Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 13 of 308 (213834)
06-03-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
06-01-2005 2:50 PM


Islamic leadership for America ?
I think this is a very fair question to ask of the religious right.
But they have one advantage in demanding special treatment for Christianity. It is, in various ways, embodied in various premises of our constitution where other religions are not, as Archnophilia has pointed out. IMO, that was a mistake, but one the religious right will always use to their advantage. I happen to believe that any society that includes diverse cultures and religions should have completely secular government in order to assure equitable treatment of all citizens. Personally, I would probably be even more appalled at any leadership that proclaimed to be guided by islamic priniciples than those claiming Christian ones - that would just be the greater of two evils.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-03-2005 10:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 06-01-2005 2:50 PM Percy has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 20 of 308 (214201)
06-04-2005 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brad
06-03-2005 11:36 AM


Re: No right response.
Brad writes:
If the right wants to give an answer as to why someone of the islamic faith should be denied office, and a christian should be granted office...that could be interesting.
You are going to have to lay a more artful trap to lure them in, Brad.
They aren't going to walk head-on into that one.
(except maybe Faith )
Faith writes:
I'm inclined to expect that Islam will eventually be calling the shots in this nation in one way or another anyway, because their aim is and always has been the subjugation of the entire world to Allah
That outlook seems, at first, a little defeatist, but also presumptive. Do we really know that Islam wants to 'subjugate the entire world' ? Or are you just transposing the goals of Christianity onto a competing ideology ? Maybe they would just leave us alone if we left them alone ? We can't really find that out now because we have been messing with them for so long over this Palestinian situation.
Faith writes:
and we have no will to stop them, having abandoned our Christian roots.
So what's really holding back our subjugation of Islam is that we don't have enough God-fearing Christians in America to oppose them ideologically?
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-04-2005 01:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brad, posted 06-03-2005 11:36 AM Brad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-04-2005 3:32 PM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 41 of 308 (214448)
06-05-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
06-05-2005 2:35 AM


Fatalism is dangerous....especially in leadership
Faith writes:
God's punishment. Definitely His will. The end of Western civilization because the West has abandoned Him.
Faith, you are starting to provide grounds for the reservations many of us have about religiously motivated leaders, and not just Christian ones either. We worry that a president who is 'born again' might possibly be just as fatalisitic as you are...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 06-05-2005 2:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 06-05-2005 7:23 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-05-2005 7:26 AM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 160 of 308 (215080)
06-07-2005 4:06 PM


How well do you know your religious extremists ?
The following series of twenty quotes are uncannily difficult to attribute to either a Christian OR a Muslim source. Think you can do it? The exercise reveals just how similar the rhetoric of both sides can be. It underlines just how much religious extremism is a major part of our problems at home and in the Middle East.
Each of these quotes is from one of the following people:
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Osama Bin Ladin
1. In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression.
2. America is polluting the whole world.
3. The government is committed to supporting God's religion, the country remains a strong bulwark for religion, and the people are among the most protective of God's religion, and the keenest to fulfill His laws.
4. One-world opinion is taking the side of the Palestinians, not the side of Israel.
5. There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.
6. The government does not cease to cry over matters affecting religion, without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the religious community.
7. We are on the brink of our destruction, and if we do not awaken now, it will be too late. We have been victimized by traitorous behavior on the part of our leaders.
8. The media strives to keep the people occupied with minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread among believers.
9. There is no way that a United Nations, treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another.
10. We have allowed rampant secularism.... We have insulted God at the highest levels of government.
11. One particular report described the gaps and the shortcoming in the philosophy of the government, the situation of the law within the country and the arbitrary declaration of what is lawful and unlawful regardless of divine law as instituted by God.
12. Priorities of spiritual work are lost while blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the government.
13. America is in imminent peril... rotting from within.
14. The American people have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. The American government is leading the country towards hell.
15. The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.
16. If America is not suffering the irrevocable judgment of God, she is dangerously close.
17. Americans have committed unprecedented stupidity. We anticipate a black future for America.
18. If the judges appointed by man will not deal with those who take innocent human life, then God is going to enter in and bring justice. And when that happens many of the innocent will suffer along with the guilty.
19. All these crimes and sins committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God.
20. A condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.
I will post the answers tomorrow.
EZ
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-07-2005 03:07 PM

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 181 of 308 (215176)
06-07-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by CanadianSteve
06-07-2005 4:43 PM


Academic bill of rights my A**
Steve writes:
an "Academic Bill of Rights." It is an entirely neutral document, meant to ensure that profs teach and not indoctrinate.
Really. And here we were apparently deceived into thinking it was a reactionary piece of crap crafted to try and stifle any expression of political opinion by the most educated sector of society. Designed also to encourage conservative students to 'rat-out' their professors if they presented any analyses that vaguely criticized the neo-con status quo. Do you not realize this Horowitz creep has actually recommended a 'vetting' process for candidate faculty members at U of CO to ensure that a better 'balance' of political convictions are represented? I am not too distant from this BS, and I can tell you, this guy thinks he is a neo-con Machiavelli. We can only hope he gets a brain tumor soon.
(edited for title) EZ
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-07-2005 09:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-07-2005 4:43 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Chiroptera, posted 06-07-2005 10:41 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 06-07-2005 10:44 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 199 by redseal, posted 06-08-2005 3:53 AM EZscience has replied
 Message 243 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-08-2005 3:39 PM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 200 of 308 (215276)
06-08-2005 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
06-07-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Faith writes:
It aims to prevent them from indoctrinating and intimidating their captive audience students with their political and religions OPINIONS when they should be teaching them the field they represent.
Not true. There is a blatantly biased political agenda here that seeks its own indoctrination.
Horowitz has pretty much stated he is on a crusade to corrrect this 'perceived liberal bias' in academia - to the point of trying to install a quota of conservative faculty in land-grant universities.
Do you really think that giving students the right to sue their professors, or encouraging them to snitch on them if they say anything that can be politically construed, is going to improve the quality of education in our universities? Professors have enough to worry about in the current system without that.
Besides. What if the field is political science. Can the professor no longer present his/her analysis of current events without worrying about some little neo-con stooge in the class going to file a complaint because he/she said something they didn't like about old Dubya? Why is freedom of speach such a threat to conservatives that they feel compelled to deny it to the most educated sector of our society?
Finally, if this was something good for higher education, don't you think more professors would actually support it? They are almost all uniformly opposed to it (This I can tell you because I am one of them, and I don't even have any teaching responsibilites, so it wouldn't affect me). Believe me, a lot of things get discussed and argued at faculty meetings without much consensus of opinion - but not in this case. But I know, I know - the vast liberal conspiracy of the academic elite...
This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-08-2005 06:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 06-07-2005 11:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 12:21 PM EZscience has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 201 of 308 (215278)
06-08-2005 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by redseal
06-08-2005 3:53 AM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
It is not sound policy and I can assure you it will never be 'enacted'. And I don't see anything wrong with that course description.
"911 was a catalyst for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the attack on civil liberties in the United States. We will examine each of these with a critical eye. The goal of this course is to arrive at a solid understanding of how 911 has shaped our political future and to promote critical analysis by students of this catastrophic event and its aftermath."
If you 'promote critical analysis', you have to look at both sides. That shouldn't prevent the professor from arguing either side they see fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by redseal, posted 06-08-2005 3:53 AM redseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2005 10:00 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 204 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2005 10:03 AM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 226 of 308 (215349)
06-08-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
06-08-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Faith writes:
Yes, the starting point is to correct the bias that has led to the preponderance of liberal professors, a preponderance which demonstrates bias in hiring and tenure
This is a total crock, as Chiroptera has clearly explained above. Do you know anything about what it takes to get a faculty position at a major university? How many educated people have to come to a consensus of opinion before you get offered a position? I interviewed for 6 or 7 different faculty positions before I got hired, and I can tell you for a fact that the process has *nothing* to do with politics. In fact, when you serve on hiring committees, you learn that any questions about political affiliations (or about religion, family status, or sexual orientation) are all strictly off limits. You are not allowed by law to ask such questions. But you would change that just to ensure that some underqualified conservatives get faculty positions they don't academically deserve? And just to correct this 'perceived bias' that has apparently evolved because the most educated individuals quickly see through the lies and hypocricies of the neo-con dogma. If there is a preponderance of liberals in academia, they got there on their own merits. So the question is not why academia is biased (it isn't), but rather why conservatives either eschew higher education for business, or are apparently failing miserably in fair and open competition for faculty spots.
Faith writes:
...keeping irrelevant political and religious topics out of the classroom
You mean like preventing ID from being labelled 'science' ?
Faith writes:
At the moment it's the conservative and religious students who are being intimidated
Intimidated? How so? Have you ever been to a university? In any debate setting, students are encouraged to take positions of their choice and defend them. That's part of the learning process. No one is ever 'intimidated' from expressing an opinion. That's crap. Good professors always welcome expression of opposing opinions because that is what is needed to stir up debate and make students think. There is no 'conspiracy of indoctrination' - the very idea is preposterous. The underlying premise of all higher education is that we teach the process of reasoning and creative thought, regardless of discipline.
Faith writes:
...direct intimidation of students by unfair grading based on their political and religious views rather than the course material itself.
I suggest if there were any basis at all to such allegations we would see some high profile law suits in progress (especially given the litigious nature of wealthy conservatives). We don't. It's simply not true.
Faith writes:
How about a whole semester's worth of anti-Dubya rants and a punitive refusal to tolerate another point of view? Yes this happens.
Two points raised. The first could be considered within the rights of a political science professor (and I, for one would empathize), but the second is something else entirely. If any professor was truly 'punitive' and 'refused to tolerate' students because of their political convictions, that would be grounds for a disciplinary hearing under policies already in place in most colleges. Again, I submit that no such allegations have yet had enough legs to warrant such a hearing. And disclipinary actions have been taken against extremist faculty who have suggested 911 was justified, or who have tried to deny the holocaust and such, so it does happen.
Faith writes:
...the power to ridicule the views of a student and grade him on his opinions instead of his knowledge of the course material? This is what is happening now.
More of the same. Where is the evidence for all these injustices? Where are all these poor, ridiculed and unfairly graded students? I suggest they don't have a case or they would have made it in court by now.
Faith writes:
...liberal refusal or inability to respect views contrary to their own.
I'm sorry. You are contradicting the very definition of the word 'liberal' here. You would have us believe you neo-cons are more respecting of views contrary to your own than we are? You people keep throwing the term 'liberal' around as if it was some kind of dirty word. You need to go back to the dictionary and read what being 'liberal' really means .
from Websters Unabridged:
liberal:
...favorable to progress or reform...
...favorable or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection..
...favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief...
...free from prejudice and bigotry; tolerant
...open-minded...
...characterized by generosity...
So I ask you, if right-wing Republicans are anti-liberal, then just what sort of 'freedom' is it that they are trying to export to the rest of the world and force down other country's throats whether they want it or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 12:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 2:27 PM EZscience has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 240 of 308 (215376)
06-08-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
06-08-2005 2:27 PM


Horowitz - a loud-mouth bigot on a rant
Faith writes:
HOROWITZ certainly knows what goes on in the hiring process whether I do or not.
No he doesn't - he's just as clueless as you are. He's never been hired at any university. He doesn't even have a Ph.D !
You can find out more about this demented bigot and his 'career'
here along with links to many exposees on his various deluded projects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 2:27 PM Faith has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 271 of 308 (215507)
06-08-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by dsv
06-08-2005 4:36 PM


Re: How things change.
No kidding.
The neo-cons are so drunk with power over their apparent success with media manipulation that they think they can cast 'liberals' as the intolerant ones. Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dsv, posted 06-08-2005 4:36 PM dsv has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 272 of 308 (215514)
06-08-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jazzns
06-08-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Right on the nose.
Couldn't have said it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 6:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 277 of 308 (215519)
06-08-2005 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by CanadianSteve
06-08-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
CS writes:
Moreover, very few students, given their age, given that some are influenced uncritically, and given their principle concern about marks, would either notice or make an issue of it (infered = political bias in the classroom) when they do.
So you are hypothesizing a problem, based on a very tenous assumption of 'student indoctrination', without producing any compelling preliminary evidence, and you expect all of us to just drop everything we're doing and divert resources to proving you wrong ? Because you claim that 'maleable' young students are ready and willing to sell out for test scores for fear of challenging the status quo !? When and where did you go to college ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-08-2005 4:57 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 11:06 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 284 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-09-2005 9:50 AM EZscience has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 279 of 308 (215521)
06-08-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Jazzns
06-08-2005 11:01 PM


Re: How things change.
Jazzns writes:
I came there for apprenticeship and to immerse myself in in a wealth of knowledge, not to validate what I already knew.
Spoken in the true spirit of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 11:01 PM Jazzns has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 288 of 308 (215621)
06-09-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by CanadianSteve
06-09-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
"The Report admonishes faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity to fairly examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own."
This seems to me very condescending to the student. As Jazzns and Chiroptera have pointed out, good students are interested in hearing professor's opinions on issues related to a course of study - that is what they are paying for. I don't think I know any university students so 'immature' and naive that they are going to de 'indoctrinated' by any professor's opinions. If they are that shallow and gullible (or lack that much 'ripeness of judgement'), they probably don't belong in university in the first place and are only there because their rich parents made them go and paid for the tuition.
"express opinions in a partisan manner on controversial issues irrelevant to the academic subject, and even grade students in a manner designed to enforce their conformity to professorial prejudices."
Inflammatory and largely unsubstantiated. This is not a problem in the university system.
"It is not an education when a mid-term examination contains a required essay on the topic, "Explain Why President Bush Is A War Criminal," (etc. etc.) "without making students aware that there are other interpretations of this history and other views that should be considered on these matters."
Give me a break. Do your really believe any student worth his/her salt would not *assume* that there are alternative interpretations and views to any of these asserted stances, and would not investigate them in order to better critique these supposed political indoctrinations? This requires legislation? This goofball Horowitz apparently thinks all university students are gullible little robots ripe for programming - and I bet he would love to be their programmer.
None of these examples constitute 'indoctrination' in a unviersity course (maybe in an elementary chool, but not a university). First, the primary lesson of higher education is critical thinking. So any extremist opinion or statement can be thrown out as a straw man for its heuristic value in an assignment. Just as I might assign an essay saying "Explain why all behavior is adaptive in the context of evolutionary thought". It isn't, and the path to the highest grade is actually via taking a stance counter to this statement instead of being sucked into it. It's the same with "Explain why Bush is a war criminal". Even though I come close to agreeing with the statement, were I faced with it as an essay, I would feel compelled to both prosecute him and defend him in order to do the assigment justice. Regardless of what I really thought, I would *have* explore both sides of the coin to get a good grade - no way around it. We just don't need little twits like Horowitz second guessing professor's assignments who have far more education than he does. He apparently has no respect for the student's ability to think for him or herself.
" When professors plaster their office doors with partisan cartoons that mock the deeply held beliefs of students on matters like abortion and party affiliation - which they regularly do - this creates a wall between faculty and students, which is injurious to the counseling process. How can a professor teach a student whom he regards as a partisan adversary? The answer is he cannot."
This is total crap. No professor is going to see a student of opposing political conviction as an adversary for that sole reason. I suggest that what Horowtiz wants is to simply prevent professors from expressing any political opinion because their views are respected by students, and most currently oppose the dogma he would promote. So this creep want's to stop us from putting political cartoons on our doors? He can get lost. We have as much right to express our views and ideas as any other citizen. Students of that age can make up their own minds - and most already have by the time they get to university.
The only part of this I can agree with (in pronicple) is that teachers "should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." However, the whole 'relation' issue could potentially be tenous to define. For example, say I give a lecture in grant writing, about how to get research projects funded through various government sources. I might find myself expressing some opinions on how corrupt I think the whole process can be, and how the current administration has no appreciation for what science should and should not be funded, but I see recognition of problems with the system as integral to understanding how to play the game successfully. I don't want to have to look over my shoulder for some little fascist puke like Horowtiz running after me with a law suit for discussing political opinions in a science class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-09-2005 9:50 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 12:03 PM EZscience has not replied
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2005 12:24 PM EZscience has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 296 of 308 (215636)
06-09-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by jar
06-09-2005 12:06 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
jar writes:
Any educator that does not challenge EVERY belief that a student holds is not doing his or her job.
Exactly right. And every student that does not challenge and critique everything they hear or read while at university is not doing their job either. Horowitz's whole enterprise here is based on the specious assumption that university students are easily 'indoctrinated' and need legal protection from the mean old professors with a political agenda. Well its obvious that he is the one with the political agenda and the students should be just as offended by it as the professors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by jar, posted 06-09-2005 12:06 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 12:50 PM EZscience has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024