The Rational Argumentator
A Journal for Western Man
Principal Index *** Contributors *** Yahoo! Group
Against a Theology Requirement at Hillsdale College:
Responses and Elaborations
G. Stolyarov II
Issue CXCIV - May 2, 2009
Recommend this page.
On April 16, 2009, the Hillsdale Collegian published an editorial of mine opposing the plan to institute a compulsory theology course requirement in the Hillsdale core curriculum. Since then, several individuals – most notably, Dr. John Reist, David Stehlik, and Derek Muller – published responses in opposition to my arguments. Here, I intend to address these responses in as much detail as I can in order to prevent a policy decision which, I believe, will significantly impair the educational quality and cultural atmosphere at Hillsdale – to the point that the college would no longer be worthy of my support or the support of advocates of genuine individual liberty.
Responses to Dr. John Reist
Dr. John Reist of Hillsdale’s religious department is one of the primary advocates of adding a theology requirement to the Hillsdale core curriculum. I have known Dr. Reist for the past four years, and I have had discussions with him on numerous occasions. He is indeed not a person who would wish to stifle questions and discussion, and I commend him for being open to examining the issues on any matter where they may be disagreement between us. I also hope that he will be able to teach many more courses in theology at Hillsdale – just not any compulsory courses on this subject. I see Dr. Reist and myself as two individuals who sincerely believe in their respective stances on this issue and who are each trying to implement their own view of what the proper direction for Hillsdale College is. I, however, think that the direction Dr. Reist proposes will lead to totalitarian control over the human mind – an outcome Dr. Reist does not desire but which will nonetheless follow inexorably from this theology requirement. Dr. Reist’s editorial in the Collegian in response to mine contains the first set of objections that I would like to address.
Dr. Reist writes, “We require a core curriculum - is that too much for Mr. Stolyarov? Is it not unfair to require a foreign language, or HST 104-05, or ENG 101-02 or two courses in physical education?”
I have other issues with a core curriculum – namely, the limitations it imposes on a student’s ability to specialize in multiple disciplines at Hillsdale if he or she sees fit to do so while still only remaining at Hillsdale for four years. Already, we are witnessing the unfortunate phenomenon of some students needing to stay for five or six years in order to complete their major requirements in addition to the core. I was able to complete three majors during my four years at Hillsdale, but this was possible only due to my 66 Advanced Placement credits coming in. Many students find themselves needing to rush to complete even one major. I also think that introducing students into classrooms who do not specifically wish to be there devalues the quality of the discussion and leads the professors to teach to a lower common denominator than would otherwise be the case.
But this is not the central issue of contention at present. While, in theory, I would propose replacing the Hillsdale core curriculum with a voluntary incentive system for taking the same courses, this is not the dilemma before us. The issue is whether we retain an imperfect but tolerable status quo or descend into overt religious indoctrination. I find the current core curriculum to be much more mildly objectionable than it would be with a theology requirement in place. This is because the subjects of English, history, physical education, and foreign languages are not inherently ideological and, at Hillsdale, are taught from a wide variety of perspectives depending on the professors who are teaching the core courses. Others of these subjects do not, in their structure, permit controversy. There are only certain possible ways of solving a math problem, running a mile, or conjugating verbs in various languages. Some professors are more overtly ideologically biased in how they approach the “softer” subjects (and bias, of course, is always a matter of degree), but students at Hillsdale have a choice of which professor biases they will be subject to, and to what extent. This is because there is no single “conservative” or “Christian” take on history or literature; different conservative Christians can have radically divergent views on these subjects. Thus, no intellectual homogeneity is imposed onto the Hillsdale campus through these core requirements.
The issue of the U. S. Constitution course requirement in the core curriculum is, I admit, a bit of a special case. Dr. Reist writes that “[w]e require a course in the U.S. Constitution, and I support that. However, suppose a Marxist or Tory or Whig or Socialist or Monarchist were required to take the course - would that be unfair?” I think it certainly is true that there is a pro-Constitution and pro-constitutionalist bias in Hillsdale’s political science department. Some opponents of my argument might accuse me of being more accepting of such a bias simply because I myself am a constitutionalist – while I rebel against the prospect of a theology requirement because I am not a Christian. While it is true that I am more viscerally comfortable with a Constitution requirement, I recognize that this personal inclination is not a valid ground for argument – so I would like to present a case for why I believe a Constitution requirement is different from a theology requirement qualitatively and in a manner that holds for all persons.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States, according to Article VI. As such, everyone living in this country is bound to respect it as they are bound to respect any law that is consistent with it. I note that whether a person is bound to respect a law does not depend on that person’s ideology, worldview, understanding, values, and motives. Any American citizen (at the very least!) is subject to the protections of the Constitution and to the operation of a government that was founded explicitly and incontrovertibly on its basis and is, at least in theory, supposed to retain it as its basis. A good case can be made that, if one of the purposes of education is to confer upon students skills essential to their competent functioning in our society, then it is proper for students to be educated in the founding principles behind the laws they will be required to respect. Even Tories, Whigs, Monarchists, and Socialists are protected against a plethora of government actions by the Constitution, while they are obligated to support a government structure described therein. Their beliefs do not exempt them from the indisputably real laws of the land.
But no comparable situation exists with regard to theology. No individual, under the laws of the United States, is obligated to adhere to or even understand the theological views of any party. Moreover, in this world at the very least, people can get along just fine without knowing any theology – in a manner that would not be the case if they were illiterate, innumerate, physically unhealthy, or ignorant of the law and of basic historical facts. I do not need to know your religious beliefs in order to respect you and uphold your freedom to believe and practice as you wish. All I need is the understanding that, whatever in the world you believe, you will not use force to impose it on others or to punish others who do not believe as you do. Moreover, while some might think that I will suffer eternal post-death damnation for not having religious beliefs, I see not a trace of this predicament in the present world – and it really is too much to base educational policies on any other world that no person has ever seen or returned from.
Dr. Reist writes, “Mr. Stolyarov misunderstands me (probably because I said it shortly, as a sound byte) if he thinks I believe that the Constitution is a ‘Christian’ document.” Fair enough: Dr. Reist does not believe this. What, then, does he actually believe about the relationship of Christianity to the Constitution? He writes that “many of those who produced [the Constitution] were Christians (we know that from examination of their letters, essays, orations, wills and diaries) and it was their Christian faith that motivated them to produce the Constitution.” This is true – although, emphatically, it is not true for all of the Founders, a sizable number of whom actually saw the Constitution as a refuge against some of the abuses of Christianity that have been perpetrated in both the Old and New Worlds. But it is also incontrovertibly true that many Founders were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy in designing the Constitution as they did. I am certain that Dr. Reist would not therefore advocate compelling all Hillsdale students to take a course in Enlightenment philosophy! (Doubtless, such a course would be highly beneficial, but I would also not advocate that requirement.)
Dr. Reist, after making the aforementioned historical point, proceeds with a non sequitur: “This, of course, challenges Mr. Stolyarov’s argument (or at least, his principle without argument) that requiring a course in biblical studies or theology would impose it on students, for these Christian men produced a document that is about fundamental freedoms.” How a requirement is not an imposition in any case, I know not. Even requiring history or math is an imposition; the question is not whether an imposition exists, but what kinds of impositions may be tolerable, and what kinds are absolutely inappropriate? I believe that imposing religious beliefs is absolutely inappropriate, whether or not those beliefs are compatible with fundamental freedoms. If the fundamental freedoms can be justified without reference to Christianity (as they can be – because such justifications have been offered by tens of thinkers throughout history at least), then Christianity is not necessary for those freedoms to exist. It might be interesting to examine some people’s motivations for pursuing these freedoms – and mentions of Christian influences on some of the Founders are already excessively prominent in some of Hillsdale’s Constitution courses – but freedoms qua freedoms can be justified from a variety of perspectives. It might be essential to know what they are (and here a curricular requirement may be justified, at least proceeding from that consideration alone), but a uniform perspective on why they are should never be imposed.
Dr. Reist says that “Hillsdale College is an oasis of freedom, but not without focus. Freedom without focus is not freedom, but anarchy or chaos.” I do not think that Hillsdale has any danger of lapsing into “anarchy” or “chaos” or “freedom without focus.” The consistency of the college architecture, its statuary, its newsletters and special events, and its Great Books reading list cannot be mistaken for anything but tremendous focus. Whether this is good or bad, I will not venture to say. But to suggest that Hillsdale will be in any kind of unfocused stupor if a theology requirement is not imposed is easily empirically falsified by its status quo. I also venture to suggest that too much focus on an institutional level will necessarily destroy all freedom. When an institution has so much focus that everyone in it is required to think the same thoughts, study the same ideas, attend the same events, and embrace the same social mores, then it is no longer a place of focused freedom, but rather one of totalitarianism. Hillsdale is not there yet, but the creep of tyranny is almost always incremental. To see where it may lead, I encourage my readers to examine the rulebook of Clearwater Christian College. First come the theology requirements, then comes mandatory chapel attendance, then come restrictions on student relationships and music-listening opportunities, then come the attempts to control the students’ lives during breaks and vacations. The danger of too much “focus” is enforced homogeneity – the very antithesis of freedom. I draw the line here and now and say that not one step closer to that abyss will be taken with my explicit or tacit support.
Dr. Reist writes, “Further, Hillsdale College would not even exist were it not for Christians (free church men and women - Baptists!) and their faith - read our charter, Mr. Stolyarov.” It is true that Baptists founded Hillsdale College. But then, by Dr. Reist’s logic, it would be necessary to force all Hillsdale students to learn Baptist theology in particular, because that is what the founders of the college happened to believe. Why stop at so broad a category as Christianity? Why not specify the requirement further to Baptism or even Freewill Baptism or Freewill Baptism of the mid-19th century? Why not require everyone to read the writings of Ransom Dunn and his associates? Certainly, these were important figures in the founding of Hillsdale College, but is it not absurd to require every student to devote three hours a week for one semester to examining their particular oeuvre? On the other hand, why stop at so narrow a category as Christianity? Why not simply say that Hillsdale’s founders were religious, or philosophical, or that they spoke and wrote, or that they lived on Earth – in which case everyone should be required to study geology? I think that instead of imposing requirements on students in the name of Hillsdale’s esteemed founders, we should examine the spirit in which these individuals created the college and what role they intended for it to perform for its students. The History & Mission page on Hillsdale’s website states quite clearly that “Though established by Freewill Baptists, Hillsdale has been officially non-denominational since its inception. It was the first American college to prohibit in its charter any discrimination based on race, religion or sex, and became an early force for the abolition of slavery. “ [Emphasis mine.] How is it not discrimination based on religion to require non-Christian students to take courses in Christian theology or biblical studies? I like these Freewill Baptists who founded Hillsdale, and I am honestly intrigued with regard to what elements in their theology motivated them to be so much more tolerant and accepting of different viewpoints than many Christians are today. I think they would agree with me if they could witness the present controversy.
Dr. Reist writes, “All thinking, even liberal arts thinking, is about something - and everything. It is not intolerant to expect students to think about Christianity.” How does he get from the fact that thinking is thinking about something to the normative claim that everyone’s thinking should be about Christianity? There are a few steps in the argument he is trying to make that appear to be mysteriously absent. I do not deny that all thinking should be about something, but Dr. Reist has not even shown that thinking about Christianity is superior to thinking about polka-dot-colored marshmallows, much less non-Christian religions and philosophies!
Dr. Reist writes, “We wish to move students to address the basic questions of existence, and, while all thoughtful men and women do so, we believe that if you have not addressed the questions of Christianity (which is true), you have personally, seriously and fatally impaired your understanding of the cosmos.” First, I do not think any person in the United States, in which almost 80 percent of the population are Christians, can fail to “address the questions of Christianity,” as the religion and its influence are culturally unavoidable. Second, the overwhelming majority of Hillsdale students are already far more thoroughly Christian in their upbringing and theological beliefs than many Christians in the United States. There is no risk that they would avoid addressing the questions of Christianity! This leaves only one group of students at whom the theology requirement would be aimed: the non-Christians on this campus, who, apparently, have not examined the questions of Christianity “sufficiently” in the minds of some – or else, it is alleged, they would be Christians. Dr. Reist may not believe this himself, but the practical effect of the theology requirement would be redundancy for those already well-versed in Christian theology (or who would have taken the theology courses anyway!) and indoctrination for those who are not. I can confidently speak for all non-religious Americans, though, that it is impossible to be non-religious in this country without having “addressed the questions of Christianity,” as the questions are asked of them continually whether they want to hear them or not. I probably know more of the history of Christian doctrines and their consequences than do many Christians, and it seems that the more I examine Christian texts and teachings, the less attracted I am to them. I do not wish to argue about why this is so, or whether I am right to think this; I merely present it as a fact. Most non-Christians are not ignorant of Christianity. They encountered it, honestly examined it, and were not persuaded. I can confidently say that there is nothing at present that can convince me to embrace a Christian or any manner of theistic worldview as my own – but I cannot be clearer in my understanding of why I reject such worldviews. My objections are as essential as the rejection of the creation of the universe, original sin, and omnipotence/omniscience – and don’t get me started on the Bible.
Dr. Reist reassures us that “No one is required to believe anything in the courses I teach. And if we require a course in biblical studies, we would be saying that you must address and consider these issues, not sign a creed.” I am glad that Dr. Reist follows this approach. I never suggested that he would do anything other than act in the fairest manner he saw possible – defining fairness, of course, in accord with his own convictions, as we all do. However, can Dr. Reist guarantee absolutely and without reservation that no one will be graded adversely based on his or her beliefs in the courses Dr. Reist teaches? If so, how could Dr. Reist enforce such a guarantee in practice? The only way I see of making this possible – and I hope that Dr. Reist will suggest alternative approaches – is to give every student in the class an A simply for attending and turning in the required assignments. If the course is graded on a participation/completion basis, rather than on the nature of the content submitted, then we can at least have the consolation that sitting through religious instruction will be the most students will be required to do. If this is not the case, however, then students’ grade point averages, and possibly their future careers, run the risk of being ruined over theological disagreements with the instructor. I understand that this would not be the intention of Dr. Reist and his colleagues, but I ask them to be honest: If a student submitted to them a sincere, intelligent, thorough, and well-researched defense of Arian or Gnostic Christianity, or Deism, or Mormonism, or atheism, would that student get an A on the assignment?
Dr. Reist writes, “Biblical ignorance or illiteracy is a sure way to truncate your understanding of ethics, science, music, psychology, sociology, et al.” While it is certainly useful in some contexts to understand Christian influences on these other disciplines, I do not believe it to be necessary in all cases and for all people. I can listen to a classical composition inspired by Christian beliefs and containing explicitly Christian lyrics – and yet I can appreciate its musical richness and depth without understanding the lyrics, which are written in a language I do not know. I do not think the Christian aspect adds anything to the music in question; the melodies, voices, instruments, and composition styles, on the other hand, do. This is in many ways similar to comic opera of the 18th century; the music is sublime, but the lyrics would probably fit right into a daytime TV show. I do not think that a chorus of beautiful voices singing “Hallelujah!” has any nobler effect than the same voices exclaiming “Hi, how are you?” to the same music. Likewise, to an atheist, materialist, and rationalist such as myself, it is possible for Christianity to be correct about some things – and indeed, about many things – relevant to other disciplines. However, the truth of those things is independent of the truth of Christianity and can be arrived at in other ways. What is there that is true about these disciplines that can only be explained by reference to Christianity? I have not found a single element. If these disciplines are important in their own right (and they are), why not study them in their own right and maybe speculate about parallels to Christianity, but not maintain the unsupportable position that they require Christianity in order for essential components of them to not go missing?
Dr. Reist writes, “We will miss you next year, Mr. Stolyarov. And we will miss your children, if they do not come. But think of what they will miss - an open liberal education in the whole tradition which would lead them into the future with a hopeful trajectory determined by that tradition; otherwise, a truncated education will lead to tragedy.” And I will miss Dr. Reist as well. On the other hand, I do think that I will be able to furnish a well-rounded education to my children – including an education that discusses the contents, history, and contemporary significance of Christian beliefs – without having them ever set foot into a theology course except of their own unconstrained volition, and I will not deny them that prerogative. In a saner world, they might be able to obtain such an education at Hillsdale College, although events occurring day to day continue to reduce my estimation of the probability that this will happen. When my children learn about religions, they will learn about all the major religions of the world at a roughly equal level of depth – and, of course, I could not escape my own biases in exposing them to this subject. A college that seeks to Christianize its student body will not be a place for them, although friendly, civil, and mutually beneficial interactions with many Christians will, I hope, be a prominent feature of their lives – because many Christians are good people, not because they are Christians.
Responses to David Stehlik
David Stehlik, a 2009 graduate of Hillsdale College, published three additional arguments in favor of a theology requirement on the website of the Hillsdale Collegian. I have spoken with Mr. Stehlik at a considerable level of depth on several occasions previously, and I can say from experience that he is a civil, honest, and well-intentioned person. Nonetheless, I believe all of his arguments on this issue are severely flawed.
Mr. Stehlik writes that “The founders identified themselves and the College they were founding with their specific, denominationally-defined belief in the Christian God.”
While the founders of the college were indeed Freewill Baptists, they did not, contrary to Mr. Stehlik’s assertion, ever identify Hillsdale College with “their specific, denominationally-defined belief in the Christian God.” Again, I quote from the History & Mission page of the college’s own website that “Though established by Freewill Baptists, Hillsdale has been officially non-denominational since its inception.” [Emphasis mine.] I think that the present push for a theology requirement is a severe departure from what the founders of this college wanted it to be. Indeed, how ironic it would be if the first college to abolish religious discrimination in the United States were now to become one of the few colleges in the country to practice it overtly and proudly!
Mr. Stehlik writes that “The preamble continues by citing the College’s founding purpose as essential to the ‘perpetuity’ of God’s ‘inestimable blessings resulting from the prevalence of civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety in the land.’ Hillsdale’s founders recognized that civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety flow from the Christian faith; they are blessings from God. Thus, the founders would probably assert that Mr. Stolyarov can consider himself a proud atheist because of the blessings which come from the Almighty God, an odd freedom indeed.”
This is not quite what the preamble says. It starts as follows: “WHEREAS the denomination of Christians, known as Free-Will-Baptists, with other friends of education, grateful to God for the inestimable blessings resulting from the prevalence of civil and religious liberty and intelligent piety in the land, and believing that the diffusion of sound learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings…” The preamble merely states that the Freewill Baptists are grateful to God for these inestimable blessings – not that it is necessary to believe in God or study Christian theology in order to receive, understand, and appreciate said blessings. Moreover, where is the religious liberty in mandating students to attend theology courses? Mr. Stehlik tries to read a certain philosophical position into the preamble – a position that is not explicitly stated there – while ignoring the incontrovertible explicit support in the preamble of religious liberty. And no, it does not work to undermine religious liberty in order to establish the alleged preconditions for religious liberty. That is called a contradiction.
As for “intelligent piety,” compulsion to believe in or even think about certain ideas is not intelligent at all. Where the realm of the intellect is concerned, one can either accept an idea because it makes sense and is appealing in itself – which is the intelligent way – or one can accept it because of adverse institutional consequences that follow from its rejection – which is the way of fear, conformity, and submission to arbitrary power. Intelligent piety is piety that is accepted freely and without mandates; there is no other kind of intelligent piety.
Mr. Stehlik’s second argument is rather disappointing, because I would have expected a person of his intelligence and moral character to take a higher ground. He writes, “Hillsdale College embodies a mission pursuable only through partnership. Students not wishing to partner with the College should not come. The mission is not ‘to be a divided body,’ but rather to stand united for the truth. And, the truth is one thing, not two things or three things.” This is the more circuitously phrased equivalent of the commonly used vitriolic mantra, “If you don’t like it, leave/do not come!” Such a sentiment is insular, immature, and intellectually cowardly; it is a refusal to confront challenges to one’s ideas and a desire to sequester oneself within a cultural and ideological bubble where there is only agreement and mutual back-patting. Surely, Mr. Stehlik does not want to be affiliated with that kind of institution, but that is what his arguments, if applied, will bring about. Only through discussion, disagreement, and interaction among different perspectives can the truth be arrived at; no individual or group has a monopoly on it to start with. The attainment of truth, just like the attainment of accurate information about customer desires and resource availabilities in the economic marketplace, is a dynamic discovery process (read your Hayek, Mr. Stehlik!), which can only be facilitated by vigorous, unceasing competition among different ideas and ways of life.
Moreover, the various students who come here do not all share a single motivation for doing so. Those who saw Hillsdale as a refuge from the big, bad world that disagrees with them need to realize that they have no right to restrain and redirect the courses of other people’s educations – where those other people see Hillsdale as an excellent school both in terms of academics and extracurriculars but do not look in it for a citadel of people who only nod their heads in agreement to everything one might say. One of the purposes of the liberal arts is to foster intelligent discussion, debate, and a mutual search for truth. One cannot have an intelligent discussion (or an intelligent anything) if one only admits and compels a single monolithic perspective on all matters. There may be only one truth, but nobody can claim to know all of it – or even most of it – and thus nobody can legitimately silence the expression of perspectives contrary to his or her own. There is no refuge from having one’s ideas challenged. Students and faculty who think otherwise need to swallow this hard (but beautiful) truth and cease insisting that the Hillsdale experience must be made uniform for everyone in order to allay the fears of some that maybe, just maybe, a few of their beliefs and ways of life will be called into question.
While I do think there exists a partnership between students and the college, this partnership is bilateral, and it is custom-tailored to each student based on the student’s academic and career ambitions, choice of major(s), choice of extracurricular activities, and desire to utilize other college resources – such as the library, special events, computer labs, and so many more great and eminently useful things. Some students might come to the college because they admire its largely merit-based system of admission and scholarship allocation, its rejection of federal funds, and its generous acceptance of virtually all Advanced Placement credits. The responsibilities of students upon coming here include abiding by official college policies, respecting the rights of others, and maintaining sound academic performance in the courses they choose to take. There is no obligation to agree with anyone at this college as to what the truth is or might be – although one would hope that discussions as to the nature of truth will take place.
It seems to me that Mr. Stehlik is fundamentally uncomfortable with a heterogeneous, pluralistic, and dynamic society which is not completely controlled from the top down. He seems to prefer to reduce the society at Hillsdale to the artificial centrally planned order of taxis, as opposed to the spontaneous, emergent, locally planned order of cosmos – to use Hayekian terminology. But if human beings are diminished to mere pieces on an institutional chessboard, to be placed in their “proper” positions by the master planners in the college faculty and administration, then all liberty, intelligence, and self-government will be lost for the students. I certainly hope that Mr. Stehlik does not want this, but if he does not, he needs to seriously rethink his position on the theology requirement!
Mr. Stehlik’s third argument demonstrates a larger error with regard to the founding of the United States. He writes, “Mr. Stolyarov incorrectly asserts that the United States was not founded on Christian principles. His statement suggests that one must consistently hold to a philosophy in order to take of its fruit. Human nature, however, is fallen, and fallen men are inconsistent. For instance, most Hillsdale students have learned the frustrating fact of Mr. Jefferson: that although he was against slavery, he kept slaves. In the same way, while some of the Founders were not Christians, they were undeterred from desiring the blessings of a Christian-framed regime.”
First, I claim that this position is non-falsifiable. Any explicitly Christian sentiments among the Founders can be used to justify a Christian foundation for the United States, while any non-Christian sentiments can simply be ascribed to inconsistency. I do not think that there is an empirical arrangement whereby Mr. Stehlik would, on his own terms, be able to recognize the absence of a Christian foundation for this country. This statement of Mr. Stehlik’s has a lot in common with the Freudian take on the Oedipus Complex. If one displays signs of an Oedipus Complex, then one obviously has it, but if one does not – it is because one still has it, but it has been repressed. Can any amount of evidence suggest that someone does not have an Oedipus Complex?
Moreover, many of the Founders saw Christian dogmatism as the problem that the United States Constitution and other founding documents were meant to rectify! Thomas Jefferson, to whom a statue has now been erected at Hillsdale College, remarked that “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” Indeed, Jefferson cautioned that “History… furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” James Madison was also strongly opposed to the union of church and state and to government religious imposition. He noted, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” He also stated that “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” John Adams, too, was privately extremely skeptical of religion in general and wrote to Jefferson, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” There are numerous other instances of similar criticisms of Christianity from some of America’s most famous Founders.
Moreover, certain documents during the early history of the United States explicitly denied a Christian foundation! The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) contains Article 11, which is rather inconvenient for would-be theocrats: “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Emphasis mine.] This is not to mention, of course, our wonderful First Amendment!
Responses to Derek Muller
2004 Hillsdale graduate Derek Muller published another response to my editorial in the Collegian. Although he does not necessarily support a theology requirement himself, Mr. Muller does make some points opposing mine which I consider important to address.
Mr. Muller writes, “Mr. Stolyarov concedes, in somewhat obligatory language, that Christian theology is ‘interesting, has numerous elements which are useful and relevant to non-Christians and was developed by thousands of refined, intelligent thinkers who deserve universal respect.’ That, to me, sounds like a rousing defense of a theology course. One may be a non-republican (small r) and be compelled to read Aristotle. One may be a non-Catholic and be compelled to read Dante. One may be a non-utilitarian and be compelled to read Bentham. Yet all are interesting, useful, relevant and developed by refined, intelligent thinkers.”
Ah, but consider the opportunity costs! While Christian theology may in some cases be interesting, useful, and relevant, what else could one be doing with three hours every week during a whole semester? There are numerous subjects that are interesting, useful, and relevant – and that are offered at Hillsdale College – that I am nonetheless not taking, including psychology, sociology, and graphic design. I have nothing against these subjects, and under different circumstances, I might have taken courses in each of them. The same goes for theology. I want to make it clear that I can conceive of instances where I would voluntarily take a theology course, even though I could never be persuaded to personally adopt a theology. However, my specific majors, other core courses, career ambitions, and leisure activities during my time at Hillsdale had higher priority in my mind for a variety of important reasons on which I need not elaborate. My general point is that each person has different priorities which may make complete sense in that person’s case – and imposing a uniform set of priorities on everyone is a highly effective means of setting everyone back in their goals and ambitions.
Mr. Muller writes, “Mr. Stolyarov then counters that a compelled theology course is ‘religious compulsion.’ If, I suppose, one were required to sign a statement of faith agreeing with the articles of theology in the course, then one might discuss ‘religious compulsion.’ But I doubt Mr. Stolyarov has lambasted the republican, Catholic and utilitarian compulsion present in other core curriculum courses.”
But this is just my point: not everyone on the Hillsdale faculty teaching the core curriculum courses is a republican, Catholic, or utilitarian! There are professors on the Hillsdale faculty who are democrats or monarchists, Protestants or non-believers, natural law and/or deontological moral theorists. However, everyone on the Hillsdale faculty teaching the theology courses would be a Christian. If Hillsdale’s faculty were more religiously diverse and if the religion department had in it Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Deists, agnostics, and atheists, then I would not mind a theology core requirement as much – provided that students could choose their professors or the courses would be team-taught by professors having a variety of extremely different religious perspectives.
I think Mr. Muller’s least substantiated and reasonable claims are his statements about alleged religious principles in the Constitution: “Of course, had Mr. Stolyarov spent a nominal period of time contemplating theology and the Constitution, he would see several theological influences upon that document. To name a few: Article III criminalizes the capital offense of treason only if two witnesses testify against the defendant, an acknowledgment of the Western legal adoption of Deuteronomy 19:15, which requires two witnesses to testify against a man. The ‘Sundays excepted’ clause in Article I acknowledges the role that the Sabbath played in the Founders’ days. The religious clauses of the First Amendment were developed from Christian theology concerning conscience and the role of the state.”
Would Mr. Muller also go so far as suggesting that prohibitions on murder and theft exist in the United States criminal justice system solely because of the Ten Commandments? Would he be able to seriously state that these prohibitions would not exist were it not for the Ten Commandments and the Christian religion? Or would he recognize, as historical fact requires, that numerous other non-Judeo-Christian cultures throughout history also had prohibitions on murder and theft because these made sense for the smooth functioning of human interactions in this world, and not because of some specific religious beliefs? Moreover, would Mr. Muller suggest that all of us really found our lives on Christian principles because, well, numerous characters in the Bible clearly and incontrovertibly wear clothing?
Just because the Bible happens to contain aspects that were later found in the American legal system does not mean that these aspects were derived from the Bible or from Christian theology. The “Sundays excepted” clause may simply have been a practical measure which took into account the fact that few people at the time worked on Sundays – and it would be awfully inconvenient to transact important government business on most people’s days off! The requirement of two witnesses for establishment of guilt in cases of treason also makes logical sense apart from any religious text. After all, treason is a matter of grave importance, and if there is only one witness to testify that a person has committed it, there is the risk that such a witness would fabricate information due to malicious intent against the defendant. Two independent witnesses are much less likely to make up the same “facts,” and so any discrepancies between their testimonies can be readily detected. This protection for the rights of the accused makes sense in itself; one does not need to refer to religious texts to justify it.
As for the First Amendment, its motivation was precisely to affirm that the United States government is completely independent of any kind of religious affiliation or religious belief system. The relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…“ This is the exact opposite of a claim that the United States was founded on religious principles. It is an explicit prohibition for the government from acting on religious principles in its decision-making! It is an explicit protection for the religious practices (or lack thereof) of any individuals living under the U. S. government – freeing these practices (or lack thereof) from the threat of government intervention and repression.
It is possible (indeed, quite frequent!) that one can be a non-Christian and still believe in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Indeed, it was the largely Deistic Enlightenment philosophers that popularized the principle during the 18th century, while 14 prior centuries of Christian church-state affiliation in the West had produced a notoriously blood-stained record of religious persecution.
How Will a Theology Requirement Affect Hillsdale?
Some people might make the spurious claim that a theology requirement is justified because it is within the rights of Hillsdale College as a private institution that does not receive government funding to impose such a requirement. Yes, private institutions can impose many regulations that they see fit as conditions of attendance. But this is also completely besides the point, for ability (even legitimate ability) does not imply desirability. This confusion fatally impairs the moral judgments of many conservatives and libertarians alike – who equate legitimacy with morality, when in fact morality is confined to a much narrower sphere.
The primary issue here is not whether Hillsdale can institute a theology requirement, but rather whether Hillsdale should. We already know that private universities which do not receive government funding can institute a variety of practices on their campuses that would be antithetical to the preferences of some individuals or of the broader society. Bob Jones University, Clearwater Christian College, and Liberty University – all heavily regulated (dare I say, totalitarian?) fundamentalist religious schools – are cases in point. But the real question that needs to be asked is, should Hillsdale’s administration want to make the school more like these rather disreputable organizations, or should it seek to adhere to principles of morality, prudence, and tolerance that will facilitate the school’s flourishing?
If Hillsdale imposes a theology requirement, this will deter ex ante any non-Christian or “softly” Christian students from attending. This includes two demographic groups where intellectuals (meaning people who think systematically, without necessarily being employed in certain literary or academic professions) are most prominently concentrated – Jews and atheists. (However much Hillsdale touts its “Judeo-Christian heritage,” the theology courses will be teaching Christian theology and will probably stop there.) This particular statement of mine is simply a matter of fact; Jewish culture has historically emphasized intellectualism as a result of Jews not being allowed to own most physical capital in most places during their history. Atheists, on the other hand, are virtually always intellectuals because it takes a certain considerable degree of independent and systematic thinking to consciously reject existing religious traditions. It is not atheism that makes an intellectual, but rather a disproportionately large number of intellectuals become attracted to atheism (or agnosticism or Deism or pantheism – for that matter). Observe the distribution of atheists among various educational demographics, and you will find that there is a larger percentage of Ph. D. atheists than of any other educational group (i.e., Masters, Bachelors, high school graduates, etc.). Even Hillsdale, which has maybe 2% non-religious students, still has an atheist student in the top five of this graduating class. (Yes, I am that student, but again, does it not illustrate something?) Of course, there are still probably more Christian intellectuals than atheist ones, but this is simply because Christians comprise such an overwhelmingly larger percentage of the population. And it must be mentioned that there are extremely few atheists in prisons relative to their numbers in the general population – so they tend to behave themselves.
Thus, by imposing a theology requirement, Hillsdale will cut off some of the groups of students that are most likely to yield some of its best and brightest. This is a completely suicidal policy from a prudential standpoint – and this is exactly why a theology requirement is much more objectionable than anything else that could be done with the core curriculum. While Hillsdale is not necessarily religion-neutral, it has thus far been free of any kind of religious compulsion – and atheists and members of other religions can live and flourish in that kind of environment. But to attend de facto indoctrination sessions (although no one may intend them to be such) for a semester and to be graded on it is not acceptable treatment in the minds of these students. I predict that if any non-religious students do choose to attend Hillsdale after such a requirement is imposed, their GPAs will be precipitously lower compared to what non-religious students’ GPAs were prior to the requirement’s enactment.
Moreover, there are plenty of explicitly religious schools in this country – and in my judgment all of them are of rather poor quality to some degree or another. What makes Hillsdale unique – and what enables it to stand proudly apart from the rest – is that it is not a religious school; that its core principles are about liberty and the liberal arts – the formation of free, well-rounded, self-governing human beings. There may be inconsistencies in how the administration treats these matters, but this is what Hillsdale stands for, and this is what we should strive to maintain on this campus. I would be happy to give my money to an institution that serves as the vanguard for the promotion of liberty and the educated uses thereof – but no Bible college or mere finishing school will get a cent of it. As for Hillsdale’s stance on religion, it should be a stance in favor of complete religious liberty and toleration for all non-coercive religious activities – no more, no less. Adhering to this principle alone will enable Hillsdale to have a flourishing religious culture simply by the nature of its student demographics and the demographic composition of this country.
It has been suggested to me recently that I may have been fortunate enough to attend Hillsdale during a transient flowering of liberalism in its history (and I use the term liberalism to mean what it was originally intended to mean!). It has been suggested that the degree of open inquiry and free discussion that existed on this campus during my time here (2005-2009) will not long remain, as homogenizing and religiously intolerant influences transform the college into an ideological monolith, where loyalty to a dogma is trumpeted over individual merit, hard work, and intellectual earnestness. This may happen with or without my resistance, but at least I will have the satisfaction of putting up a good defense against what I believe is the corruption of a wonderful institution. I sincerely think that Hillsdale has the potential of becoming one of the top colleges in the country by all standards, if only its administration and some among its faculty could renounce all attempts to homogenize the campus and could begin to encourage real freedom and intellectualism among a wider section of the student body. A lot of work needs to be done in this direction, but stopping the theology requirement is a necessary first step.
___________
Find out about Mr. Stolyarov and The Progress of Liberty.
Recommend this page.
This TRA feature has been edited in accordance with TRA’s Statement of Policy.
Click here to return to TRA’s Issue CXCIV Index.
