Then they came for Princeton, but Simon did not speak out – because he was not a Muslim.

Then they came for Brown, but Simon did not speak out – because he was not Jewish.

Then they came for Duke, but Simon did not speak out – because he was not a Buddhist.

Then they came for Harvard, but Simon did not speak out – because he was not a Hindu.

Then they came for North Shore Temple Emanuel – but there was no one left to speak out for Simon.

It is __very__ annoying that people assume, for example, that biblical studies is about being religious or ‘doing religion’. Ben, to my understanding, wasn’t doing that.

But this is all good dialogue, since at the very least, we demonstrate our opposition to the ‘religious’ interpretation of biblical studies, and the resultant (actually I’m not sure of the causal link here) prejudiced negativity of some non-religious people against it. — To my recollection, prejudice is connected to ignorance, judging something before you know about it. If people are foolish enough to think that Ben’s remark substantiates their perception of Biblical Studies as a religious activity, they were fools in the first place, before Ben said anything. Maybe we should spend more time and energy getting them informed, and less time arguing with Ben! (And I can already anticipate your reply here… back round the circular argument all over again. — No offense meant.)

Noting the existing discussion on the difficulties about religious affiliation and academic discourse, I still think Steph has a valid point, and that you may be unfair to Ben in taking his remarks out of the original context. Also, I have heard people of equal or greater ‘representative-status’ make similar remarks. Are you perhaps demanding more of Biblical Studies students than others? — This might be an understandable demand, I merely ask you to consider whether you are doing it.

Also, do you think it makes a difference that this was in some senses an internal and informal remark to group members, rather than a fully public statement? From an authorial perspective (and in my own facebook experience), isn’t a group message different from a wallpost?

As for my comment on Doug’s blog (and on John’s blog, incidentally), I stand by that 100%. You are still ignoring my assertion, however, that it is only problematic when representatives of departments make these claims. What lawyers, doctors and literary critics say and do has nothing to do with me. Stop trying to make it look like I’m asking religious people to get out of uni. I’m asking the uni to get out of religion.

You also claim on Doug’s blog that members of departments of Medicine, Law, English Literature and Physics, don’t express their faith in this way. This is false. You do hear members of other departments speaking about their faith, quite regularly. An MD (Dewi Rees) wrote on after death experience and wrote what was easier to do in parts of his research, precisely because he shared the Christian faith with some of the patients he was dealing with. Also when death or mishap occurs in a department, members of that department express their faiths in quite a random way. I have experienced this in another department where it became suddenly apparent that most of the staff and students were Christian. Funnily enough I only knew one Christian in my year in the Religious Studies department, a couple of Buddhists and a Muslim. There are plenty of examples of personal faith being expressed in a whole university environment. Also remember Simon, that prayer is not exclusive to religions of the Bible.

It is ludicrous and petty to criticise Ben Hinks for expressing gratefulness to prayers as well as action and support.

I never suggested that I ascribed to Ben the belief in God “saving the department single-handedly”, and I never suggested that scholars and students should be prohibited from expressing their faith. Certainly, I would never be so stupid as to suggest that the department should close!

My language was very emotive, but the post was not calculated to cause offence. I was certainly not criticising your university and, although I was criticising Ben Hicks, I was not criticising his faith – whatever it may be. My point is simply this: faith-based approaches and secular approaches are so fundamentally different that they need to be thought of as separate. Any faith-based approach (and remember, there are actually several different ones) must be viewed as simply one perspective among several, never to be priveleged by the university itself. When a spokesperson says something in their official capacity, they need to bear this in mind. Assertions that can be directly understood to pertain to the efficacy of prayer, or even to the existence of God, fall squarely in this category.

Again, I am only referring to people who represent the university or the student body. What individual scholars and individual students say and believe is not of my concern.

If that is their right, then it is our right to criticize it. Just because they hold a belief doesn’t make them immune from criticism.