Sunday, September 15, 2013
The assignment, of course, has nothing to do with personal religious beliefs. It asks the students to analyze the emergence of some major world religions in their historical contexts.
This year I've had to read the following.
MIRANDA MORALITY: I don't understand how people can have a sense of morality if they don't believe in Jesus.
LUNAR LINDA: Muslims are pagan moon-worshippers, and thier religion has no connection at all to Christianity or Judaism.
RESPONDING REBECCA: [Before I saw Linda's stupid post] Thanks for your interesting post! I had no idea about the moon-worshipping. I don't really know anything about allah or all of that Islam stuff.
THIS FREAKIN' GUY: I don't know much about religion. All I know is that Jesus is the son of God and my personal savior. The only book you need to read on religion is the Bible.
I'm an adjunct of course, so can I correct any of this shit? Fuck no, I'm not about to lose my job by critiquing my students' personal religious beliefs. And no matter what I say or how gently, factually, or tactfully I say it, they will see my comments as personal attacks. I just don't get how sentient people with access to the internet and cable tv can be so provincial about religion. Many of them have honestly never encountered a discussion of religion in anything but a faith-based context. When you present religion as a human construct with a specific historical context, some of the students just completely short-circuit.They literally cannot compute what you're saying.
Does the widespread exploitation of adjuncts mean that college is no longer a place to broaden your worldview, because contingent instructors can't afford to challenge the accepted notions of their students?
If you need me, I'll be curled up under the couch, weeping.