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 477
    More: Asinine, jesus, Florida Atlantic University, Paul Kengor, colleges, students, Delaware Democratic Party, professors, Ryan Rotela  
•       •       •

18552 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»



477 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 03:29:37 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: 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?


Well according to the school, they didn't even suspend him.

So that alone should show us how credible the rest of this "story" really is.

I guess telling the truth on what actually happened doesn't make for a juicy story.
 
2013-03-24 03:32:43 PM  
Symbolism is way more important than the actual teachings of religions these days.
 
2013-03-24 03:33:49 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's one thing to have to do physical acts, like go to school.  And to be required to absorb knowledge, even of stuff you don't believe in. Yes Timmi we know you don't believe in evolution, but you still have to learn it.

But it's a violation though to force people to engage in symbolic acts.
 
2013-03-24 03:34:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Keizer_Ghidorah: 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?

Well according to the school, they didn't even suspend him.

So that alone should show us how credible the rest of this "story" really is.

I guess telling the truth on what actually happened doesn't make for a juicy story.


That's how it is these days, sadly. Especially when you can use it to attack your political opponents.
 
2013-03-24 03:38:51 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: 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.


If the student took away a different message, then the professor failed.  When you conduct an exercise that is deliberately designed to offend people, you got to be prepared to deal with offended people and you have to make sure that they understand the point of the exercise.
 
2013-03-24 03:42:59 PM  
I'm reading this while taking a dump and I realized there is both a sharpie and toilet paper within reach
 
2013-03-24 03:44:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

If the student took away a different message, then the professor failed.  When you conduct an exercise that is deliberately designed to offend people, you got to be prepared to deal with offended people and you have to make sure that they understand the point of the exercise.


Whole lot of assuming you got going on here. Critical thinking /= deliberately offending. The kid was the one who decided it was an attack on him and his beliefs.
 
2013-03-24 03:46:41 PM  

TheBigJerk: Igor Jakovsky: I see your point but disagree with the assertion that many American Christians would not hesitate to step on the name Mohammed...That said, was the kid actually suspended from class or not?

One, where do you live?  I live in Red State Land and I can assure you most college Christians I met would HAPPILY take a dump on the name Mohammed.  They'd find it hilarious, hell I think that was every Friday night in the KA Frat house until they got bored with it.

Two, signs point to no.  All that happened was he was kicked out of the classroom, AFTER class was over, and reading between the lines it was because he was throwing a tantrum.


I live about an hour north of FAU where this took place.  Actually, I think most college Christians I've met would not take a dump on Mohammed.  You may have a point about the KA's though. I went to some of their parties and they still had pictures of the newly minted brothers clad in Confederate grey.  Would they sincerely be happy to crap on Mohammed or would it have been frat type hijinks?  Not sure.

Yeah, if he didnt get suspended he needs to STFU.

/The KA's did have some great parties.
 
2013-03-24 03:50:26 PM  

Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss


Because it wasn't a crime.
 
2013-03-24 03:53:05 PM  

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

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


Generally, as IAmNotALawyer understand.

Virginia § 52-8.5 C:
For purposes of this section, "hate crime" means (i) a criminal act committed against a person or his property with the specific intent of instilling fear or intimidation in the individual against whom the act is perpetrated because of race, religion or ethnic origin or that is committed for the purpose of restraining that person from exercising his rights under the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, (ii) any illegal act directed against any persons or their property because of those persons' race, religion or national origin, and (iii) all other incidents, as determined by law-enforcement authorities, intended to intimidate or harass any individual or group because of race, religion or national origin.
Not all forms of intimidation and harrassment are criminal, however; some are mere grounds to civil action. This section is about an administrative reporting category, rather than criminal per se.

Class iii are tricky, because intent (mens rea) is an element. Still, it requires either a crime, OR harmful intent. Since the intent of the exercise was educational, rather that intent to harm, it would fall outside the administrative category. Similarly, teachers can do things to their students in class for educational purposes that, were they doing it for research, would be impossible to get IRB approval for under human subjects guidelines.

The exact law varies from state to state; however, I am unaware of any state that allows prosecution of something as a "hate crime" that would not be prosecutable (with lesser penalties) otherwise. There's also federal 18 USC § 249, all offenses of which would themselves be criminal (though not otherwise federal offenses).

SkinnyHead: The professor should have told him that his anger was justified


Or more precisely, expected, normal, and the sort reaction that the exercise was intended to provoke thinking about. Whether it was "justified" is an "ought" question....
 
2013-03-24 03:53:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: Damnhippyfreak: 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.

If the student took away a different message, then the professor failed.  When you conduct an exercise that is deliberately designed to offend people, you got to be prepared to deal with offended people and you have to make sure that they understand the point of the exercise.


I don't think the exercise was necessarily designed to offend people, but instead to get them to think critically and rationally bout their own reaction instead of just focusing on experiencing it phenomenologically. However, professors in general should be prepared to deal with offended people or other friction with students on general principle. That being said, one can only minimize the chances of someone being offended, and not completely eliminate the possibility of such happening. That someone got offended does not necessarily constitute a failure of the professor. Students fail to learn the intended point on a regular basis.
 
2013-03-24 04:00:36 PM  

s2s2s2: 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.


What is the other side of the coin? That we can't act morally without religion? Religion tends to demand people do morally reprehensible things. I think we humans can't be moral with religion.

There is nothing immoral about offending a person's belief system. That is the fundamental reason freedom of speech and expression exists. The immoral thing is for the offended not sit back and think about why it offended them.
 
2013-03-24 04:01:41 PM  

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.


Take your rational ideas elsewhere. Now is the time for intolerance.
 
2013-03-24 04:02:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Well according to the school, they didn't even suspend him.


It's a "constructive" suspension.  Teacher wouldn't apologize, making it impossible for student to return.

You never heard of "constructive" job termination?
 
2013-03-24 04:05:33 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


So, evil people will co-opt any message that will give them power. Religious or atheistic, as long as it gets them power, evil people will misuse it. Ok.
 
2013-03-24 04:12:06 PM  
So none were forced to do it. They were asked if they wanted to participate. And if you choose no, no big deal.
But this one whiney snot-nosed baby, momma bussomed coddled, always needing someone to protect him from bad people and no doubt a liberal.
Decides to get all AW about it and an entire university has to get down on its knees and say were sorry?
What a bunch of BS!
 
2013-03-24 04:12:21 PM  
Link

One of the best moments in television history. In one of the most famous churches in the world, cursing God in latin. Raised the hairs on the back of my neck, and one of the most memorable episodes in this fine series. Stomping on a picture of "Jesus" wouldn't be anything compared to this.

/claps for Bartlett.
 
2013-03-24 04:14:30 PM  

cybrwzrd: s2s2s2: 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.

What is the other side of the coin?


That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.
 
2013-03-24 04:19:05 PM  

8Fingers: So none were forced to do it. They were asked if they wanted to participate. And if you choose no, no big deal.
But this one whiney snot-nosed baby, momma bussomed coddled, always needing someone to protect him from bad people and no doubt a liberal.
Decides to get all AW about it and an entire university has to get down on its knees and say were sorry?
What a bunch of BS!


Remember, though, perception of persecution is an integral part of Christian faith these days. How could he feel properly persecuted if he didn't manufacture a situation in which he could feel persecuted?

We will, as a species, get past religion some day. I look forward to it.
 
2013-03-24 04:20:52 PM  

s2s2s2: That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.


There's no way you typed that with a straight face.
 
2013-03-24 04:21:41 PM  

8Fingers: So none were forced to do it. They were asked if they wanted to participate. And if you choose no, no big deal.
But this one whiney snot-nosed baby, momma bussomed coddled, always needing someone to protect him from bad people and no doubt a liberal.
Decides to get all AW about it and an entire university has to get down on its knees and say were sorry?
What a bunch of BS!


LOLWUT?
 
2013-03-24 04:23:55 PM  

Biological Ali: s2s2s2: That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.

There's no way you typed that with a straight face.


What would be different?
 
2013-03-24 04:29:23 PM  
Yes, if we all went atheist allot of the worlds problems would cease to exist. But as long as people have the fear of death, and what is there, or not, after life, there will always be people spouting made up derp to control them, and get their money. From the highest money grabbing church, to the lowest, it's about power, control, money, and fear. I totally respect your desire to live in some Valhalla or Elysium after your soul has shed its mortal coil or whatever, and your belief that you will go to some roads paved with gold or whatever your belief tells you. But the sad fact is, ALL religious texts were written by man, to control man, and gain power, cash, and political control of the masses. I'm not saying there ISN'T a God, and I'm not saying there is. I don't know for a cold hard fact there is or is not. Neither do you, or your neighbor, or the Pope. You choose to BELIEVE, in something that someone told you from a book..written by men. If this makes you sleep better at night thinking you're going to heaven then great for you. i have nothing against you at all. Everyone is free to worship whatever they choose. I choose to believe in what i can see. And if that gets me to hell..if there is such a place, well, frankly it sounds more fun than heaven. What with the succubus and all.
 
2013-03-24 04:29:50 PM  

s2s2s2: Biological Ali: s2s2s2: That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.

There's no way you typed that with a straight face.

What would be different?


We wouldn't be having threads about these stupid subjects, for one.
 
2013-03-24 04:32:18 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-24 04:32:22 PM  

the lord god: 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.

Take your rational ideas elsewhere. Now is the time for intolerance.


No kidding. The older I get the more I truly believe that now is the time for decent folks to stop being quiet. We let the damn extremists run things, and then we wonder what happened. I don't care if you believe or not, live a good life and speak up against jerks when they come along.
 
2013-03-24 04:32:50 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Yes, if we all went atheist allot of the worlds problems would cease to exist.


Like what?

No more murder? No more rape? No more violence?

What, aside from not dealing with questions about the afterlife, would be different?

Would we not argue about what is and isn't acceptable?
 
2013-03-24 04:33:11 PM  
Sounds like one of those rabid over-the-top atheists wound up teaching a class.  As an atheist, if I were in that class, I would have felt compelled to report her as well.  In the same way professors of faith can't preach, from the lectern, neither should rabid atheists be able to.
 
2013-03-24 04:33:45 PM  
s2s2s2:
That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.

So you think the world is a better place because of religion in spite of the evil that religion causes?
 
2013-03-24 04:33:46 PM  

Kyosuke: We wouldn't be having threads about these stupid subjects, for one.


Did a professor ask you to be in this thread? ALERT THE MEDIA!
 
2013-03-24 04:34:57 PM  

Biological Ali: s2s2s2: That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.

There's no way you typed that with a straight face.


You've never really read a history book. Every culture, every religion or lack thereof... they all pretty much are the same as us. Sure the details are different, the Greeks drank wine from bowls, but the broad strokes are the same, they liked to get drunk and party.

Changing the religion to atheism isn't going to change that.
 
2013-03-24 04:35:28 PM  

cybrwzrd: So you think the world is a better place because of religion in spite of the evil that religion causes?


So you think Evil is the result of religion? If so, then you believe in religion? Because the point you are making is that without religion, there is no evil. It is not a valid point.
 
2013-03-24 04:39:39 PM  

s2s2s2: Bit'O'Gristle: Yes, if we all went atheist allot of the worlds problems would cease to exist.

Like what?

No more murder? No more rape? No more violence?

What, aside from not dealing with questions about the afterlife, would be different?

Would we not argue about what is and isn't acceptable?


/You can't be serious. Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours" or "you are a pagan and must die  because my God told me so" wars. Not to mention the wars going on now, where people of the SAME FAITH kill one another just because their beliefs are slightly different.

And to comment on the rape rape/ murder / violence comment, it has always been this way. Just because there are laws, be it from the bible or the federal / state level, people still do what they farking want. They just think they won't get caught. It's the nature of the species. Why do you think someone came up with those "10 commandments?"  Look at them.  They are common crimes that people committed back then, and they were looking for a way to stop them.  Hence the "burn in hell for all eternity" punishment.  Fire is the worst they could think of, so thats the way they went. Not saying it would go downhill more if there were no religion, but you have to admit that it has caused more grief than it's worth over history.
 
2013-03-24 04:39:48 PM  
The professor is a coward, and chose the safest figure to "desecrate".  Christianity is the goto target for hate by the hard left academia.  If he really wanted to choose a brave target, he would have chosen  Mohammed or some other revered figure like Martin Luther King Jr.  Of course, he knows that he would be murdered or fired for that, so he chose a safe target like Jesus.

This Farking professor is a bigoted coward.
 
2013-03-24 04:39:50 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.


No problem. Here is a link to "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes," published by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which is part of the United States Department of Justice.

Given your interest in the subject, you'll probably want to read the whole thing, but for the immediate question I'll direct your attention to the section on page 2, "Defining Hate Crimes."

I'm glad we had this exchange, and I hope in the future you can help correct other people's misconception about the subject.
 
2013-03-24 04:42:30 PM  

cybrwzrd: the evil that religion causes?


To answer your question, I think religion is despicable and as much an affront to faith as it is to anything else. Evil is what we've decided it is, and it existed before religion. I think, as with anything, one can point to great good and great evil in anything man has invented or instituted. If you believe man invented religion out of whole cloth, then man invented evil. If it wasn't expanded through religion, it would have expanded through another vehicle.
 
2013-03-24 04:43:12 PM  

brian_ellenberger: Christianity is the goto target for hate by the hard left academia.


Sorry, I couldn't take you seriously after this sentence.
 
2013-03-24 04:43:48 PM  

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.


So much this.

I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't even stomp on the name of Zeus, Odin, Allah, whomever. Even though I don't believe in them, there are people out there who do and I can respect their beliefs enough to respect their deity.
 
2013-03-24 04:44:31 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /You can't be serious. Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours" or "you are a pagan and must die  because my God told me so" wars. Not to mention the wars going on now, where people of the SAME FAITH kill one another just because their beliefs are slightly different.


The excuses given for "I am going to war with you because I want your shiat"(You know, the actual cause of wars) are immaterial. We would have wars with or without religion.
 
2013-03-24 04:46:39 PM  

FloydA: 8Fingers: So none were forced to do it. They were asked if they wanted to participate. And if you choose no, no big deal.
But this one whiney snot-nosed baby, momma bussomed coddled, always needing someone to protect him from bad people and no doubt a liberal.
Decides to get all AW about it and an entire university has to get down on its knees and say were sorry?
What a bunch of BS!

LOLWUT?


Oh common, the course and instructor were probaby known to be edgy, sometimes out of the norm and could be a bit contraversial. And being the liberal, he most likely only took the course and sat there waiting for his rights to be offended so that he could make a big stink and get the 'Oh My Gooosssh', look at what they've done to me!!!!' Attention that he went looking for.
 
2013-03-24 04:46:46 PM  
TerminalEchoes: 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.

/You do realize, you just said you're an atheist, and that jesus was a great man in the same sentence dont you?
//bangs head on desk.
 
2013-03-24 04:46:54 PM  

TerminalEchoes: 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.

So much this.

I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't even stomp on the name of Zeus, Odin, Allah, whomever. Even though I don't believe in them, there are people out there who do and I can respect their beliefs enough to respect their deity.


That's silly. There are people out there who believe all sorts of silly things and I'm sure you don't afford them equivalent respect.
 
2013-03-24 04:47:13 PM  

brian_ellenberger: The professor is a coward, and chose the safest figure to "desecrate".  Christianity is the goto target for hate by the hard left academia.  If he really wanted to choose a brave target, he would have chosen  Mohammed or some other revered figure like Martin Luther King Jr.  Of course, he knows that he would be murdered or fired for that, so he chose a safe target like Jesus.

This Farking professor is a bigoted coward.


The object of the exercise was not to desecrate a symbol. It was to make the students investigate their relationship with symbols.

He used Jesus because Christianity is the dominant cultural influence in America. Using a minority symbol would not have the same impact, and would actually be more likely to be interpreted as sincere desecration.

... But of course many political Christians actually do imagine themselves as a persecuted minority, so the professor should have seen this coming.
 
2013-03-24 04:47:54 PM  
They wouldn't have liked what I would have done with my sheet of Jeebus paper on the floor. I'd be suspended, and the whole classroom would have been closed off all day for decontamination.
 
2013-03-24 04:48:18 PM  

s2s2s2: Bit'O'Gristle: /You can't be serious. Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours" or "you are a pagan and must die  because my God told me so" wars. Not to mention the wars going on now, where people of the SAME FAITH kill one another just because their beliefs are slightly different.

The excuses given for "I am going to war with you because I want your shiat"(You know, the actual cause of wars) are immaterial. We would have wars with or without religion.


/totally agree, but religion gives them a viable? excuse.
 
2013-03-24 04:48:47 PM  
TerminalEchoes:I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't even stomp on the name of Zeus, Odin, Allah, whomever. Even though I don't believe in them, there are people out there who do and I can respect their beliefs enough to respect their deity.

That was the goal of the exercise. Now one can argue that it might've been put together a little clumsy but it's a valid point.

What is not a valid point is having a hissy fit about the exercise and complaining to the University administrators and local media about it.

As far as I'm concerned, he's nothing more than an attention whore who has a need to have a persecution complex.
 
2013-03-24 04:49:23 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Just because there are laws, be it from the bible or the federal / state level, people still do what they farking want.


This being my point....

South Park covered this well. Religion is terrible. As a person of faith, I find religion to be the single biggest impediment to spiritual* growth. Man has done terrible things in the name of religion, but religion is rarely the true cause of war or violence against others. Jealousy/Envy/Greed are the true motivators of evil.

*Yes, I believe in spirit. Not sure how I define it, though.
 
2013-03-24 04:51:56 PM  

TV's Vinnie: They wouldn't have liked what I would have done with my sheet of Jeebus paper on the floor. I'd be suspended, and the whole classroom would have been closed off all day for decontamination.


My Jeebus paper is 2-ply!
 
2013-03-24 04:52:45 PM  

doglover: Biological Ali: s2s2s2: That we don't need religion to act immorally. People who think the world would be much different without belief systems centered around a deity, are idiots.

There's no way you typed that with a straight face.

You've never really read a history book. Every culture, every religion or lack thereof... they all pretty much are the same as us. Sure the details are different, the Greeks drank wine from bowls, but the broad strokes are the same, they liked to get drunk and party.

Changing the religion to atheism isn't going to change that.


Sup, letrole?
 
2013-03-24 04:53:26 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: TerminalEchoes: 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.

/You do realize, you just said you're an atheist, and that jesus was a great man in the same sentence dont you?
//bangs head on desk.


The two are not exclusive.
 
Displayed 50 of 477 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