Humanism

Christopher Marlowe‘s The Troyicol History of Doctor Faustus is a play that touches on the theme of the limitations of human knowledge through the ambitions of the play’s overreaching protagonist, John Faustus. Marlowe‘s play is derived from an older German story that tells the tale of Doctor Faustus selling his soul to the devil, but Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is significantly different than the German story. Marlowe‘s play is significant because the protagonist’s damnation is set in motion through his unsatisfied thirst for knowledge, a thirst that conventional scholarship does not quench. In order to cull his curiosity, Doctor Faustus turns to black magic and the devil Doctor Faustus sells his soul to Lucifer for knowledge.

In the context of 16‘“ century humanism and its effect on the curriculum to take a more secular approach, Marlowe’s play is a warning of the pitfalls of a humanistic pedagogy. Through analyzing certain characters’ relationship to each other and the ends they expect from knowledge, Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus becomes a pejorative commentary on the aspirations of a humanistic erudition, as told from the lips of Wagner. The first thing to remember, “the end of [Elizabethan] learning was to prepare individuals for better service to both God and the state”. In this context, Dr. Faustus misses the mark from the very beginning of the play To demonstrate his misconception 0f learning‘s end, Faustus dismisses the significance of learning logic when he says, “Is to dispute well logic’s chiefest end? Affords this art no greater miracle?

Then read no more, thou hast attained the end”, Similarly, Faustus evinces the futility in learning medicine when he says, “Couldst thou make men to live eternally,  Or being dead, raise them to life again. Then this profession were to be esteemed” Furthermore, Faustus’ skewed line of reasoning leads him to discount the study of law when he says. “This study fits a mercenary drudge. Who aims at nothing but external trash— Too servile and illiberal for me”. To say nothing of his denunciations of conventional studies, Faustus finally articulates his frustration over divinity when he says, “Ay, we must die, an everlasting death. What doctrine call you this? Che saré, sara’, What will be, shall be? Divinity, adieu!”.

In short, Faustus’ extreme sense of pride causes him to misconstrue the conventional ends of Elizabethan education, focusing selfishly on the personal ends of education. In this light, Faustus’ line of reasoning is an exaggerated portrayal of the humanistic idea of using reason to figure things out. In Doctor Faustus, Faustus (man) is the measure of all things, but Faustus’ ruler is easily augmented by pride, and his measurements on conventional education do not fit within the socially acceptable philosophic conceptions concerning Elizabethan education. With this in mind, the question remains as to what exactly Faustus wishes to achieve through education. The answer: everything. In his fantasy of magic, Faustus renounces the conventional curriculum as unfruitful, but he notes, “his dominion that exceeds in this.

Stretcheth as far as doth the mind of man!”. Accordingly, Faustus realizes that “ sound magician is a mighty god[,]” and he resolves to “[h]ere tire, [his] brains, to get a deity!”, Here, it should be pointed out, Faustus acknowledges the limitations of magic as ending only at the boundaries of the human mind, a thought echoing the ideals of humanistic thought, and, in having no limits, Faustus conceives the end of education as becoming a god. Under those circumstances, Marlowe’s tragic protagonist becomes comic through exaggeration of the humanistic concept of learning. In the context of American literature, Marlowe’s character mirrors the anti-transcendentalist heroes of such authors as Poe, Melville, and Davis.

In the same fashion, Doctor Faustus is perhaps an anti-humanistic hero Different from my reading of Doctor Faustus, McCullen notes. “There is no evidence that [Faustus] is interested in truth, which, even though it was admittedly impossible of attainment, was the chief incentive behind humanistic quests for knowledge” (10) Although this may be true, McCullen’s observation only serves to bolster my characterization of Faustus as an antihero. That is to say, the insignificance of truth in Fausttls’ quest for knowledge is the result of his humanistic train of thought, the ends of reasoning fouled by the very process of reasoning. By the same token, the idea of free will, as it is a characteristic commonly associated with humanism, is evinced when Faustus says, “To God? He loves thee not; The god thou serv’st is thine own appetite” and “Is not thy soul thine own?”. For these reasons, Doctor Faustus is viewed as an extreme version of the humanistic concept of learning put into practice, contradictory to itself and harbinger of its own downfall.

With this in mind, Wagner becomes an interesting character To emphasize the significance of the character, the actor that plays Wagner also plays the part of the Chorus, making Wagner and the Chorus one in the same. This fact is evinced in the stage directions that precede the third act: “(Enter the Chorus [Wagner].)”. As Matalene points out, “Such a reading makes it somewhat more difficult than is often supposed to interpret the religious attitudes of the opening Chorus as conventionally applicable, in the manner of the old morality plays, to the protagonist’s actions in the play itself”.On the other hand, if we are to view Doctor Faustus in terms of morality plays, the relationship of the Wagner/Chorus character to the protagonist’s actions in the play is perhaps illuminated.

As Matalene astutely observes, “ the Chorus makes it clear that Faustus has already taken magic up, and that when the doctor begins to speak we are witnessing something else”. Matalan bases this observation on Marlowe’s use of the word “is” when the Chorus says, “[Faustus] surfeits upon cursed necromancy; Nothing so sweet as magic is to him”. In view of Matalene‘s observation, Doctor Faustus opens with a temporal qualifier, hinting that Faustus’ fate has already been decided. Correspondingly, Wagner‘s unusual position as character and Chorus, added to his uncanny knowledge of Faustus’ actions in the play, knowledge Wagner possesses even when he himself is not a participant in the action, leads to a reading of the play with Wagner as the narrator. In other words, Doctor Faustus is not only viewed as a morality play but also a memory play, told through the perspective of Wagner via the Chorus. Certainly, this reading clears up any confusion that Wagner‘s liminality as a character and Chorus evokes, and it explains how Wagner can “speak for Faustus in his infancy”.

As shown above, Wagner can be two characters and all-knowing because the story of Doctor Faustus is Wagner‘s tale to tell. All things considered, the relationship between Faustus and Wagner is crucial to interpreting a theme in the play. Wagner is a student and servant to Faustus, as is evinced when the First Scholar asks Wagner, “How now sirrah, where’s thy master?” As an illustration of his servitude, Wagner fetches Valdes and Cornelius when Faustus commands, “Wagner, commend me to my dearest friends” (Marlowe 1,1,65). At the same time, Wagner is notably aloof from Faustus for the majority of the play. After fetching Valdes and Cornelius, Wagner does not interact with Faustus until near the end of the play when he tells Faustus, “Sir, the Duke of Vanholt doth earnestly / entreat your company”. Interestingly, as Faustus’s servant, Wagner only interacts with Faustus before the doctor conjures Mephastophilis and right before Faustus dies. With this in mind, it is important to realize that Wagner‘s aloofness from Faustus stretches the p of twenty-four years, as per Faustus‘s agreement with the devil “[to] spare him four and twenty years” .

Certainly, this is a considerable amount of time for one’s servant, and student, to be absent Additionally, the Liming of Wagner‘s departure, right as Faustus falls into black magic, hints at Wagner’s silent protest. To begin with, Wagner is a devoted servant and student to Faustus. Wagner’s devotion to Faustus is portrayed in his reaction to the scholars’ inquiry of Faustus’ whereabouts: “Yes sir, I will tell you; yet if you were not / dunces you would never ask me such a question, for is / not he corpus naturals, and is not that mobile?”.  At once, Wagner‘s answer shows faithfulness to Faustus while also indicating Wagner’s changing opinion to his master, Indeed, by calling the scholars “dunces,” Wagner is showing his humanist roots by using a pejorative term often attributed to Renaissance humanists when they want to deride overly complex logic. Undoubtedly, as a student and servant to Faustus, Wagner would have picked up this bit of humanist jargon from his master.

At the same time, Wagner also uses Latin to describe Faustus as a natural body that is subject to change Correspondingly, Wagner‘s realization of Faustus’ malleable nature comes right before Wagner’s twenty—four-year absence from Faustus, perhaps indicating a schism between the two characters, one evinced in the interaction between Wagner and the Clown, In contrast to Faustus’ perceived ends of education, Wagner’s view on the ends of education is shown in his treatment of the Clown. In the first place, there is the symbolism of the Clown character. It is important to realize that the Clown character is not a balloons-and-buzzer clown; rather, as Joseph Black notes, Marlowe’s clown is “[a] [b]oorish rustic, a fool”. In other words, the Clown symbolizes the uneducated rural population. In this light, Wagner views the end of education as a weapon against ignorance, as he says, “Villain, call me Master Wagner, and see that / you walk attentively, and let your right eye be always diametrally fixed upon my left heel, that thou mayest / quasi vestigial nostrils insitere”.

Therefore, in calling the Clown a “villain,” Wagner identifies the enemy as ignorance. Moreover, in his overly elaborate dialogue, Wagner is speaking the language of the scholars he formerly derided as dunces, adding an emotional distance to the spatial distance between him, Faustus, and Faustus’s humanistic beliefs. In short, unlike Faustus, Wagner does not View the end of conventional education as futile rather, Wagner sees conventional education as a useful weapon in the never» ending battle against ignorance i. with certain limitations.  The most compelling evidence that Doctor Faustus is a warning from Wagner of the pitfalls of a humanistic pedagogy comes from the play‘s epilogue. In the epilogue, Wagner, playing his part as the Chorus, solely addresses the audience: Faustus is gone, regard his hellish fall, Whose fiendful fortune may exhort the wise.

Only to wonder at unlawful things, Whose deepness cloth entices such forward wits To practice more than heavenly power permits. Certainly, Wagner’s epilogue takes on the tone of someone giving a bit of warning advice, as “[Faustus] fiendful fortune may exhort the wise” makes abundantly clear. However, what Wagner is warning against is what must be remembered. As Reynolds points out, Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is a play that can be Viewed ” both as a morality—a warning against seeking knowledge and power fitting only for God—and as an epitome of Renaissance man’s attempts to expand his knowledge and power beyond the limits imposed by medieval religious authority”. In my opinion, the play is both Through Faustus, the play presents a character overreaching for knowledge, denouncing God in the process, and losing his soul as a result.

On the other hand, Wagner provides the warning against seeking unlawful knowledge while not entirely breaking away from Faustus’ more secular erudition, Wagner takes on the Clown as his student; presumably, the Clown does not aspire to be a member of the clergy. Therefore, Wagner seems to be a conglomeration of the Elizabethan idea of education and Faustus’s more open-ended humanistic idea of education. With this in mind, Marlowe seems to be symbolically passing the torch when Wagner says, “I think my master means to die shortly. For he hath given to me all his goods“ ‘ Painting Wagner as a liminal figure walking the line between religion and humanism seems a fitting portrayal of a character created by the author that Matalene describes as “ the old, fascinating Marlowe—the kindred soul of the Baines note, the spirit-possessed, knifed by Ingram Frizar and then ratted-on by Kyd”

Moreover, this reading of the text falls in line with McCullen‘s observation that “Marlowe’s dualism seems to be a distrust of extremes, whether in conventional ethics or empirical revolt“ Given these points, Marlowe‘s Doctor Faustus establishes a piece of middle ground between the Elizabethan idea of education and the concept held by Renaissance humanists. In conclusion, Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus posits the question as to what is acceptable through education, and Marlowe frames this question in Renaissance humanism, through the anti-humanistic hero Doctor Faustus and the liminal-tempered Wagner. In fact, Marlowe’s entire play is seemingly liminal: a morality-play or a memory»play, a warning against conventional ethics or empirical revolt, a German folk-tale or contemporary play, Faustus’s story or Wagner’s tale.

In reality, the play is all of the above by riding the margin between extremes. In essence, Marlowe has taken a story from German antiquity and “[he] recast[s] his source to serve his dramatic intent. He thus shifted the thematic core from a moral tale of a character whose flaw is simply an innate evil to the tragedy of a man who generates his own flaw through his faulty perception of the uses of the human mind“. Correspondingly, taking the old and making it new is a fitting metaphor for Doctor Fuustus, as Marlowe seemingly tries to blend the conventional and humanistic concepts of education into a new direction in his play.

Oration on the Dignity of Man is a public discourse by a famous renaissance man Pico Della Mirando. This piece deals with the idea that humans are the greatest creation of God. Mirandola believes humans to be “a great miracle and a being worthy of all admiration.” Mirandola’s public discourse reflected the renaissance and humanism so well has gotten the nickname, “Manifesto of the Renaissance”. Mirando is very optimistic about humans. For all the horrible things humans have done and all the evil in humans he still finds a way to believe humans are the greatest thing in the world. He is taking humanism to another level. Humanism before this was mainly about helping your community and trying to help your own life. It’s so extreme it could be argued that it isn’t even humanism at all.

Mirando believing humans are the greatest thing ever means that Humans are God’s greatest creation. “But upon man, at the moment of his creation, god bestowed seeds pregnant with all possibilities.” He is saying how god gave us free will and that is part of the beauty of man. The idea that god gave us free will is not an original idea, philosophers have already debated this for centuries, determining that god must give humans free will to explain why evil is apart of the world.

Another quality of humanism is questioning god and religion, even though most humanist were religious and did believe in god. Mirando does this in stanza ten, when talking about moses and god but he brought up how moses didn’t even know god. He said, “But how can anyone judge or love something what he does not know?” Overall this public discourse deserves the title, “Manifesto of the Renaissance”. It shows Humanism through loving oneself, but mainly loving humans as a concept, it shows it through questioning religion and it shows it by thinking like a philosopher.

Renaissance Comparison Essay Tom Barnes HUM/205 3-21-2010 Janet Florick In the broader scheme of things, the social changes in Italy were inspired, as we’ve seen, by Humanism. Italian artists, writers and philosophers were driven to study Classical antiquity and explore man’s supposed capacity for rational choice. They believed that Humanism led to more dignified and worthy humans. In the north (possibly in part because the north did not have works of antiquity from which to learn), change was brought about by a different rationale.

Thinking minds in the north were more concerned with religious reform, feeling that Rome (from whom they were physically distanced) had strayed too far from Christian values. In fact, as northern Europe became more openly rebellious over the authority of the Church, art took a decidedly secular turn. This plays a major role in how the arts impacted and what type of relationship the arts had in the culture of both the North and Italy. Another common factor of both during the Renaissance was the Guild system.

The Guild system started to arise during the Gothic period, Guilds were the best path a man could go down to learn a craft, be it painting, sculpture, or saddle making. These Guilds were very similar to the trade unions of our modern day. Training in any specialty was long, rigorous and comprised of multiple steps. These Guilds had a self-policing policy, most of the money exchanging hands-when works of art were commissioned and paid for went to the Guild members.

These Guild systems seemed to be more in place in Northern Europe than Italy. One last similarity of the two is they both had a definite artistic center. In Italy it was Florence were all artists looked for inspiration and innovation. In Northern Europe it was Flanders which was part of then the Duchy of Burgundy. This was a thriving city which like Florence made its money in banking and wool. Each of these cultures had their own specific style.

Both cultures with similarities and differences set aside gave a new birth to the social and art movements in the world of that time period. These new movements are part of what has helped shape our modern era of art today. References Essak, Shelley. (2010). The Renaissance In Northern Europe. _About. com Art History Fine art touch (2010). The Venetian Renaissance. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from The City Review (2010). Retrieved March 20, 2010, from www. thecityreview. com

The question has been raised: who is in control of curriculum in our school?

Not just the choosing of the precise books, but who is in charge of the contents of the books that curriculum directors can choose from? Once the answers to these questions are found, what should be done if they point to one group? So many problems in the United States have arisen when the people discover that one group is violating the people”s rights in some way by not allowing others power, that it would be logical to conclude that it would be perceived by many to be unfair if it is found that one interest group chooses what all American children learn, especially if that interest group is furthering their own interests by doing so.

However, finding out the answers to these questions is quite difficult at best. The subject has been written about extensively, and since there are so many opinions, the unbiased truth is virtually impossible to come by. In this topic, it has been at least suggested by others that everyone is biased, including our Supreme Court, so one must tread carefully in stating so-called “facts.” Humanism and secular humanism and what they have to do with present educational curriculum will be discussed for the remainder. Though human nature tends to make all humans biased in some way, both sides of the argument have been researched and will be documented until fair conclusions can be made.

First, the term “humanism” must be defined. To do this fully, the definition of “humanism” will be given from the dictionary, and then humanists themselves will have a turn to define themselves. Merriam Webster”s Collegiate Dictionary terms “humanism” as “a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; esp.: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual”s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.”

The same dictionary defines “doctrine” as “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief: DOGMA.” To understand fully what this is pointing to, one must then look at the definition of “dogma”-“a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” Most will agree that an accredited collegiate dictionary is an acceptable place to look for information, and here it is shown that humanism can be tied to a religion.

People who claim to be humanist would also seem to be a good place to look for a formal term for humanism. Rebecca Bushnell writes of early humanist pedagogy when she says,

“This is a humanism based on belief that people are largely responsible for what happens on this earth; committed to tolerance, attention to the differences among people and the need to treat them with equal respect; shaped by a cheerful acceptance of ambivalence and contradiction; and informed by an almost painful historical consciousness, which sees the past as estranged yet able to illuminate present concerns.”

This explanation definitely sounds like what most people want to feel, or at least what they claim to, but humanism is more than this. Humanism is also defined by the worship of man; Curtis W. Reese writes, “There is a large element of faith in all religion. [Christianity has faith] in the love of God; and Humanism in man as the measure of values…Hypotheses, postulates, and assumptions in their proper realm are comparable to faith in the realm of religion. In this way I speak of the faith of Humanism.” Another humanist deals with the humanistic beliefs in right and wrong: “In humanism right and wrong are defined in terms of consequence to human life.”

To further clarify what humanists believe, more writings of humanists will prove that they consider humanism to be their religion. Gerald A. Larque, a man who signed the Humanist Manifesto II, writes, “Our religion is based upon the best that we know about our cosmos, our world, and ourselves…We recognize our oneness with the cosmos and our spatial and temporal minuteness…We see ourselves as the highest life-form the evolutionary process has developed.” The 1979 Humanist of the Year, who co-founded and edited The New Humanist, also believes humanism to be a religion: “…Humanism in a naturalistic frame is validly a religion.”

A Humanist Manifesto, also known as the Humanist Manifesto I, continually describes humanism as a religion. “The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs…In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism…religious humanism.” From the Humanist Manifesto II, one can see that Kurtz thinks of humanism as ” a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view” and that it offers a believer a formula for salvation and a future sanctuary.

Other humanists who claim humanism as their religion illustrate what “religion” means to them. Julian Huxley says in Religion Without Revelation, “There are whole religions which make no mention of God. The most notable example, as already mentioned, is that of Buddhism.” Furthering this thought, “Religion, then,…will mean a ruling commitment practiced by a community of individuals to what they believe creates, sustains, saves, and transforms human existence toward the greatest good.” With this, one has sufficient information concerning basic humanism beliefs.

Besides the fact that humanists themselves admit to being a religious organization, there are several examples of how the American legal system treats humanism-as a religion. In a Supreme Court case, Torcaso v. Watkins, a Notary Public from Maryland was reinstated after being fired for refusing to proclaim a belief in God. The Court recognized religions that do not believe in God as “real” religions when it wrote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” This statement will be considered later in the discussion.

All formal humanist membership organizations in America claim 501(c )3 religious tax exempt status or deem themselves expressly religious. Dr. Paul Kurtz states, “Even the American Humanist Association (3,500 members)…has a religious tax exemption (7).” An editor of The Humanist magazine, Paul Blanshard says, “There has been another victory for those who would interpret the word “religion” very broadly…the appellate court reversed by a unanimous decision. Now the F.O.R. [Fellowship of Reconciliation] is established as a “religious” organization, with full right to tax exemption.” Tax-exempt status is serious business.

In an article titled “The Religion of Democracy: Part II,” Rudolph Dreikurs argues that humanism should be thought of as religious because of the form and content. “The new religion will probably be humanistic. It will be concerned with man and not with God.” This “new religion” will have new principles, new rituals, and new symbols.

Those involved in the humanist religion also have their own ministers, and “minister” is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “one officiating or assisting the officiant in church worship.” Harvard University has its own Humanist chaplain, Thomas Ferrick, who is also “one of the 34 full- and part-time chaplains that make up the United Ministry at Harvard and Radcliffe, and he also serves as executive director of the Humanist Association of Massachusetts” local chapter.” In Auburn University”s Student/Faculty Directory, under “Auburn Pastors and Campus Ministers-Humanist,” there is a Humanist Counselor for the students. The University of Arizona”s Student Handbook for 1990-1991 lists “Humanists” under the title “Religious Services” (7). These facts should only prove further that Humanism is a religion.

Now that humanism is understood, it is time to link humanism with present-day educational curriculum. Paul Vitz conducted research on the censorship of student”s textbooks, funded by the National Institute of Education, a part of the federal government, and came to the conclusion that they are strongly biased for the Secular Humanist worldview. “Whether one calls it secular humanism, enlightenment universalism, skeptical modernism, or just plain permissive liberalism, the bottom line is that a very particular and narrow sectarian philosophy has taken control of American education (18).” This seems to be a documented conclusion from an recognized institute, but yet it has not been fully discussed with the American public at large.

Humanists themselves have admitted to the fact that they use the classroom to further their religion. John J. Dunphy states in his A Religion for a New Age, “[T]he battle for humankind”s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being,” Another man who calls himself a “Humanist minister”, Charles Francis Potter, says:

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching? (20)”

He then continues, “So very Humanistic is modern education that no religion has a future unless it be Humanism (20).” These men obviously believe very strongly not only that humanism is being taught in American public schools, but also that it should overpower other religions.

John Dewey, who signed the Humanist Manifesto I, wrote a book, Education Today, in which he voices many opinions about education and how humanism should be implemented. “I believe that…it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform…(21)”. On page eighty he says, “We certainly cannot teach religion as an abstract essence. We have got to teach something as religion, and that means practically some religion.” He also believes public education to be the vehicle by which this “deeper religion” is promoted,

Now that it has been documented that the humanist religion is being funneled into public schools, it is time to give a few examples of the things in school curriculum that are humanist in nature. First, homosexuality is being pushed as acceptable behavior to students. The schools are teaching that it should be looked at as positive to have “full sexual adjustment without any hang-ups caused by outdated religious concepts. And our schools are the main tool used to teach the young people this human freedom.” Not only is homosexuality taught as “okay,” but they are also teaching the theory of evolution in full force. Teachers are not allowed to present any kind of argument for creationist theory; Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., states, “In fact, it is often considered inappropriate to criticize evolution, let alone present the creationist position

This occurs without much argument, despite the fact that there are many books very critical of evolutionary theory “written by either evolutionists or by individuals who at least do not agree with the creationist perspective.” The biology textbook Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon was included by the trustees in Plano, Texas, in the school curriculum, and humanist educators lost all pretense of “tolerance” because the book “acknowledges the abundance of design manifest in the natural world and thus reasonably postulates an intelligent Designer.” Homosexuality and evolution are just a couple examples of humanist perspective in the schools.

The logic these humanists use, that schools are the best place to push their beliefs, makes complete sense, even “falls in line” with some of the basic thoughts of sociological theory: that “no knowledge is value-neutral; no knowledge is free of presuppositions. All knowledge is rooted in the social structure in particular ways and reflects (even if indirectly) the particular interest of different sectors of the population.” Reasonably, this idea is also true for knowledge given to children in public schools. Even John Dewey said (as quoted earlier) that the teaching of religion is inevitable in schools, that “some religion” would have to be taught. Is this what the American Constitution allows? It is wrong, and very punishable, for public schools to advocate Christianity or to teach any of its beliefs, but the teaching of humanism”s beliefs remains untouched.

Humanists tend to label certain “unpopular” ideas (those that they do not agree with) as religious, and those they do support as non-religious. For instance, schools are free to teach “thou shalt not steal, lie, or murder” but not “thou shalt not commit adultery or take the name of God in vain.” What is the difference between the two statements, which are both from the Ten Commandments, the most basic Western religious law? Other concepts taught presently that have a religious origin are “the goal of treating others as one would like to be treated, the need to take an occasional break from one”s work, to be balanced in all things, and the attempt to be fair to all people.”

One of the biggest objective of liberals in recent years has been to insure equal rights for all people, yet this idea was adopted as a religious goal over 2,000 years ago in the Christian Scriptures. Bergman states, “Incidentally, the source of the belief in the equality of man is the Bible, few ancient books espouse this concept, and it is foreign to most non-Christian peoples (6).”

Since these concepts are biblical in origin, why are the students not told this? What about the fact that abortion, homosexuality and fornication are talked about in school, but teachers are not allowed to discuss the religious side of the issue, only the side deemed non-religious? Though the public schools are teaching a type of religion, obviously, the students are not informed about it; in fact, the topic of religion is not deemed important.

Community schools, before federal aid was instigated, were to reflect the values of those who lived in it. “What happened to “community public schools” that were to reflect the values of the community? They disappeared when federal aid was approved. Now only what is approved by secularists [humanists] in Washington is ‘neutral” (22).” As James David Hunter documents, “Public education arguably shares a common ethical orientation with modern humanism, particularly to the degree that these perspectives are advanced without respect for cultural traditions that might dissent.” Community”s values are no longer taken into account when curriculum is chosen.

In recent times, the idea of choice in education has come to life with a system of tuition vouchers, but criticism of this choice has been rampant among the educators who believe in humanism. Richard A. Baer, Jr. writes:

“The point is this: Education never takes place in a moral and philosophical vacuum. If the larger questions about human beings and their destiny are not being asked and answered within a predominantly Judeo-Christian framework, they will be addressed within another philosophical or religious framework-but hardly one that is “neutral.” The arrogance and philosophical implausibility of secular humanism are demonstrated by the insistence of many humanists that their position possesses such neutrality, lack of dogma, and essential rationality. It is an arrogance that also quickly becomes coercive and imperialistic, as is clearly seen in the widespread opposition among such educators toward genuine choice in education, for instance, the kind of choice that would be possible through a system of education tuition vouchers.”

If America is a land of freedom, one would assume that Americans could choose where to send their children to school and what they are taught. However, not all Americans can afford private schools, so beyond their local public school, there is no choice.

With all of this discord, it would be surprising if no one had taken this matter to the courts. They have, in some aspects. First one must look at the history of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was written to guarantee that the interest of certain faiths would not be expanded by direct or indirect benefaction of the government, at least not to the hindrance of smaller, minority faiths.

When originally written, its intention was to curb the “deep and long-standing tensions” between various inter-Protestant competitions (4). Of course, they also encompassed conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and between Jew and Christians, whose beliefs are quite different, though these conflicts were minor because Catholics and Jews comprised less than two percent of the population at the start of the nineteenth century. When these populations increased, their full religious liberties were still restricted, continuing past the beginning of the twentieth century (4).

This failure to fully perfect the ideals of the First Amendment is important because “many of the social dynamics taking place in the present find a parallel in the past (4).” Not only have the numbers of Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists grown, but the secular humanists have increased from two percent in 1962 to about eleven percent in 1990. Though humanism is not the same kind of religion as Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism are determined to be, how should they be perceived for First Amendment purposes?

The Supreme Court held a strict definition of religion-“Our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…”-until the early 1940s, when it broadened the definition:

“Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellow men and to his universe-a sense common to men in the most primitive and the most highly civilized societies…It is a belief finding expression in a conscience which categorically requires the believer to disregard elementary self-interest and to accept martyrdom in preference to transgressing its tenets…Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.”

This expanded the criterion from the nature of belief in a divine being to the psychological function of belief.

In 1961 the Supreme Court decided that a Maryland law violated the no establishment clause because it put “the power and authority of the State of Maryland…on the side of one particular sort of believers-those who are willing to say they believe ‘in the existence of God.” This new functional definition was not used with the no establishment clause by opponents until the case Smith v. Board of School Commissioners. The plaintiffs believed that most of the textbooks in the county public school system promoted secular humanism”s religion, which would violate the no establishment clause of the First Amendment. The first judgment in the case favored the plaintiff; however it was eventually overturned. A Washington Post columnist, Colman McCarthy, wrote:

“A careful reading of the decision, as against a skimming of news accounts of it, reveals that Mobile families had a fair grievance: That what was taught in classrooms about religion was impeding the teachings of mothers and fathers at home about religion. What”s wrong with that complaint?”

What is wrong with that complaint? Surely every parent has the right to teach their children what they want to. It seems confusing to find that the Supreme Court did not believe humanist religion to be in school curriculum, especially when humanists themselves have admitted to the fact, as documented earlier. However, humanists have backtracked from their earlier, outspoken works. Paul Kurtz, quoted earlier, wrote his 1989 book, Eupraxophy: Living Without Religion, to “take back” all the earlier writings of humanists that claimed it a religion. He even coined a term-eupraxophy-to describe humanism without using the word religion.

“Eupraxophy…provides a coherent, ethical life stance…it presents a cosmic theory of reality…defends a set of criteria governing the testing of truth claims…advocates an ethical posture. And it is committed implicitly or explicitly to a set of political ideals. Eupraxophy combines both a Weltanshuung and a philosophy of living.”

Now, why would Kurtz do this after he had decided already that humanism was, in fact, a religion, his religion? Why? Kurtz realizes that if humanism is religion, then it will not be allowed in the schools: “For if humanism, even naturalistic and secular humanism, is a religion, then we would be faced with a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” It causes more confusion in the whole topic when different people claim different things.

The whole argument comes down to this: That academic freedom seems to be unequal among educators. There are many different religious beliefs in America, and most teachers would claim to have some kind of religion or world view. “Academic freedom is the ability of the instructor to teach what he/she feels is the truth about reality in an intellectually honest and reasonable way (6).” Teachers in the present day are not allowed to teach what they believe and why, because of the First Amendment. Humanists and Christians have both agreed that religion will be taught in the schools in one manner or another, and this causes a great problem because someone must choose which religion will be taught. Noebel writes in his Clergy in the Classroom:

“Imagine a child enrolled in a public school and learning only what that public school imparted (with no outside interference from family, church, Christian teachers or Congressional chaplains). When he graduated, what would he believe? Without divine intervention, he wouldn”t have much choice: Secular Humanism would be all he knew. This situation is idyllic, as far as the Humanists are concerned. Because their doctrines are every bit as dogmatic as Christian doctrine, and because they view Christianity as a ‘rotting corpse,” they use their established position to censor any hint of positive Christian influence in the classroom. Though they posture as ‘open-minded,” ‘tolerant” folks, Humanists eagerly discriminate against Christianity in the classroom.”

This is not fair, just as it would not be fair if America”s public schools taught strictly Christian doctrine. Excluding religion from the classroom, when the whole purpose of school is to teach the entire body of knowledge, is “censorship of the worst sort.”

Many parents, Humanist or Christian, Buddhist or Catholic, are rightfully worried that their children”s teachers will indoctrinate their children with some specific religious belief. However, students are bright, reasoning people and do not gullibly believe everything a teacher says. Children who have strong prejudices against certain groups do not let go of them easily, even when a teacher tries to help that child overcome the prejudice. Also, a teacher’s ideas may spark a child”s desire to further research the topic so that the child comes to his own conclusions.

If students are to become those who can debate important topics, it seems that removing all religious questions would hinder that which is significant for living a well-rounded life. Jerry Bergman gives the example of Australia to clarify whether it is possible to bring religion into the classroom. Only three percent of Australia”s population attends church regularly, but the schools still have classes in religious education as an “integral part of the school curriculum at all grade levels.” This brings the conclusion that religion in schools is feasible, and not just the religion of one group.

In conclusion, the questions asked at the beginning have been answered, but not fully. It has been proven that Humanism is a religion, by quotes of many influential Humanists and by the Supreme Court, and that there is evidence of Humanist beliefs in our school curriculum, by a federal government study and by Humanist”s admittance. Many men, Humanist, Christian, and those with unknown beliefs, have agreed that education cannot occur without some religious worldview”s influence, and the topic does not seem to be dormant in their minds.

The battle is not over; the writer is quite convinced that there will be more court battles concerning this issue. To have an education system that treats each person”s beliefs equally, there needs to be a change. Either separate all children into schools of their respective religions, or treat them as intelligent individuals with minds that deserve to learn about all religious views and the immense amount of history that goes with them.

Shujaa, Mwalimu J. oo Much Schooling, Too Little Education: A Paradox of Black Life in White Societies. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press, Inc., 1994.

This book covered many areas of African-American education, and was a great background knowledge source. The topics most valid to my interests were the African experiences in schools, the analysis of African-American males” response to schooling, exploring exemplary African-American teachers” views, and African-Americans” communal nature of learning. Also I got great information concerning different school environments, and their effect on African-American students” education, which I then used to get strategies for teaching African-Americans from.

The 14th century was anything but pleasant for the people living In Europe at the time. There were so many factors and conditions that ultimately helped pave the way for the Renaissance. I will focus on the key influences during this period that contributed to the development of this “rebirth”. The most significant impact that you must address right off the bat Is, the Black Death. With the plague wiping out nearly one-third of Rupee’s population, this catastrophe led to many economic, political, social, ideological, and cultural changes.

Before getting into details of conflicts of the middle ages, I think it is important to know that In the beginning of the 14th century the medieval warm period had ended which resulted in a “little Ice age”. The climate had gotten colder and the farmland was becoming less fertile because of soil unrest from generations using the same land. The Malthusian Crisis was a prediction that ultimately became true–the population of Europe had gotten too large and there wasn’t enough available resources.

Hunger and famine caused a big spike in the death rate and as things were starting looking pretty grim, then comes the plague.. The Black Death is believed to have arrived in Europe by sea in October 1347 when Genomes trading ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messing after a long journey at sea (the pathogen Yearly’s Pestles supposedly carried In certain Infected rodents had transmitted the disease). People ready to greet the ships were shocked to see a bunch of dead and diseased sailors. It didn’t look good whatsoever.

The victims showed strange black, oozing swellings about the size of an egg or an apple In the armpits and groin, Before anyone could try and quarantine the sick, it was too ate. Merchants and marmots would help spread this deadly disease, making no one have any idea knew where it was coming from or why it was happening. It is believed that since the plague spread so quickly, the infection had to airborne which was the biggest Issue. Once the disease reached the lungs of the malnourished, It was then spread to the wider population through sneezes and coughs.

The sick suffered severe pain and died quickly within five days of the first symptoms. Pneumonia plague which targeted your respiratory system would kill 95% of people within 2 says, and If you were said to have skepticism plague, your bloodstream Is directly Infected leaving you with no chance. Before you know It, graveyards throughout Europe were filling up and towns had to make mass burial pits to help rid the dead bodies. It came to the point where it was basically considered ordinary to be burying a family member quite often.

All these problems along with confusion, led people to start questioning life and what they did to deserve all this. The mall question the plague had everyone asking themselves was, why are we being punished by god? Since the church was always their only answer, citizens needed a new reaction. Before the Black Death hit Europe, almost all things including elements of daily life, were under the Influence of the church. In medieval times the most Important thing was that the church had always told people right from wrong.

Since the afterlife was judged more importantly than ones actual lifetime, it was considered 1 OFF salvation. A result from that were the Flagellants. Flagellants began as a militant pilgrimage for religious extremists who demonstrated their religious passion and ought self-punishment for their sins by vigorously whipping themselves in public as displays of penance. Who in their right mind would even do that? As the Black Death is taking over, the public believed it to be a punishment from God and now they have to pay.

Conditions were so bad that they felt as if turning toward the church for help as they always do, was no hope. How could they find a solution when even the priests and bishops were dropping dead like flies from the plague too!? So it couldn’t be that God was mad at the general public, however more specifically mad at the church. In return, the Catholic Church lost a lot of its influence and for many people, their view of the world changed significantly.

The Italian peninsula (mostly Florence at the beginning) was pretty much the center of the newer learning at the time because they had wealth, religion, and many eager people ready to stop living strictly everything by the church. Francesco Patriarch (1304-1374) lived in Avignon, which was an international community of lawyers and churchmen at the papal court, which was where he copied ancient works including Tulips Cicero (106-BOB. C. ). This rediscovery of Latin antiquity began a fascination on reviving and revitalization classical learning.

Cicero ultimately led Patriarch to see in a classical philosophy, a guide to life based on experience. Patriarch’s successors found and copied manuscripts including writings from Sophocles, Constantinople, and certain libraries. His use of Roman ideology attracted Giovanni Biostatic, a Florence leader during this time who adopted his ideas and even turned away from writing in the medieval tradition to the classical tradition. This all helped ignite a large focus on humanism, an alternative approach to knowledge and culture.

This helped lean away from Scholasticism, which was narrow-minded insistence on traditional doctrine at the time. Scholar’s most respected sources and ideas were being spread throughout Europe as a response to the standard educational program that focused only on logic and linguistics. As citizens of Florence and the surrounding areas in Italy were overcoming the Black Death, they experienced a great awakening in self-awareness. They desired to become closer to God and take pride in their humanity. Writers during this period soused on individualism and artists sought to make their artwork more realistic.

The Medici and the papacy, who became the greatest patron in Rome, gained an interest in art that reflected both human and religious qualities. Painters started creating man in the image of God and helped to humanism religion, and revealed the self- worth and beauty of oneself. With all of the new learning taking place because of conditions that faced Europe in the 14th century, people’s lives started to get back together. Instead of only focusing on agriculture for the main source of food, animal husbandry arose which also had a positive health impact.

Since the population had plummeted, there was plenty of food and resources to go around. At this point, the public did not have to spend as much time worrying about where their next meal is coming from, but perhaps more time thinking about creative aspects in life such as painting, acting and inventing. The 1 5th century held Johannes Gutenberg to invent the printing entire world. If it weren’t for the harsh realities of the 14th century, the Renaissance may have not had such a lasting impression as we know it to be.

Kimberly Kurata HI 30 Barbarian to Humanist Francois Rabelais wrote, Gargantua in the 16th century as a satirical short story depicting a giant named Gargantua and his transition from his barbaric ways to civilized humanistic way of living. The story takes place during the time of transition from the Medieval Era to the Renaissance. It went from a time of scholasticism and monasticism to a time of humanism and secularism. The Renaissance gave the modern world secularism, humanism and individualism.

Throughout the story we see Gargantua evolve into a respectable and honorable man and Frere Jean as a monk who defies all previous views of who and what a monk is. The story of Gargantua illustrates the transition from scholasticism to humanism and in a satirical account through the lives of Gargantua and Frere Jean’s. Humanism can be defined as the cultural intellectual way of thinking that focuses on human beings exposing themselves to their own potential.

This way of thinking emerged during the time of the Renaissance. It was the new movement to broaden an individual’s narrow seeking mind. Scholasticism was the scholarship that went on in monasteries where the tradition was the study and focus on only theological issues. Before humanism rose, scholasticism was the only type of higher education. Scholasticism consisted of memorizing texts and focusing on obscure questions. Humanists criticized and completely rejected this form of living.

The humanist’s core value can be summond up in one description by Leonardo DaVinci, “Luomo Universale”,the universal man is interested in everything, not one thing. Gargantua’s early life can be described as a medieval type of living. He was birthed, “As a result of that mishap, the cotyledonary veins of the womb were released from above and the child sprang through the midriff (which is situated above the shoulders where the aforesaid vena divides into two) took the left path and emerged through her left ear. [1] The way Gargantua was birthed is a metaphor to the type of world he was being born into. The old way of living was based around the Greek way of thinking. Gargantua’s birth can be paralleled to the classical reference of the birth of many Greek gods. While growing up, Gargantua was shown as a child with barbaric tendencies. His inappropriate ways and signs of pure immaturity can be exemplified when he would, “drink out of his slippers, regularly scratch his belly on wicker work baskets, cut his teeth on his clogs… et off fat farts… shovel the soil back into the ditch… ”. [2] In Gargantua’s young mind, one of his greatest achievements was figuring out the best object to wipe his bum with; stupidity, was at an all time high. Gargantua’s ways prove the simplicity and barbarism of his character. One of the main sources of Gargantua’s lack of knowledge at a young age sprouted from his first tutor, Magister Thubal Holofernes whose intelligence, or lack of intelligence, focused around the Scholaticism movement. He taught Gargantua his ABC so well that he could recite it by heart backwards. He spent five years and three months over that. ”[3] The chief concern of of the Scholastics such as Holofernes, was not to learn new facts but to it integrate the knowledge already acquired by the Greeks. This example is also connected to monasticism because Rabelais is poking fun at the fact that the monks would sit in solitude for years and just memorize the Bible’s text, a tradition that humanists completely rejected.

These traditional doctrines and way of living were useless and repetitive. This skill – reciting the alphabet backwards – was a satirical swipe at scholasticism’s knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Finally Gargantua’s father, Grandgousier, came to realize the lack of knowledge his son had when a young page named Eudemon embarrassed Gargantua, who was “an ideal Renaissance youth, clean, healthy, skilled in Latin and at elegant speaking, but his rhetoric is more eloquent than truthful in his praise of the young giant. [4] After the young page praised Gargantua so beautifully, Gargantua’s, “behavior was merely to a blubber like a cow and hide his face in his bonnet. ”[5] With that, the decision was made that Gargantua would go to France and learn the new ways of classicism. This signified not only the transition of Gargantua from medieval and scholastic ways, but all of Europe’s transition to ways of humanism. Once in Paris, Gargantua made drastic improvements in education with his new tutor Ponocrates. At first, Ponocrates decided to observe Gargantua and the activities he partook in on a normal day.

Seeing Gargantua’s daily routine and how useless his old education had made him, Ponocrates realized he had no time to spare with Gargantua’s narrow-scholastic mind. Ponacrates way of teaching could be seen as the way he disciplined Gargantua’s mind. He made Gargantua clear his mind of anything he learned from previous tutors, and fill it with the new humanistic subjects of learning. To start off, Gargantua was awoke every morning around four am, “While he was being rubbed down, a passage of the Holy Scripture was read out to him, loud and clear…

Gargantua would often devote himself to revering, worshipping, supplicating and adoring God in his goodness, whose majesty and marvelous judgements were revealed by the reading. ”[6] This shows one of the major components of humanism, the balance between religious and secular views. Humanism was indeed against most religious traditions but it was not against God and the belief in God. Humanism was focused on the human being reaching his or her full potential in all aspects of life. Focusing on one skill or talent was cutting an individual short; being well-rounded was glorified and stressed with humanists.

Striving to become his or her best whether it was the simple task of getting dressed in the morning. “[Gargantua] was dressed, combed, brushed, perfumed and made elegant, during which time yesterday’s lessons were gone over with him. He would recite them by heart and base on them some practical matters concerning our human condition; they might extend it to some two or three hours but normally stopped once he was fully dressed. ” [7] The distinction between the two educations in Gargantua’s case are clear.

Gargantua accomplished more in the first three hours of waking up in this new humanistic way of living, than he did in probably a week or two with scholasticism. Gargantua mastered subjects such as arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. “As regards to musical instruments, he learnt to play the lute, the spinet, the harp, both the traverse and the nine holed flutes, the viola and the sackbut. ”[8] The arts were a huge part of the Renaissance, and being able to play all of those instruments is tangible evidence that his knowledge and intelligence is growing in more than one area.

The second half of Gargantua’s story is brought back to his homeland. Gargantua travels back and meets a monk named Frere Jean. Frere Jean was not an ordinary monk. Monks during the Middle Ages were seen as spiritually minded men who withdrew themselves from society. Their life consisted of praying, religious exercise and works of charity. Monks were the center of scholasticism, being the only ones who could read and write. Some would isolate and withdraw themselves from society. They felt that society contained too much evil and sin to live in.

Because of their isolation, when put in a situation where they needed to defend themselves, they ran away in fear. [9] Yet, when Frere Jean was put in a situation where he was captured by enemy guards and needed to escape, he faced the situation with bravery and, “struck the archer who was holding him on his right, entirely severing the sphagitid arteries in the neck – his jugular veins – together with the uvula down to the thyroid glands… ”[10] ———————– [1] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. The Histories of Gargantua and Pantagruel. [Harmondsworth, Middlesex]: Penguin, 1955. 226. Print. [2] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (243). [3] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (251). [4] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (252). [5] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (254). [6] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (279). [7] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (279). [8] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (281). [9] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (293). [10] Rabelais, Francois. “Gargantua. ” (339).