ITT We Discuss Theology

[AXOmom]

Drollefille – Thanks for your response. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond . I’m one month into the school year and already drowning in grading and suffering a sinus infection.


In reading through DubaisSis’s response, I didn’t even key in on the web site (I’m less observant in middle age) and focused instead on the books she recommended. Thanks for making the connection. I was aware of the issue in Kansas, but not of the website, so when the professor made the comment (last winter), we were not only annoyed, but baffled. Now it makes sense and yes, your description of her is apt although since I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense).

You are entirely correct about the definitions, and my use of theory was not accurate for science. My intent was simply to point out a respectful way to acknowledge different beliefs and that at this point there are very few things in the world (evolution included) that can be proven beyond dispute. I would add that evolution is broad term that generally refers to three different things- well, three primary things, and the typical high school science class deals with two: macro and micro evolution. Of those, my opinion is that only micro evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory and macro doesn’t work within that definition (on a much more minor and completely irrelevant point – gravity can be both a theory and a law depending on its use).

I would disagree with the website's contention that creationism is fudge science. I would add the qualification that creationism, like evolution, is a broad term that can cover many points of view, so I suppose, depending on what curriculum they were specifically proposing it could have been, but if they are talking about it in the general sense, I would see that as an unfair characterization. I know that the majority of the scientific community holds to evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet, but there are scientists who disagree or at least see some flaws in macro evolution, hold to creationism, and who are qualified to know enough about the subject to have credible opinions.

I’m going to leave it at that (although I have a great book recommendation on this as well) because I don’t want this thread to become a discussion of evolution rather than theology. That wasn’t my intent. My point, and I think you and I agree on this, would be that no matter what you think of another person’s beliefs on any subject, you need to treat him or her with civility. Debating ideas is always a good thing and disrespectful side swipes like the professor’s just shut that down. I hold that they are used by those who know very little about opposing viewpoints and are somewhat insecure in their own.

Originally, I understood and somewhat agreed with your point that as long as they weren’t making offensive comments directed at those who hold to creationism, there was no particular reason for a teacher to mention that creationism was another viewpoint students could research on their own. As I gave it some more thought though – I guess my question would be: Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think they HAVE to say that, but if it keeps a substantial group of parents and their children happy, what’s the harm? What concerns would a teacher have about a student doing that?

This isn’t a perfect analogy because English is a more subjective subject than science, but let’s say I’m getting ready to teach Huck Finn. I know that recently there have been controversies surrounding the book, and it’s been pulled in a lot of districts because there are those who feel it has racist undertones. The district and I both disagree with this. I don’t think there is much evidence for that view, and I feel there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Still, there are many who disagree, and I know there are some literature professors who disagree (although they are a decided minority). As a teacher, the first thing I would do when I introduce the book is to acknowledge the controversy. I would explain why I feel the book is anything but racist while acknowledging that there are those who feel differently and have every right to do so. At that point, yes, I would let my students know that while we aren’t going to spend time debating that issue in class, they are more than welcome to read material on their own from those who feel otherwise and draw their own conclusions. Why? Well, my job as a teacher isn’t to determine what they shouldn’t learn or know. My job is to expose them to information, beliefs, and viewpoints as much as I can and to give them the tools (evidence and logic among others) to determine the validity of those beliefs and viewpoints. I can’t mention every idea coming down the pike, but when they know full well there is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding some part of my curriculum I honestly feel I would be irresponsible as a teacher not to at least acknowledge that fact. I can guarantee that someone in that classroom will bring it up, so I might as well be prepared for it and “head it off at the pass” so to speak.

I would say again, you have been a great example throughout this thread of how to debate an issue with reason and respect. That is, no doubt, a by-product of that Jesuit education!

Swerving off topic here, but my husband spent three years as the one and only protestant chaplain in the history of Gonzaga University (proudly Jesuit). We had a lot of lovely evening dinners with the priests, and when we weren’t discussing basketball, we had some great theological discussions. Listening to them discuss their opinions of the Dominicans was entertaining as well, but I admit, not very respectful.

Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

1-I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense).

2-Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

1-even if a professor THINKS that, what educational benefit is there from saying it? And what the hell does that have to do with human sexuality?
2-Maybe they shouldn't address human sexuality directly for junior high kids or MAYBE high school kids, but a professor who doesn't have the stones to address the topic directly at a public university seriously needs to find a new career field.

At Iowa you could take Sex (Human Sexuality) Drugs (intro to pharmacology) and rock & roll (the history of rock and roll music in America) all in the same semester. And I think a lot of kids did just so they could say they're studying sex, drugs and rock & roll. HA! But that's off topic. That professor is a douchecanoe, my favorite new insult these days, and just inflames the evolution/creation argument.

And yes, I lived in Kansas for awhile and speaking of douchecanoes, these people were nuts, but ID got a lot of play there for awhile.

[AXOmom]

I like the word DubaSis...I'm adding it to my vocabulary bank, but I don't think I'll be teaching it to my 8th graders just yet..Probably pointless anyway. I'm sure they know it already. I agree - being nervous about teaching human sexuality at a university - particularly this university - was odd. Clearly, many things about her were odd. My daughter thinks she just had an unusual attachment to monkeys (LOL).

MysticCat - Yes, you are right about the Notre Dame thing. My father gave me a lot of room to discover my faith and figure out what I believed, but when it came to football teams - not an inch. We were raised to hate Notre Dame and root for ANYONE who played them. I do have to admit that I secretly broke down last year and rooted for them when they played UW (I hate them more), but I never told him.

[IrishLake]

I don't mind Jesuit's, my brother graduated from John Carroll, a Jesuit college

VS, I think you must wear a gorilla suit and I can dress as Diane Fossey (she is a Theta, it only makes sense!). I don't have a "Geology Rocks" t-shirt, but I DO have a shirt that says "Back off, man. I'm a scientist." Either are appropriate.

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I don't mind Jesuit's, my brother graduated from John Carroll, a Jesuit college

I think the issue is with Notre Dame rather than the Jesuits, but then again many Catholics have some issues with the way Notre Dame does things.

ETA:

This thread is particularly interesting to me because I'm fascinated with how people form their faith, especially in relation to the faith of their parents. My entire family is Catholic, and both my parents are very faithful people - my Dad more so as he gets older. However, faith was never something we talked about much it was kind of just something we did. As a result my sister and I are pretty solid Catholics (or at least trying to be). The same thing happened with political views - my parents NEVER spoke about politics with us, yet we both have political views fairly similar to those of our parents. I often find that the people who are very vocal and strict about faith often have children who move away from the faith of their childhood. So I guess all that rambling is me saying I would love to hear more stories about faith formation - lol.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

This thread is particularly interesting to me because I'm fascinated with how people form their faith, especially in relation to the faith of their parents. My entire family is Catholic, and both my parents are very faithful people - my Dad more so as he gets older. However, faith was never something we talked about much it was kind of just something we did. As a result my sister and I are pretty solid Catholics (or at least trying to be). The same thing happened with political views - my parents NEVER spoke about politics with us, yet we both have political views fairly similar to those of our parents. I often find that the people who are very vocal and strict about faith often have children who move away from the faith of their childhood. So I guess all that rambling is me saying I would love to hear more stories about faith formation - lol.

Gusteau, I think you're onto something here.

I was raised in a very strict Catholic family. My father is such a strict Catholic that my mother has told me that she's surprised he didn't become a priest. I was baptized within a month of birth - I'm surprised they didn't just bring the priest and the font into the delivery room. Mass every Sunday (or Saturday vigil), confession every week once I was old enough, no meat on Friday even if it wasn't Lent, Catholic school from pre-K through 5th grade and then CCD until I was confirmed at the end of 8th grade. I was Catholic and that was that.

After having Catholicism rammed down my throat for my entire childhood, I rebelled big time. Long story short, Judaism resonated with me, so I converted.

The same thing happened with politics. I'm left-of-center but not exceedingly so. My parents are so far to the right they make Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin look like screaming liberals.

Sometimes the apple not only falls far from the tree, it falls so far away that it ends up in a different orchard.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps.

No, it's just that, except for the people who went there, everybody hates Notre Dame.

[IrishLake]

Oh yeah, my grandparents have season football tickets, and my grandma has refused to go ever since Obama spoke there. Football is too important to my grandpa though! (Hey, when your dad played for Rockne, you tend to look past the politics of the college and just focus on football!)

[Gusteau]

And the Obama speech was really just the most prominent of many things people like my Grandma were up in arms about. However, my Dad is a football coach, so I understand that football is an entirely separate religion!

[Gusteau]

It's funny because you and I have a similar faith upbringing on paper (add Catholic school to my resume, and subtract weekly confession - eek!) with very different results. I think the difference is that yours may have a had a repressive bend to it where my parents were never super strict, but then again I don't think they had to be with my sister and I. So I always saw Catholicism as a naturally occurring phenomenon in regard to how one lives. Like I said, this fascinates me!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

It's funny because you and I have a similar faith upbringing on paper (add Catholic school to my resume, and subtract weekly confession - eek!) with very different results. I think the difference is that yours may have a had a repressive bend to it where my parents were never super strict, but then again I don't think they had to be with my sister and I. So I always saw Catholicism as a naturally occurring phenomenon in regard to how one lives. Like I said, this fascinates me!

This was more how I was raised as well. And it meant I've always looked positively on the religion itself. My reasons for leaving it have primarily been personal and/or disagreements with the hierarchy, not objection to the dogma or the cultural application of it.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

It's funny because you and I have a similar faith upbringing on paper (add Catholic school to my resume, and subtract weekly confession - eek!) with very different results. I think the difference is that yours may have a had a repressive bend to it where my parents were never super strict, but then again I don't think they had to be with my sister and I. So I always saw Catholicism as a naturally occurring phenomenon in regard to how one lives. Like I said, this fascinates me!

I was sent to Catholic school through 5th grade inclusive. However, the public schools where I grew up are excellent, and my father reluctantly admitted that I would get a far better secular education there. (He himself attended Catholic schools up to and including college.) So I was enrolled in the public middle school and CCD starting in 6th grade. And weekly confession was expected (my father still goes every week) - even if I were not conscious of having sinned in the previous week, he instructed me to tell the priest that I had come for the grace of the sacrament.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This was more how I was raised as well. And it meant I've always looked positively on the religion itself. My reasons for leaving it have primarily been personal and/or disagreements with the hierarchy, not objection to the dogma or the cultural application of it.

My objections have been to both the hierarchy and the dogma.

~~~

I have two major problems with Catholicism. One is the inherent inequality of women and men. Women cannot be priests - if you want to devote your life to God, the highest position you can aspire to is a nun. Married women are expected to submit to their husbands (see Ephesians 5:22-24). The structure is set up so that women cannot be leaders. (Aside: This is why I am a Reform Jew and not an Orthodox Jew. Reform Judaism is egalitarian; Orthodox Judaism is definitely not. I belong to a congregation where both the rabbi and the president are women.)

The second is the prohibition against asking questions. The Catechism is full of questions, of course, but they all have neat pre-defined Vatican-approved answers. My parents always encouraged me to question the world around me and use the scientific method - except when it came to religion. I actually got kicked out of CCD for asking a question. When it came to religion, what the Vatican said, went. By contrast, Judaism has the Talmud, which is full of conflicting opinions.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

I was sent to Catholic school through 5th grade inclusive. However, the public schools where I grew up are excellent, and my father reluctantly admitted that I would get a far better secular education there. (He himself attended Catholic schools up to and including college.) So I was enrolled in the public middle school and CCD starting in 6th grade. And weekly confession was expected (my father still goes every week) - even if I were not conscious of having sinned in the previous week, he instructed me to tell the priest that I had come for the grace of the sacrament.



My objections have been to both the hierarchy and the dogma.

~~~

I have two major problems with Catholicism. One is the inherent inequality of women and men. Women cannot be priests - if you want to devote your life to God, the highest position you can aspire to is a nun. Married women are expected to submit to their husbands (see Ephesians 5:22-24). The structure is set up so that women cannot be leaders. (Aside: This is why I am a Reform Jew and not an Orthodox Jew. Reform Judaism is egalitarian; Orthodox Judaism is definitely not. I belong to a congregation where both the rabbi and the president are women.)

The second is the prohibition against asking questions. The Catechism is full of questions, of course, but they all have neat pre-defined Vatican-approved answers. My parents always encouraged me to question the world around me and use the scientific method - except when it came to religion. I actually got kicked out of CCD for asking a question. When it came to religion, what the Vatican said, went. By contrast, Judaism has the Talmud, which is full of conflicting opinions.

I agree with you about the treatment of women and the equality of women in Reform Judaism is something I've always admired.

And I was not raised with a prohibition on asking questions. It's one of the things I liked so much about the Jesuits. I do believe that that aspect has a lot more about where you were raised and the priests/nuns/lay people involved in teaching.

I can't quite phrase what I mean about the objections I have very well. the beliefs, no problem per se, i always questioned but there's nothing I find "wrong." The attitude of the hierarchy towards abuse victims is a huge problem and the social teachings about sexuality, in particular among other things are also a big problem for me. The treatment of women was almost an afterthought, and "submission" was never much of a value in our diocese/schools/etc. I always objected to the idea that I couldn't be a priest but other than that I was not treated nor expected to act differently as a woman than a man.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And I was not raised with a prohibition on asking questions. It's one of the things I liked so much about the Jesuits. I do believe that that aspect has a lot more about where you were raised and the priests/nuns/lay people involved in teaching.

And the parents.

I'm more than happy to share the story of how I got kicked out of CCD. I was in 7th grade. We were given an assignment - we were given a list of saints and told to choose one and write a paper on him/her. One of the "saints" on the list was Sarah. I asked the teacher, "Is Sarah a saint? I thought she was a matriarch." (I was right.) So the teacher chewed me out for questioning her. How dare I question an authority figure blah blah blah. She got the head of the CCD program into the classroom to berate me. Sister Peggy chewed me out in front of my classmates, formally ejected me from CCD, and then went on to berate my father on the phone (she called him "young man" and he had at least 5 years on her).

So the pastor had my father teach me from the catechism for the remainder of the academic year. And my parents and I investigated a nearby parish. We went to Mass there for a couple of months, including Easter. We were on the point of calling the parish office to enroll as parishioners when we learned that Sister Peggy was being transferred to our potential new parish as head of CCD. We went back to the old parish so fast we left skid marks.

The whole experience left such a bad taste in my mouth that I seriously doubted whether I should get confirmed. I went through with it largely because I knew I'd be in for a world of pain if I didn't. It was the beginning of the end of my being a Catholic.

And then my life led me to Judaism. And here I am.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Why did you end up choosing Judaism AEPhi alum? Just the egalitarianism? If so, what set it aside from the various denominations of Christianity?