Teaching religion

MIT has gotten into a bit of hot water lately as they're going through a periodic review of their General Education. The task force came up with a controversial idea.

Since Religion is a major part of modern geopolitics, it is a good idea for students to learn about it.

A good idea on the surface, but actually doing it is a very tricky line to walk. The correct way to do it is to present religion in a sort of comparative ethics framework, rather than as an alternate but potentially equally valid world-view. The above statement can easily be seen as, 'an attack on science,' as similar sentiments have been issued from more religiously oriented groups.

It is possible to study religion as a detached observer. Heck, there are whole fields of research based on just that. It is my opinion that such research does have a place in a liberal education. Religions strongly influence culture, and the study of religion can increase understanding of cultural influences. Many liberal arts colleges have a, 'non-western focus,' requirement somewhere in their general education requirements for just that exact reason.

What is not a good idea are classes intended to, 'teach the controversy,' or otherwise inculcate students in religious dogma. These are classes that do not take the detached observer view, preferring to engage and challenge. This is not what this proposed general-ed requirement is all about.

That said, the line gets even trickier to walk when the religions held by students undergo outside analysis. That act is sure to bring controversy into these classes as students challenge teachers on points of dogma. The skillful educator should be able to turn these challenges into an educational experience highlighting the differences of opinion with a specific religious context, but not all will be successful at it. These will be hard classes to teach.

In the end, it is hard to educate people about what are in essence alternate moral and philosophical systems. Some people live their whole lives without realizing that different people have different opinions about what is moral, and that such is perfectly OK. This is very healthy thing to learn, but it is unlikely to be properly taught in a general-ed class.

The 100 hours and the unilateral executive

Much has been made of the House Democrats plan for their first 100 hours in power. Six bills, carefully selected from the large number competing for their chance to see light outside of committee. Six bills to demonstrate that the Dems are not over-reaching, drunk on their new power. Six bills to show that they mean business, but restrained business.

In all likelihood the House Dems will get their bills passed and forwarded to the Senate. Then the wait begins. The Senate is held by a single vote, and every single Democrat will have to vote to get these bills passed. What's more, due to Senate rules you need 60 Senators to close debate and bring a measure up for vote; it is simplicity itself for the Republicans to effectively filibuster the new bills into obscurity. The House will gain the glory, but the true fight will be in the Senate.

Some of these bills may actually get out of the Senate and onto Bush's desk, whereupon his previous unwillingness to wield the Veto pen will go out the window. Bush knows very well how tenuous the Democratic hold on power is, he has very little reason to fear an override. Previous Presidents have alienated Congress to the degree that Congress passes bills expressly looking for a Veto, just so they can override it; the first impeached president, Andrew Johnson, was just such a president. While the Democrats may very well strike up a decidedly adversarial stance against Bush, it will take the collusion of a not insignificant number of Republicans to get him into the hot water that Johnson found himself in.

Plus, we only have a year before the official start of the 2008 Presidential Election. Election year politics will play a b-i-g role in late 2007 and 2008. How the Dems play it depends a lot on how Bush popularity polls rise and fall. If his approval rating drop and stay in the 20's, big political capital can be made by bashing Bush with bills. If his approval ratings stay in the mid 30's and occasionally peak into the 40's, may that not happen, the Democrats may find themselves feeling a lot more bi-partisan. If any member of the Bush cabinet decides to run for President in 2008, this will become even more apparent.

So the Democrats have to get their big flashy stuff over with, or at least passed over to the other house, by Summer. Wait too long, and it becomes part of the presidential election cycle.

Back to the six '100 hours' bills. It is entirely possible that Bush will veto all six as a show of his respect for the Democrats new found power. Both sides have talked about bi-partisanship, but that's a standard move at this phase of the game; it doesn't mean anything. Bush taking an absolutist, "give me something I can sign, or I won't sign it," stance is very much within the realm of possibility. Also expect a showdown over, "signing statements," as that will absolutely come up this year. This congress will be an adversarial one, the Democrats are spoiling for a fight, and Bush is the kind of person to not back down if he doesn't really want to.

The best case here is one that Clinton attempted to follow when his party lost both houses in 1994. He engaged the new Republican majority and actively cut deals. It didn't work all the time, such as the Governmental shutdown in 1996, but he didn't sit on his high perch and veto anything he didn't feel was exactly what he wanted. The Dems and Bush have both openly stated that they need to meet and cut deals, but the character of both is markedly different than the Clinton/Republican dynamic.

The executive power that Bush has spent the last six years building up will only annoy the party in power in Congress. This is a prime reason that the constitutionality of 'signing statements' will be dragged out into the open, possibly even before the Supreme Court. Congress rolled back the powers of the Executive in the post-Watergate era, it could happen again. Though, that slim margin in the Senate may provide enough of a road-block to prevent a complete roll-back.

This will be a year to watch.