Educational Philosophy

We have spent a great deal of time in school up to this point. Most of us in this class have spent at least sixteen years in school to reach the point that we have today but what is the point of education? Is it to make us better more enlightened individuals? Maybe it is to train us for our future careers? What about to make us good consumers to stimulate the economy?

Depending upon what one views the purpose of education to be the methodology taken for that education can vary greatly. If education is to make us mindless consumers then maybe the best method is a rigid curriculum with frequent standardized assessments. Or maybe this is how we should be educating people to prepare them for the workforce. On the other hand, to be successful in a career people need to be independent thinkers with good leadership skills so maybe a loosely structured curriculum with both teacher and student driven aspects is best.

The Core at Champlain College is an experiment in educational philosophy. The idea that by mixing disciplines such as history, economics, philosophy, psychology, science, literature, arts, and aesthetics students can gain a better understanding of each by being able to analyze them from the perspectives of various disciplines. But yet for some reason many Champlain students in Core consider it to be stupid and a waste of time. The argument against Core that makes me the angriest is “This has nothing to do with my major so why should I have to waste my time learning it”. Champlain College is a four year liberal arts college. It seeks to give its students a liberal arts education which includes a cross section of many disciplines to ensure students are well rounded and prepared for the real world. If you are among those who do not want this then leave. There are many great two year technical schools that focus on teaching a skill or profession without the general education component.

In the Western World Philosophy, Immanuel Kant describes enlightenment as “man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage” and nonage as “the ability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance” (149). If the purpose of Education is to create enlightened individuals, which I believe it should be, then the Core’s goal of teaching us how to think is certainly pointed in the right direction. The problems associated with Core and any of its shortcomings are as much the fault of its students as its professors and administrators. Kant points out that laziness and cowardice are the primary reasons why “such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance” (149). If Core, or even education in general, is to succeed at created enlightened individuals then students need to break free from laziness.

Islamophobia

I find it fascinating how many people associate the terms “Islam” and “Muslim” with terrorist. There is no doubt that there are Islamic Extremist sects such as al-Qaida that fund and orchestrate terrorist attacks, but why has the entire faith of Islam been branded? After the attacks of September 11th, 2001 President Bush made it clear that the men who committed the acts were perverting Islam and that neither Islam nor mainstream Muslims were responsible for the attacks. We are in a “War on Terror” not on Muslims so why do so many associate the two? There are radical fringe groups in every society such as White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis, both of whom frequently align themselves with Christianity to support their cause. Even the term terrorism conjures up almost exclusively images of Arabs in turbans screaming “Islamic Jihad” yet if we look at the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995, the most recent major attack in the United States’ memory before September 11, we see that Timothy McVeigh was an Irish Catholic. So why then are Muslims the ubiquitous American image of terrorism? Is it simply an effect of media propaganda and fear of a largely unknown culture or is there more to it? When Professor Gary Scudder came to speak to us he said that Islam is a religious, social and political system. Could this somehow make Christian terrorists appear different than Muslim terrorists to Americans? Reel Bad Arabs suggested that maybe we have been brought up since childhood to believe Arabs to be violent and barbaric. Maybe it is not a big stretch for Americans to accept that all Muslims are Arabs and they must act the same way.



Recently we have been looking at the depiction of Muslims and Islam in the media and in film over the past decades as well as constitutional issues of freedom of speech. I think it is valuable to place the two side by side and ask where we should draw the line. To what extent (if at all) should Anti-Islamic or even Anti-religious media propaganda be regulated? American Fear is slowly subsiding now, almost eight years after September 11, yet many Americans still fear Islam and are largely ignorant to what it really is.



How then can we ensure that we preserve our civil liberties in the face of ignorance and fear? Should constitutional rights be flexible to ensure public safety or should safety be compromised to protect individual rights?

Religion in Washington

These last weeks we have focused primarily on the inauguration and the secular and sacred symbolism therein. From Rev. Rick Warren’s invocation to Lincoln’s bible, the Christian symbols and components of the inauguration were clear and present. We know that the United States is a nation founded on Christian ideals, but how can we situate these images in an ever diversifying population? There is no doubt that religion plays a significant role in America today and is therefore a driving political influence, but what role does religion have in Government? No doubt many Christian Americans were thrilled to hear Rev. Rick Warren proclaim Jesus Christ his personal Lord and Savior during his invocation. At the same time no doubt many non-Christians were squirming in their seats. Herein lays the inherent problem with religion in government. There are too many beliefs, too many faiths, and too many ideals to make everyone happy all the time. The First Amendment to the Constitution gives us the idea of separation of church and state by mandating that no law can be passed to respect an established religion nor to prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Constitution never specifies the role religion could or could not play in Washington beyond that.

I personally feel that the significance of the Christian presence at the inauguration comes directly from President Obama’s personal Christian beliefs. Every President of the United States so far has been Christian so there is a tradition of swearing on a Bible. Because of the overwhelming political influence held by Christian voters across the nation, it is unlikely that a non-Christian will be elected any time soon. When it does happen however, it only seems appropriate that religious symbols relevant and sacred to that President will used.

Many moderate Americans may not even have noticed the Christian presence at the inauguration, or at least glazed right over it. As Colleen McDannell describes in Material Christianity, there is a scrambling of the sacred and the profane. Traditionally sacred objects are becoming utilitarian. The Bible, a sacred Christian text, has become the book people swear on. From witnesses in a court room to the president of the United States, when you swear something you do it on a bible. Why? Well, because that is what they always do in the movies. As with any tradition, sacred or secular, the longer its history, the more likely people are to forget why it is done at all.

The voting populace is also a source of religious strife. With radical non-believers screaming “God is a lie!” and radical Christians screaming “Convert the heathens!” we find ourselves in a deadlock with little room for progress. Each side is convinced that it is right and that its way of knowing is the only way. Before his election, Barack Obama spoke about the role of religion in America as well as expressing a need for faiths to coexist and even work together. Below is this clip –I apologize for the poor quality.

In this short piece, I feel like President Obama very accurately describes the role that religion must play in politics. There is no doubt that religion shapes political views, but when creating policy we must, as Obama says, persuade based on a common reality. We must accept that different people hold different beliefs and different ideals, but we are fundamentally all human first. In this way we can come together to establish an effective government.

Who needs God?

I find it interesting how people my age, especially in the northeastern United States, view religion. A large majority of the people I know from both high school and college, call themselves liberals. They proudly denounce the existence of God or apathetically call themselves agnostic. Is this really a “progressive” movement? Many would argue that it is. Many argue that organized religions are backward and manipulative institutions. Although I strongly disagree with this argument, there are a number of faiths that even I would not defend against these criticisms. Religion has a distinct role and provides a distinct service to society; not everyone who can write a book or speak articulately can provide that service.

In a growing world sorely lacking spiritual guidance, I cannot help but wonder where we will end up. Where are children learning morals, in public schools? My mother, a preschool teacher, comes home horrified that these children know more four letter words than she does and have no concept of respect. Clearly something is not working.