|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 29, 2009 16:29:57 GMT -5
Sue: No, you're right; it is a private university. I'll have to have a think about the rest of what you said. It was a gut-level "ish" response to the idea of having to endorse a slate of beliefs to get a job... I don't think requiring "faculty members to embrace the Christian mission and purpose of the University" is particularly discriminatory - it's a requirement for the job. Because I think promoting that mission and purpose is (legitimately) part of the job. You'd have to endorse a slate of beliefs to get a job as a Baptist minister, and this isn't any different; endorsing that slate of beliefs is intrinsic to the job, not a afterthought. Now, you could make a great argument that "cookie cutter" faculty, all in march-step, promoting a single, narrow viewpoint (when it comes to religion and morality), doesn't optimize the college experience and the educational nature of that experience - but the people who founded a Baptist University, and those who attend it, aren't going to agree with you. And really - is it true for everyone? Does everyone learn more and learn better in a diverse environment, in a university that endeavors to expose its students to diverse lifestyles and religions and politics? What if someone feels that they get enough exposure to diversity out in the secular world (at work and play), and they want the university to be a haven of like-minded people? What if they think that they, personally, will do better, will learn better, in such a place? Do we know that they are wrong? I'm kinda guessing that they are wrong, but I can't prove it. You can cite social studies out the wazoo if they're out there, it still won't prove anything about this particular university or the individuals who go there, and what works best for them. If they aren't taking public funds, as Sue said, then let them do their own thing. And honestly, I work at a University that endeavors to be diverse. It mostly succeeds when it comes to lifestyles and religions and cultures . . . but politics? There's a reason this county is a firm blue spot in a sea of red, every election year.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Dec 29, 2009 18:40:44 GMT -5
Interesting interview Colbert did with the Conservopedia guy. I just love seeing Colbert rip into the Christian Right with his biblical knowledge. Haven't seen it but may go find it online. I'd love to see my BIL go on Colbert. I think Colbert might really respect him and they could have an actual intellectual discussion and exchange of real ideas and beliefs. What is sad to me is that so many Christians are so vulnerable to being ripped apart either because of lack of understanding of their own beliefs; prejudices and opinions that go far afield of Jesus' and biblical teaching; and/or hypocrisy (where one's personal actions in no way mirror what they claim as their beliefs). And then, of course, the fact that they are not perfect (in many cases far far far from perfect) generalizes to anyone else who uses the label. On the other hand, I also tire of the very liberal ripping into those with conservative beliefs (either religious or political or cultural: not just abortion or homosexuality; stuff as simple as wearing a headscarf) simply because the beliefs differ from their own. There are actually some things that we don't KNOW (proof for or against an afterlife or a soul come to mind, which may speak to when life begins, or ends) and so to state (or imply) that one's beliefs are ridiculous or stupid or reactionary simply because they don't happen to jive with the current social climate annoys me. None of which is aimed at you Liz or even at Colbert, I just got off on a mini-rant. Read a newspaper article today about how atheists feel "discriminated against" this time of year. Seems to me like we could all use a whole lot more tolerance toward those who are different. I shouldn't mind if non-believers chose not to decorate, or say Merry Christmas etc. On the other hand I don't believe that they should view it as "discrimination" simply because I choose to celebrate according to my views. [And I'm not saying that they don't suffer actual discrimination in some/many cases. I'm just saying to complain that the great majority of Christmas celebrations are centered around churches and not enough are "non-religious" in nature: HUH? ] One might say that it's a "thin line" but I think if we were just generally more tolerant and less quick to jump to offense on our own behalf maybe the line wouldn't be so thin. "You" could say "Happy Winter Solstice" to me and I could say not just "Merry Christmas" but even "God Bless You" and we would each come away enriched by the good will of the other rather than nursing offense. So, mini-rant expanded into mega-rant. Merry Christmas God Bless You Happy New Year "_____________________" Fill in the blank (Again, not directed at Liz or her post, just happened to be expanded thoughts in my quote of her.) Being angry because someone wishes you a"Merry Christmas" = asinine. Being angry because some of us celebrate a secular holiday and call it Christmas = asinine. Being angry because most (many?) Christmas celebrations are religious = incredibly asinine and not a little stupid. Refusing to acknowledge that other winter holidays share calendar space with Christmas and getting bent out of shape when someone says "Happy Holidays" = irredeemably asinine and a tad bit defensive. I think Sue and I probably agree....
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Dec 30, 2009 12:40:25 GMT -5
Haven't seen it but may go find it online. I'd love to see my BIL go on Colbert. I think Colbert might really respect him and they could have an actual intellectual discussion and exchange of real ideas and beliefs. What is sad to me is that so many Christians are so vulnerable to being ripped apart either because of lack of understanding of their own beliefs; prejudices and opinions that go far afield of Jesus' and biblical teaching; and/or hypocrisy (where one's personal actions in no way mirror what they claim as their beliefs). And then, of course, the fact that they are not perfect (in many cases far far far from perfect) generalizes to anyone else who uses the label. On the other hand, I also tire of the very liberal ripping into those with conservative beliefs (either religious or political or cultural: not just abortion or homosexuality; stuff as simple as wearing a headscarf) simply because the beliefs differ from their own. There are actually some things that we don't KNOW (proof for or against an afterlife or a soul come to mind, which may speak to when life begins, or ends) and so to state (or imply) that one's beliefs are ridiculous or stupid or reactionary simply because they don't happen to jive with the current social climate annoys me. None of which is aimed at you Liz or even at Colbert, I just got off on a mini-rant. Read a newspaper article today about how atheists feel "discriminated against" this time of year. Seems to me like we could all use a whole lot more tolerance toward those who are different. I shouldn't mind if non-believers chose not to decorate, or say Merry Christmas etc. On the other hand I don't believe that they should view it as "discrimination" simply because I choose to celebrate according to my views. [And I'm not saying that they don't suffer actual discrimination in some/many cases. I'm just saying to complain that the great majority of Christmas celebrations are centered around churches and not enough are "non-religious" in nature: HUH? ] One might say that it's a "thin line" but I think if we were just generally more tolerant and less quick to jump to offense on our own behalf maybe the line wouldn't be so thin. "You" could say "Happy Winter Solstice" to me and I could say not just "Merry Christmas" but even "God Bless You" and we would each come away enriched by the good will of the other rather than nursing offense. So, mini-rant expanded into mega-rant. Merry Christmas God Bless You Happy New Year "_____________________" Fill in the blank (Again, not directed at Liz or her post, just happened to be expanded thoughts in my quote of her.) Being angry because someone wishes you a"Merry Christmas" = asinine. Being angry because some of us celebrate a secular holiday and call it Christmas = asinine. Being angry because most (many?) Christmas celebrations are religious = incredibly asinine and not a little stupid. Refusing to acknowledge that other winter holidays share calendar space with Christmas and getting bent out of shape when someone says "Happy Holidays" = irredeemably asinine and a tad bit defensive. I think Sue and I probably agree.... Count me in on wholehearted agreement here. Much ado about idiocy, if you ask me. What is it about this time of year that brings out the fanatics of all stripes? It's time for Solstice, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa followed closely by Chinese New Year, all wrapped up together. Sometimes, Ramadan isn't far off either so what gives with the problem with Happy Holidays? Given that there are a number of them that occur this time of year I'm okay with Happy Holidays and also okay with Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, no acknowledgment at all etc, depending on whom I am addressing. ;D Some people need a hobby, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 30, 2009 15:06:09 GMT -5
Well said, Spring.
Yes, agreeing with Rachael, and also Onjel.
What is perturbing (?) to me is that I think hope? that there really are (far?) more people like us who just all want to get along than crazies.
But the crazies make the news and make noise.
At least, I truly hope that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 4, 2010 11:16:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Jan 5, 2010 16:15:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 13, 2010 7:13:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 13, 2010 14:47:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 13, 2010 16:36:53 GMT -5
Well, it sounds like they are definitely talking about testing the cows, not the meat, but the articles don't describe the test . . . so . . . I don't really understand. From what I know, I'd doubt the efficacy of any test that didn't include dissecting the brain of every animal slaughtered - but again, my info is dated, and maybe there is some kind of reliable test out there these days. Or maybe they are talking about checking the brain.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 13, 2010 16:42:29 GMT -5
I don't think it will ever go entirely "out of fashion" to blame occurences, one way or another, on the "supernatural." And making a connection between human behavior and an event like an earthquake will also never go completely out-of-fashion. People like to believe they can control fate - somehow, someway. Believing Haitians brought this on themselves by some bad behavior = believing "this won't happen to me, if I'm good."
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 13, 2010 17:06:23 GMT -5
I don't think it will ever go entirely "out of fashion" to blame occurences, one way or another, on the "supernatural." And making a connection between human behavior and an event like an earthquake will also never go completely out-of-fashion. People like to believe they can control fate - somehow, someway. Believing Haitians brought this on themselves by some bad behavior = believing "this won't happen to me, if I'm good." You are completely right about this. My well-meaning, church-going boss told me that he believed that Lew kicked his cancer because he had my church congregation behind him and the young girl who got cancer the same time but lost her fight did so because her parents quit going to church. Which happened to be my boss's church. So, I think he was trying to justify why his and his congregation's prayer seemingly 'didn't work', where the prayers of my Catholic churchgoers did. He also sent me an 'anonymous' letter (in his distinct handwriting) that suggested I not pray to any saints but only to Jesus or God. I think it's ludicrous to imply that God punishes or rewards for bad or good behavior by bringing down a natural disaster or disease. Robertson uses that fear for his own agenda and natural disasters are great fodder for his pulpit. Didn't he say something similar about all the hurricanes we had a few years ago? Or the reason 9/11 happened. That people had turned from God. Something like that. People buy into that because they fear the reaper.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 13, 2010 19:43:03 GMT -5
I don't think it will ever go entirely "out of fashion" to blame occurences, one way or another, on the "supernatural." And making a connection between human behavior and an event like an earthquake will also never go completely out-of-fashion. People like to believe they can control fate - somehow, someway. Believing Haitians brought this on themselves by some bad behavior = believing "this won't happen to me, if I'm good." Which presents a real problem for folks who believe bad things shouldn't happen to them because they are good. Of course, they are conveniently forgetting Romans 3: 10-11: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” So you can't really use "being good" as protection even if you haven't actually made any deals with the devil. [Just saying that it's a lame argument for why bad things happen to some more than others even if you are looking at it from a "religious" point of view. The Christian religion at least teaches that everyone sins and hence the need for GRACE. So very bogus for Christian leaders to point fingers in this matter.] More, Romans 3:23-24: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. [No footnote that says "except Haitians whose ancestors made pacts with the Devil." So even if you wanted to try that argument their own Bible shoots it down.] Grr argh. No better than Muslims who pick out the parts of the Koran that talk about making war on the infidels and ignore other parts. You don't get to cherry-pick your religion's teaching, people!]
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jan 13, 2010 21:33:15 GMT -5
I don't think it will ever go entirely "out of fashion" to blame occurences, one way or another, on the "supernatural." And making a connection between human behavior and an event like an earthquake will also never go completely out-of-fashion. People like to believe they can control fate - somehow, someway. Believing Haitians brought this on themselves by some bad behavior = believing "this won't happen to me, if I'm good." *sigh* Yeah, I know. It just makes my heart hurt, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jan 15, 2010 13:51:22 GMT -5
Craig Ferguson on the subject of saying stupid things about Haiti.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 16, 2010 7:03:53 GMT -5
|
|