If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs. Student complains the college. College does A) apologize, B) Bring the Professor before a committee, or C) Suspend the student and go into denial mode   (townhall.com) divider line 478
    More: Asinine, jesus, Florida Atlantic University, Paul Kengor, colleges, students, Delaware Democratic Party, professors, Ryan Rotela  
•       •       •

18549 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-24 02:35:20 PM

J. Frank Parnell: TheBigJerk: Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."

But it's a shiatty experiment.

As i already tried to illustrate amid the rolling sea of derp here, people would not take part in such a thing if it involved anything they care about. Another example is If you put a sports team name on a piece of paper and told a fan of that team to stomp on it. They would also refuse to do so. It has nothing to do with religion.


Neither does the experiment.

Which means...you assumed it did, which means you're jumping to the conclusion that everyone here is anti-theist (also not true) as well as the point of the class (also not true) and you're further pressing the matter by assuming anyone who rightfully dismisses your nonsense as "being too stupid to get it" when you, in fact, are the one who doesn't get it.

At least, probably.  It's also possible you are a ginormous troll, or something else along those lines.
 
2013-03-24 02:35:51 PM

Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.


/Also, it's doubtful that Christians would become enraged enough to storm the university and kill everyone there, and burn down the buildings, in a fit of an orgasmic full retard fundie orgy.
 
2013-03-24 02:37:53 PM

Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.


Wrong. THAT would have been a hate crime.
 
2013-03-24 02:38:32 PM

milsorgen: FloydA: "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all.  The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about  why they didn't want to step on the paper.  Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

The only thing ham-handed here is the mental gymnastics you must go through to take issue with anything the Prof. did.



Did you mean the "collective you" here?  Because if you meant the specific, then I think you may have misunderstood my point.

(Although I do think that the prof might have been able to handle the disruptive student better.  I've had students start to throw a wobbler over topics that come up in my class, and I've usually managed to diffuse it in no more than a few sentences.  The fact that this event made the news at all tells me that the prof probably could have handled the student more adroitly.)
 
2013-03-24 02:40:48 PM
Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.
 
2013-03-24 02:42:42 PM
I suppose the exercise could also have been done about as effectively with asking students to set small paper United States flags on fire.
However, the conservatives would probably be even more outraged, and the fire marshal might not be keep on college students playing with matches indoors.
 
2013-03-24 02:43:11 PM
lol Mormon isn't a real religion. This kid is a pussy.
 
2013-03-24 02:43:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: The follow up to this story is even more upsetting:

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_6090.shtml

The attention whores have won.


I see in that followup, they conveniently leave out the point of the exercise, making it appear the professor ordered the student to commit blasphemy, then kicked him out when he didn't comply. And an apology? Sheesh.
 
2013-03-24 02:44:34 PM

abb3w: However, the conservatives would probably be even more outraged, and the fire marshal might not be keep

keen on college students playing with matches indoors.

FTFM.
 
2013-03-24 02:50:15 PM

Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss

Because "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.

Understand now?



No.

Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.

Thanks for your help.
 
2013-03-24 02:50:20 PM
FTA: Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, was in the classroom and refused to participate - telling television station WPEC that the assignment was insulting and offensive.
"He had us all stand up and he said 'Stomp on it,'" Rotela said. "I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table. I'm not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated."


You know... that piece of paper probably got thrown away. It's sitting in a trash heap right now.
 
2013-03-24 02:51:24 PM

LtDarkstar: Igor Jakovsky: LtDarkstar: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Dinki: Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs.

Does Mormonism have a tenet that you can't step on the name of Jesus?

Probably just the opposite. The Bible warns about idolatry and the worship of graven images. He should have stomped that piece of paper good to prove his faith.

I've always liked that Christians pray every week to a God who condemned them for false idols while being surrounded by false idols.

Being surrounded by them is one thing, worshiping them is another.  Most Christians do not worship false idols. The only ones I know of that actually DO are Catholics.  Of course i've seen unsaved Catholics before so being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean they are Christian.

Saying that you take the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior isn't going to get you into heaven either.

Obviously you haven't read the Bible have you?


Front to back, no. I am familiar with the verse that supposedly gets anyone in, I believe it is in Matthew. Im not a Bible literalist though. Also, which bible? KJV, New American?

/revelations was interesting.
 
2013-03-24 02:51:40 PM

LtDarkstar: Igor Jakovsky: LtDarkstar: GAT_00: St_Francis_P: Dinki: Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs.

Does Mormonism have a tenet that you can't step on the name of Jesus?

Probably just the opposite. The Bible warns about idolatry and the worship of graven images. He should have stomped that piece of paper good to prove his faith.

I've always liked that Christians pray every week to a God who condemned them for false idols while being surrounded by false idols.

Being surrounded by them is one thing, worshiping them is another.  Most Christians do not worship false idols. The only ones I know of that actually DO are Catholics.  Of course i've seen unsaved Catholics before so being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean they are Christian.

Saying that you take the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior isn't going to get you into heaven either.

Obviously you haven't read the Bible have you?


Man this is like jumping back in time.  This is a cyclical argument I haven't seen in YEARS.

The catholic excuse for why they're "stinking mary-worshippers" (to quote Betty Bowers) is interesting.  The idea is that if you pray REALLY hard god will change his ineffable, perfect, and all-encompassing divine plan for fate and reality to fit your wishes (AFAIK all Christian sects believe this and it's pretty direct in the bible).  Most sects take it a step further by saying you can pray on someone else' behalf, like "I'll pray for your heart surgery to go all right".  The RCC ALSO believes that the dead can continue to pray, while in heaven, and so if you pray to Saint Mary or Jesus they can, in turn, pray to god for whatever mortal bullshiat you want.

Kind of just exactly like spamming your contact list with a chain letter about "Jesus 4 lyfe" and "plz don8 to wurthy cauz!"

In my opinion the saddest is Islam because of the terrible irony.  Mohammed said, "chisel my farking face out of those bas-reliefs you're making and don't depict me anywhere, because I am NOT to be worshipped as an idol like Jesus was."  And now if you profane Holy And Blessed Mohammed (don't forget the PBUH ritual) by depicting him you're desecrating their idol; which is also weird because it Isn't an idol, but when you make it it both becomes an idol and is desecrated as some sort of Quantum Mechanics weirdness.

It's either sad, or farkin' hilarious.  Imma go with both.
 
2013-03-24 02:52:33 PM

RickN99: houstondragon: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Most major wars and a great deal of historical murdering sprees tend to come from arguing over who has the coolest sky wizard.

Or by not showing the appropriate level of fanaticism towards said sky wizard when confronted.

/See: Crusades
//Or: Inquisition
///Or: Romans vs Christians
////Or: Dark Ages
//Etc etc etc

All dwarfed by the murdering sprees of those arguing that no sky wizard exists.

/See:  Stalin
//Or Mao
///Etc, etc, etc


Goddammit, for the last time, communist leaders opposed churches because they were a threat to their power. If you think a guy who spent time in an Orthodox seminary would subordinate his goal of "subjugation of Russia" to the cause of "God is a meanie and stupid people who believe in him must be punished," you should fark off and get some perspective.

I know I bit the hook. Still, fark that guy.
 
2013-03-24 02:53:14 PM

GilRuiz1: For those that don't get what the fuss is about, let me show you an example from your side of the fence.

Artist Martin Rowson drew this illustration for a story on the New Atheism for New Humanist magazine:

[i224.photobucket.com image 450x483]

Everyone involved - the writer, the artist, and the magazine - were atheists.  Nonetheless, "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE" followed from the godless ranks (link).

Can understand why that happened?  Do you grasp why people got bothered?  It's the same principle.


People are thin-skinned crybabies?

I know, it's quite sad really.
 
2013-03-24 02:53:55 PM

Amos Quito: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss

Because "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.

Understand now?


No.

Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.

Thanks for your help.


I'm pretty sure crime is a necessary part of a hate crime.
 
2013-03-24 02:54:29 PM

buckler: Mrtraveler01: The follow up to this story is even more upsetting:

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_6090.shtml

The attention whores have won.

I see in that followup, they conveniently leave out the point of the exercise, making it appear the professor ordered the student to commit blasphemy, then kicked him out when he didn't comply. And an apology? Sheesh.


Yep, I'm never taking CBS 12 seriously after this pathetic excuse for journalism.
 
2013-03-24 02:55:18 PM

eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.


Because it makes people really, really uncomfortable.  Imagine someone came up to you and pushed a button that briefly revealed to you that your entire existence has been a hologram, and none of the people in your life, none of the physical laws of the universe, and nothing that happened to you is real.  When presented with damning evidence that everything you've believed up until now is a lie, most people can't handle it.  They would rather spend their energy kicking and screaming and hiding from it so that they can continue with their life like they always have.  They've invested so much in this life that they can't bear to not see a return on it.  So they will deny, deny, deny, and don't you DARE show them anything that might remind them of reality.  Because reality hurts.  A lot.  And people just want you to be gentle with them and not subject them to it.
 
2013-03-24 02:55:57 PM

GilRuiz1: |Do you grasp why people got bothered?


Do you? I think you've misunderstood why people were angry about it. Hint: it's not because it's mocking atheists.

GilRuiz1: |It's the same principle.


Not really; you're just an idiot.
 
2013-03-24 02:56:24 PM
Misleading headline is midleading. From what it sounds like, it was just an exercise, and he wasn't even required to "defile Jesus" by stepping on a piece of paper. He could've had a great paper explaining why he refused to step on it. But noooo, instead of writing the paper, he went and biatched at the school, crying about wah wah people doing stuff I don't like that doesn't actually affect me in any way religious persecution. Expel the kid for being a whiner, we have enough of those already.
 
2013-03-24 02:57:29 PM

Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.


If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.
 
2013-03-24 02:57:37 PM
I took out a piece of paper and wrote the name 'Jesus Montero' and was okay with it.


/It's pronounced "Hey Zeus"
 
2013-03-24 02:58:23 PM

Weaver95: one of the things that struck me about Limbaugh's ranting on this story was how desperate he seemed to make it into a big deal.  Its like he NEEDED this to be a massive conspiracy and/or assault on the whole of Christianity.  to me it sounded like an attempt by a professor to get students out of their comfort zones and looking at the world from a different perspective.  that is difficult to do, and some delicate snowflakes aren't going to like it very much.  my read on this college course was that the professor could have done a better job explaining his motives after the fact...but also that the student who complained is/was a delicate flower looking to be offended in the first place.


This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. He's a con artist rebel rouser disguised as an "entertainer" who proclaims that no one should take him seriously as he implores people to declare war on the government and everyone who isn't Republican. Hatred, discord, misinformation, and lies are his food and drink. The man spend several months slandering and attacking a woman speaking about her lesbian friend's ovarian cysts that nearly killed her because her college refused to allow her the birth control medicine that kept them in check as a super-prostitute demanding tax money to buy condoms for her slutty lifestyle. He doesn't have any class or tact, if it's something he can turn into a weapon against those he views as enemies then he'll happily turn it into a weapon and start swinging indiscriminately.
 
2013-03-24 02:59:25 PM

Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.


True enough. But it does make the assumption that everyone in the class is Christian, which in this day and age is an idiotic assumption.

A better way to have conducted the exercise would have been to ask the class to write the name of the deity or object they worship or hold in the highest regard (for atheists  this may be science or books or what have you) on the paper--far more inclusive of all races and cultures and far more relevant in today's society, even in the United States--and then ask them to put the paper on the ground and stomp on it. THEN see how many students refused to do so. I wonder, if the exercise had been conducted in a less Westernized manner that was more inclusive, how many students would have refused to stomp the page because it had "Allah," "Muhammad," "Buddha," "Kali," or something other than "Jesus" written on it...

Understand that I am not one of the crybaby Christians that whines "my faith is under attack!" just because someone says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because I understand that I am not the center of the universe and there are several other faiths with holidays and feasts going on around the same time as Christmas, nor do I give even .00000000000000001 of a shiat who you fark--that's your business not mine, and it's not my place to judge or condemn anyone for anything, but the point was made in the article and it does have some merit: it's perfectly okay to denigrate Christians and Christianity, but utterly racist and "baiting" to do it to any other faith. Live and let live people.
 
2013-03-24 03:00:39 PM

SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.


It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.
 
2013-03-24 03:04:22 PM
Did anyone see the headline, and that in is from Klownhall, and not know exactly what kind of horseshiat it would be?
 
2013-03-24 03:07:53 PM

RickN99: houstondragon: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Most major wars and a great deal of historical murdering sprees tend to come from arguing over who has the coolest sky wizard.

Or by not showing the appropriate level of fanaticism towards said sky wizard when confronted.

/See: Crusades
//Or: Inquisition
///Or: Romans vs Christians
////Or: Dark Ages
//Etc etc etc

All dwarfed by the murdering sprees of those arguing that no sky wizard exists.

/See:  Stalin
//Or Mao
///Etc, etc, etc


What you and those like you fail to realize or conveniently ignore is that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc did NOT conduct what they did in the name of atheism, Darwin, natural selection, evolution, etc. They did not commit atrocities because they were told by the Legged Fish to wipe out the infidels. They did not oppress and rule with iron fists because they honored the spirit of the great Charles Darwin. They did what they did because they were assholes who craved power, control, and to eliminate those they say as enemies or undesirables. So, as you can see, that comparison falls flat.
 
2013-03-24 03:10:51 PM
Another Drama major, I'm guessing?
 
2013-03-24 03:10:53 PM

RickN99: All dwarfed by the murdering sprees of those arguing that no sky wizard exists.

/See:  Stalin
//Or Mao
///Etc, etc, etc


Actually if you adjust for population and duration?  All the major historical massacres are about equal.  If you further adjust for improvements in technology (gas and guns beats sword) and increases in population density (meaning you have to cover less ground to get to your victims) religious ones win.

Or at least I think they do, I admit it's been years since I half-assedly ran the numbers.

Still, I try to soft-hand religion, blaming modern christianity for the Crusades is as stupid as believing that a "man of the cloth" is inherently more trustworthy, honest, or good.  And while it is true that religion allows you to change certain variables, (like promising a worthwhile payoff for performing a suicide mission) the dynamics of power and control and personal manipulation are essentially the same.

Which is also why the war on terror is a law enforcement issue rather than a military one.  Sure the hired muscle is sometimes working for SPIRITUAL currency instead of real cash (even then, most of the Iraqi insurgents were just former Ba'ath party who had families to feed) and you've got "honor" instead of "respect" or other pointless name changes but at the end of the day it's a big dog and his wolf-pack running a criminal empire underneath the (at least semi) legitimate government.

But that's another discussion, for another time.
 
2013-03-24 03:10:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Weaver95: one of the things that struck me about Limbaugh's ranting on this story was how desperate he seemed to make it into a big deal.  Its like he NEEDED this to be a massive conspiracy and/or assault on the whole of Christianity.  to me it sounded like an attempt by a professor to get students out of their comfort zones and looking at the world from a different perspective.  that is difficult to do, and some delicate snowflakes aren't going to like it very much.  my read on this college course was that the professor could have done a better job explaining his motives after the fact...but also that the student who complained is/was a delicate flower looking to be offended in the first place.

This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. He's a con artist rebel rouser disguised as an "entertainer" who proclaims that no one should take him seriously as he implores people to declare war on the government and everyone who isn't Republican. Hatred, discord, misinformation, and lies are his food and drink. The man spend several months slandering and attacking a woman speaking about her lesbian friend's ovarian cysts that nearly killed her because her college refused to allow her the birth control medicine that kept them in check as a super-prostitute demanding tax money to buy condoms for her slutty lifestyle. He doesn't have any class or tact, if it's something he can turn into a weapon against those he views as enemies then he'll happily turn it into a weapon and start swinging indiscriminately.


rabble rouser.  not rebel rouser.
 
2013-03-24 03:10:55 PM
Ha, ha, everyone who did it is now going to hell.

/dumbasses
 
2013-03-24 03:11:18 PM

Epicedion: Amos Quito: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss

Because "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.

Understand now?


No.

Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.

Thanks for your help.

I'm pretty sure crime is a necessary part of a hate crime.


a.espncdn.com
 
2013-03-24 03:11:41 PM

FloydA: Igor Jakovsky: FloydA: Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.

So you didn't understand the point of the exercise either?

The point of the exercise was to evoke a discussion about culture and symbolism. A picture of Mohammed certainly fits. How does this exercise work with non-christians though? the professor should have had the students write any word that held meaning to them and step on that.


He did.  As I mentioned in several of my posts, the symbol of Jesus has cultural significance in the US even to non-Christians.  Muslim students would refrain from stepping on Jesus' name, because Jesus is revered in Islam as one of the major prophets.  Atheists (including me) would hesitate to step on the name of Jesus because we're generally polite (or if not, we know we're outnumbered and are smart enough to avoid getting our asses kicked over some stupid assignment).

By contrast, many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed.  In fact some, raised on anti-Muslim propaganda, would take pleasure in doing so.

And the exercise would not teach the same lesson if "everyone gets to choose their own word," because it would make the issue a purely psychological one, rather than a sociological or anthropological one.  The lesson was intended to emphasize the role of symbols in society, not just in the mind of each individual.  If everyone picked their own word, the prof could not have emphasized the lesson about the widespread influence of a given symbol across a diverse array of individual differences.  Each student knows why s/he hesitated, but each student could potentially learn something from hearing why  other students hesitated.

The "pick your own favorite thing" strategy would defeat the purpose.

 (Drawing a picture of Mohammed actually would violate some students' religious beliefs, so that's a non-starter.)


I see your point but disagree with the assertion that many American Christians would not hesitate to step on the name Mohammed.  As you said, drawing Mohammed would violate some students religious beliefs.  Stomping on the name Jesus would also violate some students religious beliefs as well.  Apparently it offended the kid in the article.  That said, was the kid actually suspended from class or not?  If he wasn't then he needs to stop with the AWing
 
2013-03-24 03:11:58 PM
Mr. Rotela needs to remove himself from the University. Clearly he would be more at home at an institution that removes pesky questions of life outside his box...perhaps one of the many Baptist universities.

/Sometimes all you religtards really get on my nerves.
 
2013-03-24 03:13:21 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-03-24 03:14:18 PM

raerae1980: ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

 Id have no problem stomping on it.  Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.


I was raised Catholic, I'm probably closer to agnostic at this point, but I respect other's rights to believe in what ever they want to. In the US, we have that luxury. Do I think that someone like Jesus lived at one time? Probably. A very nice guy, who helped whoever he could, told great stories to make people understand what he was trying to put across, and helped to resolve conflicts. Was he punished for doing  these things? Knowing what we do now, I think someone was. Virgin birth and resurrection? Highly doubtful.

All major religions boil down to one major tenant. Be nice to each other. That's it. The stories and fables and songs and all that other stuff just comes down to that. And I'm OK with that, but people get caught up in the minutia of specific words used to try to illustrate a point of "Be nice to each other" that's been translated over a couple of millenia into whatever local language is needed.

While I am not into your religion, unless you are affecting my life, you go right on ahead. I'll do my best not to step on your signs out of respect for you as a human.
 
2013-03-24 03:14:29 PM

Gabrielmot: FloydA: "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all.  The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about  why they didn't want to step on the paper.  Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt  they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

-Not worthy of attention.


You mean how the people in authority in schools aren't allowed to lead prayers because that violates separation of church and state as it would be putting one religion over the rest? Yeah, that's just so horrible and stomping on you poor Christians. You'd also throw a hissy fit if other religions had their prayers led by those in authority in schools, so this solution is best for everyone.

For a group that dominates the religious culture in America, Christians sure do whine loud and long about how oppressed and attacked they are when they're not allowed to extend their domination to non-religious areas.
 
2013-03-24 03:16:21 PM

Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.


The exercise assumed that some students would refuse to step on the paper.  According to the article, the professor is supposed to "Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."  This student told the professor why he refused to step on the paper.  That means that he was participating in the exercise in exactly the way it was intended.  The professor should have told him that his anger was justified and that the point of the exercise was to evoke anger to dramatize the importance of symbols in culture.
 
2013-03-24 03:16:47 PM

Igor Jakovsky: As you said, drawing Mohammed would violate some students religious beliefs. Stomping on the name Jesus would also violate some students religious beliefs as well.


No, because when he says "violate religious beliefs", he means it literally in the case of Muslims - i.e., it would go against actual codified religious tenets, rather than merely making the person feel bad for reasons vaguely related to their religion.
 
2013-03-24 03:18:12 PM
The same outraged townhallers would stomp on someone named Jesus if he was brown and couldn't produce a birth certificate in English.
 
2013-03-24 03:18:49 PM

Gabrielmot: FloydA:.As a Baptist


That's all I needed to completely disregard any point you might have had.
 
2013-03-24 03:20:09 PM

SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.


Doesn't sound like it was a graded event.
 
2013-03-24 03:20:36 PM
Igor Jakovsky:
I see your point but disagree with the assertion that many American Christians would not hesitate to step on the name Mohammed.  As you said, drawing Mohammed would violate some students religious beliefs.  Stomping on the name Jesus would also violate some students religious beliefs as well.  Apparently it offended the kid in the article.  That said, was the kid actually suspended from class or not?  If he wasn't then he needs to stop with the AWing


The student apparently was not suspended.

And I have no question that many Christian students would take pleasure in stepping on the name Mohammed.  Many of my neighbors are Muslim, and I've seen the way that they get treated by "good, patriotic, Christian Americans."  It's not pretty.   I agree that the majority probably wouldn't, but enough might that it would be a bad idea to do that exercise in a classroom.
 
2013-03-24 03:20:55 PM
This is college people. I had one professor take me through proofs of God's existence. I had another play me video of a Pope's funeral while giving running commentary about how silly the whole thing was. Another assignment was to do an ancient Chinese divination ritual. You go there to be challenged by new ideas from a variety of people. If you are silly enough to complain because you got the opportunity to learn something new, you should be kicked out and blacklisted from any educational institution. You're obviously unteachable.

Now if a teacher had try to do this at a high school, he would have been burned at the steak and no one would have said "boo". That's the difference between highschool and college: In highschool you learn the officially approved truth- in college you get to learn controversial ideas.
 
2013-03-24 03:22:02 PM

cybrwzrd: I have no problem with what the professor asked the students to do. But then again, I am of the belief that ~95% of the worlds problems would go away if religion ceased to exist tomorrow. People need to have their beliefs questioned and insulted - otherwise how will they ever open their minds to new ways of thinking.


Atheists advise that we don't need religion to act morally. There is another side of that coin.

Ultimately, people are what's wrong with religion, including atheism.
 
2013-03-24 03:22:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: RickN99: houstondragon: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Most major wars and a great deal of historical murdering sprees tend to come from arguing over who has the coolest sky wizard.

Or by not showing the appropriate level of fanaticism towards said sky wizard when confronted.

/See: Crusades
//Or: Inquisition
///Or: Romans vs Christians
////Or: Dark Ages
//Etc etc etc

All dwarfed by the murdering sprees of those arguing that no sky wizard exists.

/See:  Stalin
//Or Mao
///Etc, etc, etc

What you and those like you fail to realize or conveniently ignore is that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc did NOT conduct what they did in the name of atheism, Darwin, natural selection, evolution, etc. They did not commit atrocities because they were told by the Legged Fish to wipe out the infidels. They did not oppress and rule with iron fists because they honored the spirit of the great Charles Darwin. They did what they did because they were assholes who craved power, control, and to eliminate those they say as enemies or undesirables. So, as you can see, that comparison falls flat.


The dressings and trappings were, "destroy the enemy of the  faithstate for being a witchagent of The Enemy™ and trying to defile god's kingdomstop The Revolution™."

The parallels are easy, citizens deemed in need of purging (be they too old, too "inferior", or too "born in Ukraine") would be worked to death, while those with inadequate faith would be turned into public entertainment (witch burnings were rather festive occasions).  If anything the soviet method made more (cold-blooded and horrible) sense, since instead of wasting resources with a slow, tortuous execution you GET resources by burning the person out with hard forced labor.   Of course a more efficient evil is still just evil.
 
2013-03-24 03:23:35 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.

The exercise assumed that some students would refuse to step on the paper.  According to the article, the professor is supposed to "Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."  This student told the professor why he refused to step on the paper.  That means that he was participating in the exercise in exactly the way it was intended.  The professor should have told him that his anger was justified and that the point of the exercise was to evoke anger to dramatize the importance of symbols in culture.


Given that was the explicit purpose of the exercise, this line of explanation was most likely what was presented during the class. Why the student took away a different message is a good question.
 
2013-03-24 03:25:29 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.

The exercise assumed that some students would refuse to step on the paper.  According to the article, the professor is supposed to "Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."  This student told the professor why he refused to step on the paper.  That means that he was participating in the exercise in exactly the way it was intended.  The professor should have told him that his anger was justified and that the point of the exercise was to evoke anger to dramatize the importance of symbols in culture.


"According to a biased conservative Christian website", you mean. Which is really lacking in the details of what exactly happened and makes assumptions that the poor boy was picked on and thrown out because of the big meanie-heads. Perhaps we should wait until ALL of the information becomes available before we start crucifying people, hm?
 
2013-03-24 03:26:25 PM
If Jesus were alive today and had to pick a religion: he'd pick Bahá'í.

/Most Christians have as much in common with Jesus as do crawdads with Wilt Chamberlain.
//Just sayin'.
 
2013-03-24 03:26:27 PM

SkinnyHead: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.

The exercise assumed that some students would refuse to step on the paper.  According to the article, the professor is supposed to "Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."  This student told the professor why he refused to step on the paper.  That means that he was participating in the exercise in exactly the way it was intended.  The professor should have told him that his anger was justified and that the point of the exercise was to evoke anger to dramatize the importance of symbols in culture.


That was both logical, rational and relevant to the discussion at hand.

who are you and how long ago did you kill Skinnyhead?
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report