I support this as a good move by our nation's oldest University.
Back in the day educated men (and women) studied theology at length, as well as the Classics, philosophy, Greek, and Latin:

Good move by Harvard.

From the Associated Press:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvard University, founded 370 years ago to train Puritan ministers, should again require all undergraduates to study religion, along with U.S. history and ethics, a faculty committee is recommending.

The surprisingly bold recommendations come after years of rancorous internal debate over what courses should be required of all Harvard students. The current core curriculum has been criticized for focusing on narrow academic questions rather than real-world issues students would likely confront beyond the wrought-iron gates of Harvard Square.

The report calls for Harvard to require students to take a course in "reason and faith," which could include classes on topics such as religion and democracy, Charles Darwin or a current course called "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't."

"Harvard is no longer an institution with a religious mission, but religion is a fact that Harvard's graduates will confront in their lives," the report says, noting 94 percent of incoming students report discussing religion and 71 percent attend services.

"As academics in a university we don't have to confront religion if we're not religious, but in the world, they will have to," Alison Simmons, a philosophy professor who co-chaired the committee, said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

The report, which has been circulated to faculty and whose contents were first reported Wednesday by The Harvard Crimson student paper, also says Harvard students also "need to have an understanding of American history, American institutions, and American values," calling for a requirement to study the United States in a comparative context with other countries.

The recommendations are the latest chapter in a lengthy, tumultuous saga over revamping the university's core curriculum, which dates to the 1970s. Former President Lawrence Summers made reform a priority in 2001, but the work of several committees bogged down and initial recommendations were criticized as weak. Summers resigned earlier this year, forced out by faculty anger at his handling of a range of matters, including the curriculum review.

Harvard's core has shied away from the "Great Books" approach to general education, focusing on "approaches to knowledge" rather than "bodies of knowledge." But the report notes few Harvard students plan to become academics, while more than half plan to attend business, law or medical school. The new recommendations are clearly geared toward rounding out the liberal arts education of those students.

In addition to ethics, "reason and faith" and the "United States and the World," students would be required to do coursework in two other areas: science and technology, and "Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change."

The recommendations also include making writing and analytical reasoning part of the general requirements, and retaining foreign language work.

The recommendations, by a six-member faculty panel, offer only general guidelines about the kinds of classes that would count. The draft may be revised and would be adopted only after passing a vote by Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The State University of New York and George Mason University have adopted general education requirements that include mandatory American history.

In the Ivy League, Columbia University has a significant core curriculum with courses that include material on religion, and Dartmouth currently requires a course in the analysis of religion, though that will change next year, according to its Web site. But Harvard would be the only school in that group requiring students to take courses in both religion and U.S. history.

Public colleges in Colorado, along with Ohio University and Arizona State, are among the other universities currently reviewing general education requirements, said Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a generally conservative academic group that has urged universities to toughen general education requirements.

"From the looks of this new proposal, it is extremely good news," Neal said. "It appears Harvard has rejected the 'anything goes' distribution requirements in place at so many colleges in favor of a more structured, rigorous and cohesive core curriculum."

It's just the dummies at Harvard saying that. Wait until FT rips them an "intellectual" new one.

Teaching religion dosen't change a persons heart but teaching the bible which
is the Word of God changes society one at a time !

A, but which Bible should we teach (or be taught)?

So, are the Southern Baptists taking over Harvard? Let's hope Harvard doesn't start teaching the old Puritanical ideas.

It's not their intention, oldtimer, to teach or convert a student at Harvard to any one religion.
Their idea, which I support as a good one, is to teach students the history of theologies and their impact on civilization and culture.

How can a person successfully argue against religion, if that's their intent, if they don't know its basic idealogy?

I call this merely having a well rounded and classical education, something which is sadly lacking in many school's core curiculums. IOW, learning for learning's sake.

Unless, like so many believe, a college should only teach a student how to pursue the all mighty dollar. If that's their intesnt, ANY school will do.

Unfortunately the article was not very clear about the content of the proposed courses. I was particularly surprised at the course "Why Americans Love God and Europeans Don't". It postulates a premise that I am not prepared to accept. However, I accept your interpretation of the proposal.
I fully agree that sometime during our educational years we should learn about other religions, countries and their histories, cultures and ethics. The curriculum should also include courses on how to write clearly. It is also necessary to know how to critically analyse data and ideas; i.e. how to research and cross-check data etc.
Preferably such courses should be taught prior to University level, however, since they aren't, it would be an excellent idea if Harvard begins to make them mandatory.

....... teaching the bible which
is the Word of God changes society one at a time !

I agree.

It changes it for the worse.


The report calls for Harvard to require students to take a course in "reason and faith," which could include classes on topics such as religion.....

Here's how i felt when i heard that a supposed *institution of higher learning* was going to begin sending students to courses in organized superstition ----

http://www.geocities.com/edible_eye/puke.jpg

That must be a Yale man.

Here's how i felt when i heard that a supposed *institution of higher learning*....
Yeah, they're nothing but a bunch of phonies. What the hell do they know?

I agree.

It changes it for the worse.



Here's how i felt when i heard that a supposed *institution of higher learning* was going to begin sending students to courses in organized superstition ----
I know have proof that you're a complete fucking loony. You think it's a bad thing to be educated in the various world religions, when over 90% of the world's population is religious? Give me a fucking break.

I know have proof that you're a complete fucking loony. You think it's a bad thing to be educated in the various world religions, when over 90% of the world's population is religious? Give me a fucking break.
Borg made errors?

now* And the nonreligious and atheist sects of the world number to 15%.

Huzzah.

If anyone is interested, http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html gives a list of adherents for the major religions of the world, gives percentages etc.

sounds good to me.

Unfortunatly though many colleges seem to be picking up the slack of missed high school education.

I know have proof that you're a complete fucking loony. You think it's a bad thing to be educated in the various world religions, when over 90% of the world's population is religious?

No, you ignoramus.

Any private citizen who wants to can spend the entirety of their lives *educating themselves* about sending psychic supplications to invisible deities, dipping people in water so they'll go to paradise to live forever, reading cat entrails, casting spells, drinking wine and pretending it's blood, handling snakes and all other manner of religious insanity. If they think that such an "education" is important or enlightening, that's their call.

My complaint was specifically about one of the MOST prestigious institutions in this country --that is ostensibly charged with turning out rational, thinking human beings-- beginning to make it mandatory that their students be educated in religion (IOW, superstition).

No, you ignoramus.

Any private citizen who wants to can spend the entirety of their lives *educating themselves* about sending psychic supplications to invisible deities, dipping people in water so they'll go to paradise to live forever, reading cat entrails, casting spells, drinking wine and pretending it's blood, handling snakes and all other manner of religious insanity. If they think that such an "education" is important or enlightening, that's their call.

My complaint was specifically about one of the MOST prestigious institutions in this country --that is ostensibly charged with turning out rational, thinking human beings-- beginning to make it mandatory that their students be educated in religion (IOW, superstition).
Religion is a rather large subset of sociology. I think a religion course should be required for most college graduates.

Religion is a rather large subset of sociology.

Yes. So is superstition. But no college student should be made to waste their time becoming "educated in" superstition.

I think a religion course should be required for most college graduates.

Ok.

That would mean that --as to the topic of **complete fucking looniness**-- we regard one another in much the same light.

It is Harvard's intent, or it will be, if this goes through , to teach students ABOUT religion.

Not to BE religious.

religious morality is not ethics.

religious morality is not ethics.

Very true. However, many people tend to use the words morality and ethics to mean almost the same thing. Most of us have not read enough written by the philosophers or taken the philosophical courses necessary for understanding of the differences.

No, you ignoramus.

Any private citizen who wants to can spend the entirety of their lives *educating themselves* about sending psychic supplications to invisible deities, dipping people in water so they'll go to paradise to live forever, reading cat entrails, casting spells, drinking wine and pretending it's blood, handling snakes and all other manner of religious insanity. If they think that such an "education" is important or enlightening, that's their call.

My complaint was specifically about one of the MOST prestigious institutions in this country --that is ostensibly charged with turning out rational, thinking human beings-- beginning to make it mandatory that their students be educated in religion (IOW, superstition).

In order to understand your fellow man, you must understand what motivates them. You must understand what they value, love, and what they fear. So knowledge for knowledge sake does not interest you. Nor apparantly does understanding your fellow man.

Now I am beginning to think you merely feel superior to all and perhaps you are in fact a misanthrope. Are you? Who in fact catches your loyalty, for indeed I feel it is no one. Disdain for all?

In order to understand your fellow man, you must understand what motivates them.

I'm not sure i'd agree that the purpose of a college education is simply to *understand your fellow man*.

What I am more sure of is that a college student need not spend an entire semester studying religions in order to figure out that the great unwashed are deeply influenced by religion..........and that the deep seated need for people to cling to religion is that they cannot face the fact that they will one day die. Religion is --simply--a comfortable lie that people tell themselves (or, are brainwashed into a young age to believe and never bother questioning it) in order to deal with the spectre of death.

Something that Bertrand Russell once said pretty much encapsulates the reason that I so despise the thought of young minds --attending a prestitigious institution for the ostensible purpose of gaining knowledge-- being apprised what various irrational and superstitious cults (IOW, religions) throughout the ages have thought and how they have lived their lives and how they have enslaved the mind of man.

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place the churches in all these centuries have made it." ________Bertrand Russell

So knowledge for knowledge sake does not interest you.

Au contraire. Moreso than any person I know or that I have ever met, I value knowledge for knowledge sake.

It is the collegiate study of all the various mentally imbalanced cults that have afflicted mankind that does not interest me........at least not to the extent that I favor students in one of the greatest learning institutions on the planet being forced to study said cults.

If the course of study for "religion" at Harvard were to be no more than one hour total, I would agree with it.

The professor should come in, and tell the Harvard students that religion is --quite simply-- a meme that is entirely based on superstitious beliefs. A virus of the mind. And that although (sadly) untold millions of people throughout the ages have devoted their lives to it, is is NOT based in any way on logic, or science, or reason, or rationality. Instead, it is based on "faith". And that "faith" represents the antithesis of seeking for knowledge. Class dismissed.

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." "I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." ---- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry, as the ancient world was the child of fear and faith.
- Clarence Darrow Why I Am An Agnostic

Now I am beginning to think you merely feel superior to all and perhaps you are in fact a misanthrope. Are you?

Well, Sal, I do not know if the following qualifies me as misanthrope.......but i AM forced to admit to you that i DO indeed regard myself as being far *superior*, in both reasoning ability and the capacity for rational thought, to any and all persons on this planet who are convinced (as religion teaches) that the supposed omnipotent "creator" of the entire universe spends time fretting over people who wear clothes made of wool and linen mixed, or that those who pick a stick up off the ground on the "wrong day" deserve to be put to death, or that people long dead and buried have gotten up out of their graves and walked around.

It is worthwhile reading the whole paper, by Bertrand Russell, that contains your quote.
"Why I Am Not a Christian, An Examination of the God-Idea and Christianity"
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

I'm not sure i'd agree that the purpose of a college education is simply to *understand your fellow man*..
No a college education is definitely not to simply *understand your fellow man*. Hopefully that is by-product though.

What I am more sure of is that a college student need not spend an entire semester studying religions in order to figure out that the great unwashed are deeply influenced by religion..........and that the deep seated need for people to cling to religion is that they cannot face the fact that they will one day die. But see, you are wrong already and understandably so because you hold such contempt for the belief structure that you can not get an overview. You focus in on a few points and fail to see the larger picture.


Religion is --simply--a comfortable lie that people tell themselves (or, are brainwashed into a young age to believe and never bother questioning it) in order to deal with the spectre of death. It is not simply that at all. It is not just about death or fear of it. It is a whole lifestyle that brings with it the comfort, joy and ability to cope or the fear of eternal damnation that can cause a myriad of problems leading to a life of misery. It is complex beyond anything you appear to want to understand.



Something that Bertrand Russell once said pretty much encapsulates the reason that I so despise the thought of young minds --attending a prestitigious institution for the ostensible purpose of gaining knowledge-- being apprised what various irrational and superstitious cults (IOW, religions) throughout the ages have thought and how they have lived their lives and how they have enslaved the mind of man.

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place the churches in all these centuries have made it." ________Bertrand Russell
A great mind and a great thinker. An equally great mind and great thinker that would have disagreed with him and whom I love would be Carl Jung.


Au contraire. Moreso than any person I know or that I have ever met, I value knowledge for knowledge sake.
Sorry, I should not have said that...I was just playing with ya hoping that would set you off... :) It didn't really work as well as I had hoped.

It is the collegiate study of all the various mentally imbalanced cults that have afflicted mankind that does not interest me........at least not to the extent that I favor students in one of the greatest learning institutions on the planet being forced to study said cults. Luckily however others disagree with you.

If the course of study for "religion" at Harvard were to be no more than one hour total, I would agree with it.

The professor should come in, and tell the Harvard students that religion is --quite simply-- a meme that is entirely based on superstitious beliefs. A virus of the mind. And that although (sadly) untold millions of people throughout the ages have devoted their lives to it, is is NOT based in any way on logic, or science, or reason, or rationality. Instead, it is based on "faith". And that "faith" represents the antithesis of seeking for knowledge. Class dismissed.
Except that is wrong. Your opinion, and therefore valid to you...but wrong. It is a reductionistic approach.
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." "I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of God. That should be all that needs to be said about it: no evidence, no belief." ---- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry, as the ancient world was the child of fear and faith.
- Clarence Darrow Why I Am An Agnostic
Yes I see you are in good company.



Well, Sal, I do not know if the following qualifies me as misanthrope.......but i AM forced to admit to you that i DO indeed regard myself as being far *superior*, in both reasoning ability and the capacity for rational thought, to any and all persons on this planet who are convinced (as religion teaches) that the supposed omnipotent "creator" of the entire universe spends time fretting over people who wear clothes made of wool and linen mixed, or that those who pick a stick up off the ground on the "wrong day" deserve to be put to death, or that people long dead and buried have gotten up out of their graves and walked around.Yes when put that way, it does sound quite ridiculous doesn't it? Reductionism can tend to do that.

But then one looks around at our little universe and over the course of history and one sees such heroic and great sacrifices that others have made who do believe in an invisible deity. They live lives of greatness, they have peace and contentment and exude a spirit of warmth and care and love. And then one must move beyond the smallness, acknowledge the greatness and know that perhaps something larger and more powerful moves us if we can find it's energy. Peace baby... I'm off to church. Okay, that part was a lie... :)

Teaching religion doesn't change a persons heart but teaching the bible which is the Word of God changes society one at a time!

How do you know they are his words? They could be the words of just another human being who deeply thought about morals, though there's are lots of things written there that apply only to ancient times, and many are just myths.

Now, anything about religious teachings should be optional, not all of us believe the same way, and some don't believe anything at all! Why force religion on anybody, are we going the way of other groups of people that force religion onto their people (fundamentalists and fanatics).