'Tolerance' on American Universities???

She pegs my bullshit detector to the needle.

Colleges are tolerant of everything but one thing.
Intolerance.

Especially that biblethumping, snotty-pushy "my way is the only right way" bullshit.

And I've made my feelings quite, abundantly clear on the pervasive and evil force that is the Christian Belief System as practiced, and the laughable concept that the slimy, evil gits are in any way "persecuted" whatsoever.

Their idea of being "persecuted" is people not falling to their knees and kissing their ass while professing the same beliefs, puh-lease.

They wanna whine about persecution cause not everyone agrees with them ? go look at the muslims who we're bombing into fleshy red piles of goop because our leaders think it's ok to persecute them cause they're not Christian.

Go read up on the fucking Crusades, why don't you ?

In my opinion they should be glad to be tolerated as they are, cause I for one, would like to see the evil bastards tied to a stake and screaming while the flames licked every closer, and fault me for it if you will, I would damned well ENJOY it.

And Antimason, don't bother shovelling any of that crap about how they're not Christians at me, they define what the hellspawned belief system in this day and age is - whether you like it or not, whether *I* like it or not, that's how it is.

And I hate em, it's a simple as they, for they are hateful - dress it up anyway you like, they're pushy, hateful, intolerant people who think every non-Christian belongs in hell, who would gleefully bring back the inquisition, and who's actions have stonewalled anything resembling enlightenment and civilization repeatedly for centuries.

In short, she should be glad for the Tolerance (of her and her crap!) that she claims not to exist, cause some folk would have been a LOT less tolerant about it - and I am one of em.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'll admit, I've always found it amusing how American Christians tend to find themselves discriminated against by the law's refusal to grant them special status. "How dare they say we can't force our form of prayer into public schools? How intolerant!" "They refuse to teach our particular creation myth as the one revealed truth! What bigotry!"

And then they offer faux compromises. "Okay, if you don't want to join in the prayer, you can just stand silently out in the hallway, while the 98% of the student body who understand WHO THE ONE TRUE GOD IS pray for your heathen souls. And may God forgive us for our weakness."

The fact is, Christianity is the 500-pound gorilla of American sprituality, and so it has historically gotten its own way, from such things as Closed-On-Sunday blue laws and the 13-year disaster of prohibition to the current debates on so-called "scientific creationism".

My main problem with all of this is, having actually read the New Testament, and paying attention to the words in the red letters, I've come to the conclusion that most people who claim to be Christian have no idea of what the founder of their religion actually said or stood for. They have mistaken the envelope for the message, and have turned the organizational power structure of their own churches into a false God which they worship ahead of the Nazarine.

Despite this, I have met plenty of good, tolerant Christians in my life, people who actually try to live in the spirit of Christ. They make good neighbors, exactly the sort of people a Lawful Pagan like myself strives to emulate.

Heck, some of them even go to church...

"Religion is far too important a subject to take seriously." -- Rafael DeOro

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Students at Butler should not be required to take courses on Islam, purchase the Qur’an, and much less follow religious rituals for the handling the Qur’an, unless Butler is a religious school. My guess is that Butler does not hold itself out to be a religious school, and therefore shouldn’t be requiring students to follow a religious curriculum. If such activity is required of students of Butler, given the decidedly anti-religious tones of most Academics, it would not be unfitting to view it with suspicion.

Evidently, the “biblethumping(sic), snotty-pushy ‘my way is the only right way’ bullshit” must be purely a Christian trait, because no one would push the Qur’an on anyone, and if someone protests to having the Qur’an pushed on them (as a requirement to graduate) they must be “snotty-pushy” “biblethumping(sic)” Christians. There is so much that is messed up about that. I sympathize strongly with Miss Nye, because she has probably had to endure a lot of ignorant people making snotty comments about her, simply because she holds a Christian opinion and doesn’t want to be indoctrinated in the Islamic religion anymore then those ignorant people want to endure someone’s “biblethumping(sic).” Now you extrapolate those ignorant people to positions of power within BU and you have an environment that might very well be called “neo-fascist,” but Miss Nye’s feelings are the last thing those ignorant people care about.

Christianity may be the 500-lb gorilla in the cage, but unlike its cousin the 500-lb orangutan, it doesn’t kill you if you disagree with it. Whatever majority Christians may hold in this country means little to a student on a university where Christianity is considered “quaint” and Islam is considered required study, if that student expects to graduate.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure that classifies as hostility. If the professors had called the Koran or the Upanishads a "books of myth" she prolly would NOT have seen that as being particularly "hostile" towards Islam or Hinduism...

---

True. She may not have found it to be hostile, but then she's not Muslim or Hindu, and I'm guessing that Muslim's and Hindu's may find such allegations against their texts as "hostile".

Thing is -- as she points out (and not just her, I've heard this from a multitude of sources over the past 18 years -- at least) that such things aren't being said by professors (at least not to the same degree) as they are being said against Christianity with relative impunity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think there may be something else going on here besides "bias". Comments like "what is good" and what is faith" indicate to me that the student has not sufficiently explained the terms that she used to analyze the essay. Many misunderstandings and discussions are rooted in the definition of terms. It's something that we run into here all the time.

---

True, if that's what she's complaining about in that paragraph of her interview. However, I personally didn't read it that way -- I didn't see her as complaining about those specific statements as much as about not being permitted to use the Bible as "source" material for her definitions. You could be right, though. Perhaps, I just read it differently. We'd have to ask her to clarify.

BTW, although you and I avidly disagree on many of these issues, I have to state once again that I appreciate you taking the time to read opposing views, then commenting on them civilly. Others who believe as you do (and disagree with those who believe as I do), would go a lot further in such discussions if they responded with the decency and civility which you have responded with. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It doesn't seem appropriate to insert religious practice into an English class. If the professor simply wanted to slwo the students down there are other forms of meditation and focusing that don't require a religious chant.

---

I agree. However, I definitely agree with her that there is a slant against Christianity in such exercises, while virtually anything else goes.

I personally know of specific instances where grade school students (in my local area) were allowed to put on productions (which I attended) where they recounted the details of native American "religion", including "religious" chants. But these same students are prohibited for doing anything even remotely Christian.

In my view, the pendulum has definitely swung way too far to the opposite extreme. If one "belief" is to be allowed (tolerated), all should be allowed (tolerated). If one is to be restricted, all should be restricted. It isn't right to single out a certain "belief system" as inappropriate, while allowing virtually every other "belief system", which is what I found to be the gist of her whole argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Is there any particular reason to include this in on a discussion of religion?

---

I don't know what her point was about that, either. Perhaps she would allow you a follow-up interview from the left -- to clarify some points for us all -- in an effort towards fairness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

She started talking, to herself more than to the class, in a soft voice about creationists. "Most Christians don't believe in creationism and most large churches don't teach creationism,"

---

That part is true. I don't find the truth offensive.

---

Well, I don't know if it's true or not. I haven't seen any scientific polling on the subject. I only know that in my own circle of believers (which is quite extensive), it's not true. But, I also know that my own circle of believers isn't a true representation of a

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:


Christianity may be the 500-lb gorilla in the cage, but unlike its cousin the 500-lb orangutan, it doesn’t kill you if you disagree with it.

---

I suggest you look up the following phrases and organizations: "The Burning Times" "Spanish Inquisition" "Christian Identity Movement" "Westboro Baptist Church".

Historically Christians -- or those professing to be Christians -- have been more than happy to spill blood in the name of the Prince of Peace. That fundamentalist Islamics have chosen to grab that particular baton and run with it at this point in history does not wash the blood from Christian hands.

But you are entirely right that the school in question shouldn't have been teaching religion qua religion. Opening a class with a Buddist chant was in-conceived, at best--if the idea was to get the students in a receptive mind, a simple "Om" chant would have been just as effective.

As to the course on the Koran and Islam, if the course was a means of indoctrinating students in Islam with an eye to conversion, of course it was wrong. On the other hand, if the idea was to have the students role-play in order to better understand the Islamic mind-set, that's a different matter. Teaching how an Islamic would treat and respect the Koran would be a part of that--If I was teaching a course on Christianity, I'd certainly require the students to avoid casually marking up or otherwise disrespecting the Bible.

(Side note: My personal copy of the Koran was a gift from a co-worker of my wife, who had to remove roughly an ounce of sticky-notes from it. He liked his copies annotated, but proper respect required him to refrain from marking them directly. When, thanking him, I cautioned him not to expect me to convert, he shrugged. "If I wanted to live in a country where everyone thinks alike, I would have stayed in Iran.")

By the way--I love the Cicero quote. It's exactly the reason I thank all the Gods for the first amendment.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The problem that I have with this girl's worldview is that she regrettably does not appear to have thought about the internal consistency of her beliefs.

The questions that her professor graded her with, and her reaction to them, indicates to me that she takes what Christianity has taught her as axiomatic instead of thinking about belief in G-d and then trying to generalise about it from there.

This is an inherently anti-intellectual attitude, and being a religious intellectual, is something I really don't like. The viewpoints she seems to be putting forward here are that you can't be religious and think critically about your religion, that you can't be Christian and think Muslims have a valid religion, and that you can't be American without being Christian (such as when she equates ridicule of Christianity with ridicule of America).

All of these viewpoints are incredibly intolerant and so they leave me wishing that she had been taught to assess her own beliefs for internal consistency. Were she properly schooled in analytic forms of logic, she would discover what is most important; that you can be religious and co-exist with other people. If she wants to be tolerated, she should not be so judging of other people's worldviews.

At my institution, I have had to deal with constant attacks from theists and atheists alike, since I ascribe to an uncommon theology. There are those who want me to convert to their religion, and those who want me to forget about religion and join them in amoralistic pursuits. They both have a point, but when I respond to them with cogent, internally consistent arguments, they see my point and stop arguing. Of course I can never prove or disprove what they are saying; the theist question is not answerable by scientific means. But I can point out to them that they can't convince me and I can't convince them because no one has evidence. This opens the door to discussions of theology with the understanding that no one is trying to change anyone else's beliefs, but rather to test their consistency. These kinds of discussions cause everyone to gain, really.

Basically, I prefer to encourage thinking about religion and tolerance of other viewpoints. This girl doesn't seem to have the capacity for this, and I think it's that lack of understanding that causes fighting between areligious and religious people.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Were she properly schooled in analytic forms of logic, she would discover what is most important; that you can be religious and co-exist with other people. If she wants to be tolerated, she should not be so judging of other people's worldviews.

---

Well said, the whole post in fact nails the salient point, and in a far more civil manner than I have any intent to be on the subject.

The best cure for intolerance is a flamethrower - because most of the people who practice it, choose to do so, you can blame upbringing all you want, at some point reality intervenes and they simply turn their back on it, and that's a choice.

How many of you reasonable folk come from somewhat racist families, and *chose* not to be racist because you saw it was utterly ridiculous, especially in light of the internet ?
(double especially OVER the internet, but that's a whole nother can o worms, that.)

So, they choose to be intolerant pushy jackasses, and I choose not to be at all civil about it, why should I - try being tolerant or patient with some of them "True Believers" and see what it gets you.

I make it clear right off that the best thing they can do is get thier little butts moving AWAY from me, as far as possible, and speedily, and in all honesty, a quick, profane explosion of verbal flameage, followed by their speedy (and usually permanent) retreat is a lot better than trying to tolerate the intolerant.

They wanna discuss theology, fine, they wanna discuss spiritualism or how religion affects social order and policy, yadda yadda, sure, fine, dandy.. shiny even...

But you try it, pick out ten random Christians and just try it, and then explain to me why I should even bother giving them the chance to open their hate spewing mouths ?

Oh, and FYI - I have zero mercy for *any* beliefs zealots, up to and specifically including Pagan ones, cause I'll send those Dianic stormtrooper bitches scurrying every bit as fast as thumpers, jihadis, and the occasional JW who has the misfortune to defile my porch (tho not for long!) with their presence.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
I suggest you look up the following phrases and organizations: "The Burning Times" "Spanish Inquisition" "Christian Identity Movement" "Westboro Baptist Church".

---

So what? This is how you intend to define Christianity? You’re proving this woman’s point, the bigotry against Christians. If this is the game you want to play, I suggest you look up “Islamic Jihad,” “The Taliban,” “Hezbollah,” “Al Qaeda,” “Hamas,” and numerous other Islamic organizations that use murder and terror to impose their Islamic views, not 500 years ago, but today. No major Christian organization practices the kind of “religion” practiced by these Islamic groups today, and for you to suggest that this is the bases that we should use to assess this young woman’s situation, essentially argues her point.

So if it is understanding that we want, perhaps we need to start a little closer to home. If someone can’t differentiate Christianity today from the Spanish Inquisition, then logically how do we expect them to differentiate Islam today from the Islamic Jihad? And understanding that, I think will help you understand Miss Nye’s point, and mine.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
By the way--I love the Cicero quote. It's exactly the reason I thank all the Gods for the first amendment.

---

Thanks. Cicero is one of my favorite authors. Two thousand years ago he was predicting many of the same philosophical issues we deal with today in politics and religion. And for his troubles he had his throat cut. But that’s Roman politics.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME