world even someone committed to inerrancy would be well off to see what the critical approach is all about, at least if you expect to be in discussions with non-Christians or liberal Christians. Also, Bible courses will typically spend a lot of time giving you historical background and background about Judaism in either the OT or NT period. This is very useful for understanding the Bible, whatever your approach. If you are strongly committed to inerrancy, you might want to talk with the faculty member in advance and try to get a feeling what their reaction is going to be to papers that disagree with some of the views they are presenting. Many liberal teachers are sufficiently open-minded to enjoy people who challenge their own views. Apparently not all are. My own recommendation would be either OT or NT (probably NT). --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/01/91)
In article <Mar.26.23.03.54.1991.9186@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >... >I was a bit surprised to find that a state funded school cannot teach relgious >doctrine, and I have been told that courses 1 and 2 are taught from sort >of a secular point of view. So, I am a bit puzzled about what to do. >On the one hand, I would love to do a detailed study of the Bible under a >learned instructor, but on the other hand, I don't know if these courses >are really a study of the Bible. >... Here at SUNY-Binghamton (State University of New York) @ Binghamton we have an entire "Judaic Studies Program". (We do not to my knowledge have a "Christian Studies Program" ;-) ). Our student body is largely made up of students from "downstate" (I.E. N.Y.C., Long Island etc.) and we have a fairly large percentage of Jewish students. I have dealt with a few professors in the Judaic Studies Program, ("I'm writing this book, and I want to use English, Hebrew, Greek and phonetics..."). The book turned out to be a text for a class on "The Bible", (O.T.). I asked for a copy, it had some interesting stuff in it, and some stuff that I disagreed with, but isn't that always the case? The university is not indoctrinating students. We have a Judaic Studies Program, a Jewish Student Union, even a Kosher kitchen in the student union. Off campus, (a little way from the Newman House) is the Shabat House (Sp?) We have no chapel on campus that I am aware of. So, teaching *about* a religion is cool, it's teaching the religion that's uncool. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton P.S. Sorry, the Newman House is a house of Roman Catholic worship/counseling.
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/01/91)
In article <Mar.26.23.03.54.1991.9186@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >[As I understand it, a state school cannot teach doctrine in the sense >of encouraging you to accept it. This would be a violation of >separation of Church and State, because it would be an arm of the >State propagating religion. Thus a State school is going to be >limited to an intellectual approach, or to approaches to personal >values that present multiple alternatives and challenge you to make >your own choice. I had gotten to wondering about "Seperation of Church and State". We have yet another Supreme Court decision coming. Recently, I attended a Davic Meece concert at a local public Jr. High school. (If you get the chance, go see this man! I don't care about your age, or personal beliefs. Even if you just like to watch a great pianist at work!) I've been noticing all the Bibles in courtroom scenes on TV. (Anyway, I've been reminded about this doctrine a lot lately.) So, I dug out an encyclopedia, and looked up "Constitution of the United States". I just got more confused. Dig up a copy and check it out. As I read it, the Constitution says that CONGRESS cannot make a LAW establishing a STATE RELIGION. It also says that CONGRESS cannot make a LAW abridging the practice of a religion. The Constitution also reserves for the states all rights not assigned to the Congress. So, what does allowing people to pray at graduation ceremonies have to do with the 1st Ammendment? Congress isn't passing a law stating that there shall be prayers at graduation ceremonies! They (hopefully) aren't passing a law that prevents them either. It even appears to me that if A STATE wanted to establish a STATE RELIGION that that right has been reserved for them. (Extreme, I'll grant you, but constitutional the way I read it!) As I read it, the new Congress wanted to make sure that this new country didn't establish a state religion as England had, this would make sense since so many of our founders had left England so they could freely practice their religion. Does anyone know when this present interpretation of the 1st Ammendment became vogue? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton