OK, folks, have it your way

Fri Sep 9 09:41:24 PDT 2005

	My apologies for the delay in responding to this, but I thought
I'd say a few words on the subject, even if belatedly.  I am quite
puzzled by Prof. Finkelman's statement that his "post was not meant to
slam Christianity."  I'm usually not bad at recognizing irony, but in
this post what I saw was a harsh criticism of Christianity and its
effect on America.  The first two paragraphs, which Prof. Finkelman
suggests govern the meaning of what follows, simply say that Prof.
Finkelman (1) has taught about the influence of Christianity on U.S.
history in his classes, and (2) suspects that many other courses have
such content.  

	His next paragraph says that "I think a course on the 'Influence
of Christianity in the US' would be interesting and certainly valid.
Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no
particular order):"  This is followed by a list of various bad things
that seem to be linked to Christianity in U.S. history, and then by the
statement "Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it."
(I include his post below.)

	If Prof. Finkelman was not intending to slam Christianity, then
it seems to me that he rather badly miscalculated.

	This having been said, I should acknowledge that criticism of
Christianity is perfectly legitimate in academic discourse.  So is
praise of Christianity, criticism of atheism, criticism of Judaism, and
the like.  It just strikes me as quite unhelpful on a list that's
focused on the law of government and religion -- though it is
tangentially connected to the list topic, the connection is tangential
enough that posts such as this shed little light, and create far more
heat.

	Eugene

[Prof. Finkelman's original post]

Dear Rick:

I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as "History of 
Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a number of early modern 
European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely 
with the Church and Church history.   There are probably  courses on the

Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most 
universities.  Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the 
place.  When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always

spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. 
My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on 
the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great 
awkening in a survey course.  Every colonial history course I ever took 
(or knew of) had a huge section on religion.   In anything, colonialists

probably spend too much time on the Puritans.

Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below 
would have content about Christians and Christianity, including 
"Storytelling," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature," (lots 
of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to 
fundamentalist hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had to teach it without 
discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same 
comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it

will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to 
discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events.

I think a course on the "Influence of Christianity in the US" would be 
interesting and certainly valid.  Such a course would lectures and 
readings on the following (in no particular order):

The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; 
Christian "identity" movements in the last 25 years
Father Coughlin's antisemitism
The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston
The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery
The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slavery
Ownership of slaves by churches
The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a 
strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages
The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith
The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial 
Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ
The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the 
Revolutionary period.
The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by 
prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools
The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on 
Catholics in the 19th century
The attacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John

F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic.
The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern 
Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s.
The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and 
religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language.
The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) 
to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period.

Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it.

Paul Finkelman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Finkelman
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:47 PM
> To: Paul Finkelman
> Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: OK, folks, have it your way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Finkelman wrote:
> My post was not meant to slam Christianity, and a number of 
> list members 
> did not see it that way; rather it was to point out the difficulty of 
> having a course titled the Christian Influence on US History. 
>  The first 
> part of the post, which Eugene simply does not get, noted that when I 
> teach US history (whcih I used to do all the time) I spend a 
> great deal 
> of time on the impact of religion on the US; the last part of 
> the post 
> was really to demonstrate the difficulty of a course that was 
> so agenda 
> focused and merely point out, with some details, how such a 
> course might 
> be done in a way that would probably not please the 
> proponents of such a 
> course.  I did not intend to offend, although I did intend to suggest 
> that the "contributions" agenda of such a course is not every 
> intellectual and is more like propaganda.  Most college teach 
> courses on 
> teh hsitory of American religion; and they teach courses on Islam, 
> Hinduism, etc.  But there is a huge difference between a course that 
> focuses on history (warts and all) in a context; or focuses on 
> explaining a belief system, and one that is self-consciously 
> about the 
> "contributions" of a group (ANY group) to a culture, because 
> that tends 
> to be more about propaganda and ideoogy than scholarship.  My list of 
> topics was meant to point out the dangers of such a course, with sme 
> irony.  I suspect that Eugene is simply not in an ironic mood 
> these days.
> 
> Paul
> 
> >
> >
> > Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> >
> >>	My response was probably more peevish than it should 
> have been, and I 
> >>apologize for that.  Nonetheless, even though Greg's 
> intentions were 
> >>doubtless good, his position, it seems to me, would indeed 
> in effect 
> >>make everything I mentioned -- and nearly everything more 
> generally -- 
> >>on-topic.
> >>
> >>	Everything is indeed connected to everything else.  
> Prof. Finkelman's 
> >>post slammed Christianity for its various sins.  If that's 
> OK because 
> >>it "dramatize[s] the ample space available for criticial discourse 
> >>about the dominant religion in American life," then 
> everything else I 
> >>mentioned is at most one extra step removed from that.
> >>
> >>	More to the point, I don't think that as a list 
> custodian I could in 
> >>good conscience fault people for the posts I noted, if list 
> sentiment 
> >>is in favor of allowing posts such as Prof. Finkelman's.  I don't 
> >>share, for instance, Jim Henderson's religious views, but I 
> can surely 
> >>put myself in his shoes, and imagine what he might like to post in 
> >>response to Prof. Finkelman.  I have in the past insisted 
> that people 
> >>forbear from replying in kind to posts that violate list 
> rules.  But 
> >>if Prof. Finkelman's post is within list rules, then I 
> can't very well 
> >>demand that Jim not respond in kind.
> >>
> >>	Eugene
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>>---
> >>>
> >
> 
> -- 
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, OK   74104-3189
> 
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
> 
> paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
> 