PDA

View Full Version : The Modern Campus Goes After Its Christians



Elspeth
06-11-2014, 05:23 PM
The Modern Campus Goes After Its Christians
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/06/the_modern_campus_goes_after_i.html

Is it reasonable for a university to insist that campus Christian groups accept non-Christian or anti-Christian students as group leaders? Ask a hundred ordinary Americans and you would very likely get 99 or 100 noes. Ask the same question at our most politically correct colleges and universities, though, and you'd get a different answer. Because of campus anti-discrimination codes, all campus groups must accept all candidates for leadership--a Democratic club must allow a Republican, a Jewish group must allow a Holocaust denier, a science group must accept a flat-earther and a Muslim group must accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism, or voodoo.

On the modern campus, this system is considered rational. Bowdoin College in Maine has just disenfranchised its Christian Fellowship, a campus presence of more than 40 years, denying recognition to the group, disabling key cards of longtime volunteer advisers, and forbidding use of campus space and even bulletin boards by the group. Responding to pressure from gay students, the college insists that the Christian group allow candidacy of gay leaders. The group says it will gladly allow gay members but not leaders, because leaders must uphold the group's religious doctrine. In effect, Bowdoin is insisting that the Christian group either get off campus or accept a system under which the beliefs of the group could be distorted or overthrown by non-believers. "It would compromise our ability to be who we are as Christians if we can't hold our leaders to some sort of doctrinal standard," said Zackary Suhr, who just graduated from Bowdoin. Robert B. Gregory, a lawyer and minister who with his wife Sim serves as a volunteer leader of the Christian group, put it more simply: "We now have Bowdoin College defining Christianity."

"No one, in my experience, has ever come to me or Sim and said, 'you mistreated me,'" Gregory said. "We've had candid discussions about what the scriptures say about homosexuality. All of those students have told me they respect the way Sim and I address those issues. All we try to do is teach the scriptures," he said.

Carroll Conley, executive director for the Christian Civic League of Maine, said Bowdoin's expulsion of the Gregorys is yet another example of the hostility toward religious sentiment prevalent in this country.

"This is a perfect example of intolerance toward people of faith who hold positions contrary to popular culture," said Conley. "Religious freedom is fast becoming a privilege afforded only to those who bow down to the agenda of political correctness rather than the fundamental right our Founding Fathers so vehemently protected."

The primary lesson here is not that universities are torn between freedom of religion and anti-bias rules. Rather the lesson is that administrators are willing to respond to a powerful campus group, gay students, at the expense of one that is weaker and usually disfavored on campus. Though written in the bland language of brotherhood, antidiscrimination laws give critics of private groups "a public hammer with which to beat groups they oppose," Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago said in 2007. They also provide a way for outsiders to reach into a dissenting group to determine its membership, policies, and officers.

Using a verbal screen of "diversity," "fairness," and "nondiscrimination," university officials delegitimize religion by substituting campus orthodoxy for religious principles. Even if a university feels torn, its antidiscrimination rules shouldn't trump the First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, association, and speech. Antidiscrimination laws are in fact becoming a threat to these freedoms.

NJCardFan
06-11-2014, 08:28 PM
This was written about long ago people.

Elspeth
06-11-2014, 11:28 PM
This was written about long ago people.

???

Lanie
06-12-2014, 12:20 AM
That doesn't sound right at all. Democrat groups have to have a Republican leader and Science clubs must have a flat earth person? Seems far out there.

Elspeth
06-12-2014, 12:30 AM
That doesn't sound right at all. Democrat groups have to have a Republican leader and Science clubs must have a flat earth person? Seems far out there.

The article is from "Minding the Campus" which is a website written mostly by academics who don't like what they see around them. I tend to trust the articles there.

NJCardFan
06-12-2014, 01:12 AM
???

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you really haven't read the Bible.

Elspeth
06-12-2014, 01:27 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you really haven't read the Bible.

And you'd fall off that limb, NJ.

Here's your original post:


This was written about long ago people.

Without punctuation, the sentence reads this way:

This.........-was written.........- about.........long-ago-people.
Subj.........-Verb...................-Prep...........Noun Phrase/Direct Object

I didn't know what "long ago people" were or what had been written about "long ago people." Hence the question marks.



I can now infer from your comment about the Bible that the sentence should be punctuated this way:



This was written about long ago, people.



"People" would be a form of direct address (the vocative) referring to us, as in "you people." The sentence itself would then be:

This.....was written.....about...........................long ago.....(you) people
Subj.....Verb..............Dangling Preposition...... Adverb.......Vocative


Before you accuse someone of not being a Bible-reading Christian, look at the rod in your own eye and make sure to take it out so you can catch your mistakes.

SVPete
06-12-2014, 09:54 AM
Sometimes being clear is simpler, NJCF. And if your eschatological perspective is Pre-Mil Pre-Trib (as seems possible), it's good to remember that that view is not universal among faithful Christians.

I'd love to see the present mess in academia (the current oppression/suppression of Christians is part of a much larger oppressive/suppressive context). But academia in its present form is not an idol to me. I'd welcome alternatives that bypass or devastate the relevance of current PC colleges and universities. Frankly, given how slow academia is likely to be in changing its PCness, I think alternatives critically necessary.

FIRE (http://www.thefire.org) is a similarly minded organization.

Keep in mind that unilateral freedom is not freedom, whether the ones doing the suppression are liberal or conservative.

noonwitch
06-12-2014, 11:53 AM
I'm a Christian who is a liberal, but this kind of thing drives me crazy. Religious issues should be debated in higher education, not this kind of shutting down of free speech. It robs students of not just their free speech rights, but of a quality education- one that produces young adults who can defend their beliefs, who can respect the rights of those with whom they disagree, and who can function in a diverse society and workplace.

NJCardFan
06-12-2014, 01:01 PM
And you'd fall off that limb, NJ.

Here's your original post:



Without punctuation, the sentence reads this way:

This.........-was written.........- about.........long-ago-people.
Subj.........-Verb...................-Prep...........Noun Phrase/Direct Object

I didn't know what "long ago people" were or what had been written about "long ago people." Hence the question marks.



I can now infer from your comment about the Bible that the sentence should be punctuated this way:



This was written about long ago, people.



"People" would be a form of direct address (the vocative) referring to us, as in "you people." The sentence itself would then be:

This.....was written.....about...........................long ago.....(you) people
Subj.....Verb..............Dangling Preposition...... Adverb.......Vocative


Before you accuse someone of not being a Bible-reading Christian, look at the rod in your own eye and make sure to take it out so you can catch your mistakes.

You can take this post and stick it somewhere dark and damp. I suppose you're response of "????" was done in a respectful way.

JB
06-14-2014, 02:20 PM
You can take this post and stick it somewhere dark and damp. I suppose you're response of "????" was done in a respectful way.I'm going to say it was because without proper punctuation you're post could be two very different statements.

Elspeth
06-14-2014, 05:02 PM
I'm going to say it was because without proper punctuation you're post could be two very different statements.

Thanks, JB. It was the ambiguity of the post that was the problem.

SVPete
06-14-2014, 05:56 PM
Thanks, JB. It was the ambiguity of the post that was the problem.

You have to admit, Elspeth, your post of "????" was questionable. Especially the tine of your "????". A more respectful way to ask what he meant would have been, "????". Surely you can see my point?

Elspeth
06-14-2014, 06:16 PM
You have to admit, Elspeth, your post of "????" was questionable. Especially the tine of your "????". A more respectful way to ask what he meant would have been, "????". Surely you can see my point?

Your point seems to be that some sort of disrespect was intended and/or conveyed by a point of punctuation. I personally don't take question marks that way and am mildly surprised at any interpretation in that vein. Certainly no disrespect of NJ was intended.

NJ has watched me on this board for quite some time. Even during my worst debates with the ever deceptive Novaheart, I was never personally insulting. I didn't call names nor purposely disrespect Nova, even when he was hideously and viscerally abusive of me. I simply don't roll that way. I tore Nova's arguments to shreds but not him personally. (You can check some of those old threads if you wish.)

The "????" to NJ was shorthand on a busy day. I give NJ some latitude for being upset because he has a difficult job with inmates who, I imagine, are continuously disrespectful and abusive. I couldn't do his job and I appreciate that he is willing to do it. However, NJ's day-to-day dealings with inmates may color his interactions with people outside the prison system. I believe he projects some of that onto those of us he deals with. That may be why his initial reaction to my "????" was to go after me personally (as never having read the Bible) rather than to ask what I meant or to check what he himself posted.

The issue was, of course, ambiguity as I have outlined earlier on this thread. However, it seems that the question mark response carried some ambiguity of its own, albeit unintentional. One thing we can all learn from this is that what we post may be misunderstood and that, instead of reacting defensively, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt.

SVPete
06-14-2014, 08:42 PM
Your point seems to be that some sort of disrespect was intended and/or conveyed by a point of punctuation. I personally don't take question marks that way and am mildly surprised at any interpretation in that vein. Certainly no disrespect of NJ was intended.

NJ has watched me on this board for quite some time. Even during my worst debates with the ever deceptive Novaheart, I was never personally insulting. I didn't call names nor purposely disrespect Nova, even when he was hideously and viscerally abusive of me. I simply don't roll that way. I tore Nova's arguments to shreds but not him personally. (You can check some of those old threads if you wish.)

The "????" to NJ was shorthand on a busy day. I give NJ some latitude for being upset because he has a difficult job with inmates who, I imagine, are continuously disrespectful and abusive. I couldn't do his job and I appreciate that he is willing to do it. However, NJ's day-to-day dealings with inmates may color his interactions with people outside the prison system. I believe he projects some of that onto those of us he deals with. That may be why his initial reaction to my "????" was to go after me personally (as never having read the Bible) rather than to ask what I meant or to check what he himself posted.

The issue was, of course, ambiguity as I have outlined earlier on this thread. However, it seems that the question mark response carried some ambiguity of its own, albeit unintentional. One thing we can all learn from this is that what we post may be misunderstood and that, instead of reacting defensively, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Looks like I should have used Satire "tags". Pretty much nothing in that post was meant literally. I'm fairly new here, so I guess being totally misunderstood is part of that territory. Not complaining, just part of explaining.

The typo of "tine" instead of "tone" may not have helped, either.

Lanie
06-14-2014, 11:10 PM
I'm going to say it was because without proper punctuation you're post could be two very different statements.

Eeeeeeeek!

SVPete
06-15-2014, 12:22 AM
You have to admit, Elspeth, your post of "????" was questionable. Especially the tine of your "????". A more respectful way to ask what he meant would have been, "????". Surely you can see my point?

Translation: NJCF, while "????" could have multiple meanings, the most likely by far is some variant of, "I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain further?" It would have been simpler to explain your meaning.

Until y'all (ya'll) get used to me (to the degree that's possible), I'll either be more literal or use Sarcasm tags .

ABC
06-15-2014, 12:26 AM
Oh my! I know is not my place to say it, but ...

Being neither an admin., nor even a mod in here, will anyway! :evil-grin:

It is sad to see us (myself included at times) fighting among ourselves, for niggling reasons.

I started posting on the internet back in 1997 ... didn't have many 'emoticons' back in those days, which do come in handy for clarity, I must admit ...

And do recall a good deal of hurt feelings due to misunderstandings between members, and I once called it the "inevitable roller-coaster effect" of posting online.

One day you're up ... the next you're down, all due in most cases to miscommunications for whatever the reasons.

Come on guys, let's try not to get tangled up in the "small stuff" we have enough of all the political shenanigans going on these days to deal with, do we not?

(Stepping down from my soapbox, once again) *blush*

~ ABC

SVPete
06-15-2014, 08:54 AM
Oh my! I know is not my place to say it, but ...

Being neither an admin., nor even a mod in here, will anyway! :evil-grin:

It is sad to see us (myself included at times) fighting among ourselves, for niggling reasons.

I started posting on the internet back in 1997 ... didn't have many 'emoticons' back in those days, which do come in handy for clarity, I must admit ...

And do recall a good deal of hurt feelings due to misunderstandings between members, and I once called it the "inevitable roller-coaster effect" of posting online.

One day you're up ... the next you're down, all due in most cases to miscommunications for whatever the reasons.

Come on guys, let's try not to get tangled up in the "small stuff" we have enough of all the political shenanigans going on these days to deal with, do we not?

(Stepping down from my soapbox, once again) *blush*

~ ABC

Indeed! Sometimes people post something with a certain "tone of voice" in their minds, but some one else doesn't "hear" it that way. BTDT, got drawersful of T-shirts of both varieties. My first discussion site participation was also in 1997, a homeschooling and a naval history site; my first news/politics site was in 1998. Only the latter is still around, though it changed from conservative to liberal some time during Bush's Presidency.

JB
06-15-2014, 03:37 PM
Eeeeeeeek!I was wondering if that was going to be spotted. Good job Lanie. Let's boink.

Elspeth
06-15-2014, 04:08 PM
Translation: NJCF, while "????" could have multiple meanings, the most likely by far is some variant of, "I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain further?" It would have been simpler to explain your meaning.

Until y'all (ya'll) get used to me (to the degree that's possible), I'll either be more literal or use Sarcasm tags .

It's hard to tell, sometimes.

In my experience, many things get misunderstood on the net, especially the context or tone of remarks, since that information is carried outside of the denotations of the words themselves.

Elspeth
06-15-2014, 04:11 PM
Oh my! I know is not my place to say it, but ...

Being neither an admin., nor even a mod in here, will anyway! :evil-grin:

It is sad to see us (myself included at times) fighting among ourselves, for niggling reasons.

I started posting on the internet back in 1997 ... didn't have many 'emoticons' back in those days, which do come in handy for clarity, I must admit ...

And do recall a good deal of hurt feelings due to misunderstandings between members, and I once called it the "inevitable roller-coaster effect" of posting online.

One day you're up ... the next you're down, all due in most cases to miscommunications for whatever the reasons.

Come on guys, let's try not to get tangled up in the "small stuff" we have enough of all the political shenanigans going on these days to deal with, do we not?

(Stepping down from my soapbox, once again) *blush*

~ ABC

You're totally within your rights to say what you think and, in this case, you're totally right. :love_heart:

Elspeth
06-15-2014, 04:12 PM
I'm a Christian who is a liberal, but this kind of thing drives me crazy. Religious issues should be debated in higher education, not this kind of shutting down of free speech. It robs students of not just their free speech rights, but of a quality education- one that produces young adults who can defend their beliefs, who can respect the rights of those with whom they disagree, and who can function in a diverse society and workplace.

The idea seems to be to shut down Christianity specifically, and, according the the article, it seems to be coming from the homosexual activists on campus.

SVPete
06-15-2014, 04:30 PM
The idea seems to be to shut down Christianity specifically, and, according the the article, it seems to be coming from the homosexual activists on campus.

It strikes me as weird that the gay activists go after Christians, who are far from violent, rather than Muslims, who kill homosexuals in Muslim countries. I guess its a hierarchy of PC thing, and maybe fear that some local Muslims might get violent if one of their tenets is challenged.

Elspeth
06-15-2014, 04:32 PM
It strikes me as weird that the gay activists go after Christians, who are far from violent, rather than Muslims, who kill homosexuals in Muslim countries. I guess its a hierarchy of PC thing, and maybe fear that some local Muslims might get violent if one of their tenets is challenged.

It's because most of them haven't lived with religious Muslims.

Elspeth
07-18-2014, 10:33 PM
Scary article from The Federalist this week:

Whatís Happening To Gordon College Is Just The Beginning
http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/18/whats-happening-to-gordon-college-is-just-the-beginning/

A Christian college in Massachusetts requested the freedom to live out its ideals, and since some powerful people donít share those ideals theyíre set to destroy Gordon Collegeóunless it agrees to retreat to the closet.

In June, Gordonís president added his name to a public letter asking President Obama to not force religious organizations into hypocrisy. Obama plans an executive order that would be the equivalent to many organizations of forcing Human Rights Campaign to hire adherents of Westboro Baptist Church. It would force anyone who receives federal funds to hire people whose sexual conduct disgraces all the worldís major religions.

Gordon, like every other observant religious institution in the world, does not want to be forced to hire people that represent the opposite of what it stands for. For that, itís been pilloried in the press and persecuted by apparently every local public official who gets morally high from judging Gordonís beliefs. It has already lost a contract with a local town to manage its historic town hall, and its accreditation will soon be under reviewóall for merely signing a letter. Gordon is only the vanguard. There is far more of this ahead, for every religious school, charity, parachurch organization, and even churches. So itís time to pay attention to the tenderhooks of tyranny.

Donít Take Federal Money, Even Though Itís Yours

Gordon is at federal mercy, first, because it takes federal money. Nearly every college receives federal funds, because the federal government is the nationís largest sponsor of subprime higher educationómeaning, of course, it is by far the largest provider of student loans, made freely available without discrimination upon the basis of academic merit or likelihood of college completion.

This would be only an economic problem, not an individual liberty problem (besides the tax extortion), if the feds ever sent peopleís tax dollars back to them with no control measures attached. But they donít. Control is half the point of getting it in the first place. Itís a fishing expedition, and youíre the catch. Although a few other colleges (such as my alma mater, Hillsdale) realized some time ago that federal money inherently threatens freedom, most are so hooked they would now have to dissolve if they did not accept it. Liberty University, for example, of Virginia and Jerry Falwell fame, regularly makes news for being among the top consumers of federal Pell Grants. It got a cool $81 million from the feds in 2010-11.

This isnít just a college problem. Itís a charity problem, and parachurch problem, as our own Mollie Hemingway made very clear when discussing the World Vision debacle. Itís even a private K-12 school problem, since private schools can take federal lunch money (and its accompanying, idiotic regulations), have their teachers trained by their public school competitors, and more.

Accreditation May Be Worse

The danger to Gordonís accreditation, however, may be worse, because itís a far less visible instrument of control. Without accreditation, itís difficult for an education institution to function, because accreditation gives the school a license to hand out real diplomas, and for its course credits to transfer to other institutions. As one might expect, thatís really important to schoolsí customers.

In K-12, states regulate private school curriculum and teacher preparation (aka everything a child learns and how he learns it) through accreditation. So far accreditors have been content to demand low academics, Progressive curriculum, and fuzzy teaching methods, but in the current climate itís no stretch to think not just the feds but also some state and private accreditors will demand that private schools condone gay sex. In higher education, accreditation is also a hoop schools have to jump through to get federal funds, but even worse, the feds are directly involved in determining what hoops a school has to jump through to get accredited. So even if a school did not receive federal funds, it could be pressured on myriad fronts by the federal government or anyone else with power and an agenda through its accreditation agency. Such are the dangers of centralizing power, and allowing the government to do what private individuals and coalitions can manage much better themselves. It hands tyrants tools for oppression.

President Obama is clearly aware of the federal power over accreditationóheís proposed changes to the accreditation process that involve more intimate data-collection on students, among other things. Since government-regulated accreditation does essentially nothing to improve school quality and is therefore a giant exercise in providing sustenance for the mosquito-like bureaucracy, and now a tool for potential religious discrimination, itís time to abolish it.

Back to Gordon College, however. It is now excruciatingly clear we live in a time where some people who have political power are on a crusade against people who, in their view, commit moral thoughtcrime. A religious college loses all reason for existence if it must conform to a diametrically opposite moral code. It makes no sense for a school to hire teachers to teach children, among other things, that sex belongs in marriage between a man an woman, if that very teacherís actions negate his or her words. Such a teacher must either lie to children, or the school must. (Perhaps the entire goal is to expose children to such forced hypocrisy.) If a religious school cannot act as a religious school, it logically cannot exist. It can only shift its morality to match that of its oppressors, or dissolve.

That may be the point.

Retread
07-18-2014, 11:23 PM
.................................................. ..

That may be the point.[/B]

No question - That is the point.