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  
•       •       •

18556 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
 
2013-03-25 02:34:47 AM  
<i>"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.</i>

Could someone explain to me why we are wasting our time letting this person fill up a seat in a college when it's so very obvious that higher education is beyond his mental capabilities?
 
2013-03-25 02:52:24 AM  

Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badly


I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."
 
2013-03-25 02:56:50 AM  

James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badly

I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."


He's assuming the Townhall article is anything other than hysteria wrapped in persecution complex.

That being said, the professor should have known someone was going to overreact.
 
2013-03-25 03:16:13 AM  

Hickory-smoked: That being said, the professor should have known someone was going to overreact.


So? The professor didn't force anyone to step on the paper. That was the whole point of the exercise. The whiny little biatch in the article thinks his religious rights have been "violated" because someone asked him -- voluntarily, mind you -- to step on a piece of paper. The implication is that the mere existence of anything contrary to his beliefs is a "violation" of his religious rights. At a university, your shiatty little preconceived "notions" of the universe are going to be challenged. These farks don't understand that the First Amendment doesn't work that way. I say fark that ignorant piece of shiat.
 
2013-03-25 05:53:13 AM  

doglover: he wasn't all great.


Indeed.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-25 07:49:10 AM  

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.


See what happens if your newspaper publishes a "Draw Mohammed" contest. Then you will understand. A large number of people get violently stupid over religion. That doesn't really bother me, since such explicit religiousity is actually declining in the USA and worldwide (regardless of what panic-mongers in the news claim). What bothers me is that, instead of discarding the paradigm entirely, the new non-religious simply transfer the behavior to other things, like politics. Thus, instead of religion being used as a convenient excuse to indulge in political violence, politics, itself, becomes a religion. This happens on all parts of the political dial, particularly among those who deny having strong religious beliefs.
 
2013-03-25 07:55:13 AM  

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?


I did. The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else. What if it were a "gender relations" or "sexual identity" class? Would the teacher have been in the right to require everybody to give everybody else in the class a hummer--round robin style--regardless of any individual student's sexual preferences--oh, excuse me, I am in the wrong to bring that up. To be analogous, the professor would have had to have required same-sex only hummers regardless of individual student preferences.

Same issue: Professor wants students to do something "edgy", "transgressive", and "symbolic" that goes against the grain of majority culture. So, for "educational" purposes, should students all be required to do such a thing?
 
2013-03-25 10:23:46 AM  
And so they should. Why do some religious people think they've got special privileges not to do classwork?
 
2013-03-25 10:27:27 AM  

Silly_Sot: 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?

I did. The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else.


You know, I can't blame anyone for thinking the exercise was dumb, or bound to offend some oversensitive flower... but more people I hear going "HURR DURR SHOULD HAVE USED MOHAMMED" the more I think the class was probably really necessary. Conservatives really do not seem to understand abstract thinking.
 
2013-03-25 10:50:12 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Conservatives really do not seem to understand abstract thinking.


If they were able to entertain and/or accept new ideas and different ways of thinking, they probably wouldn't be conservative.

I wouldn't have had any problem stepping on the piece of paper. It's just paper with a single first name scrawled on it. That first name turning into either your Latino next door neighbor, a mythological figure, or something else happens solely in the mind of the individual and requires a leap of thought. Especially since there are no other "identifying" marks on the paper other than a first name. What that name turns into, if it turns into anything at all, is not universal. It's a piece of paper. It's not someone's face. Stepping on it means nothing to me.

The only hesitation that might come up would be from the worry that overly religious people might want to harm me for not having the same leap of thoughts that they do.

/You can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themself into.
 
2013-03-25 10:54:44 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Conservatives really do not seem to understand abstract thinking.


conservatives are driven by knee-jerk emotional responses to everything... no thinking involved.
 
2013-03-25 11:48:45 AM  

Silly_Sot: The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else.


No, it wasn't. It was an exercise in the textbook. You're a farking moron.

Silly_Sot: require


Nobody was required to do anything. The point of the exercise was that they wouldn't step on it. Again: you're a farking moron.

The reason the student was suspended (as the article I posted points out) is because he made a big ruckus during class and started threatening the professor.
 
2013-03-25 12:13:34 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: ciberido: FloydA: There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead."   I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.


Quite a lot of people do worship Crapper at his Porcelain Throne.

Had to look that up. Apparently he didn't invent the toilet but, almost as good, he invented the ballcock.


Correct (well, "perfected," rather than "invented," but nevertheless).  Early toilets were just holes and waste was removed by gravity, like over-sized outhouses or porta-potties.  Odors wafted straight back up the hole.  The U-bend was the critical invention- it kept part of the pipe filled with water, so that the stink didn't waft back up from the sewer, but the ballcock was necessary to make suction possible through the U-bend (I'm simplifying, of course).  In any case, that's the invention that makes sure that the toilet doesn't smell like an open sewer.  For that invention, Thomas Crapper deserves my unending respect.   But I still don't "worship" him (even though we have all knelt before his throne on occasion).

The history of the flush toilet is a very important part of the history of Seattle, where I live, so I take it seriously.  Without Thomas Crapper's work, Seattle would smell almost as bad as Tacoma.  ;-)
 
2013-03-25 12:15:17 PM  

8Fingers: FloydA: 8Fingers: FloydA: 8Fingers: 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.


You're using the word "liberal" in a very non-standard way here.  The Mormon church are hardly known for "liberalism," and the type of person who goes to Fox News because he thinks a professor has insulted his religion is extremely unlikely to self-identify as "liberal."

Did you mean some other word?

Nope, a person that would go out of their way, to put themselves into, a position to be offended because they wanted attention about them being offended by something is what aliberal does. Just because he claims to be a devote mormon, its to get more attention. And as far as the Fox theory goes, its a wire story on just about every news group and voice out there.

Am I being trolled here?

I wouldn't put much effort into trolling someone. But I would definetly expect a liberal to think that of someone just because someone sees things diferently.



I can tell.  Bye.
 
2013-03-25 12:28:22 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: FloydA: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols

That oddly only focused on one symbol.


That was a pedagogical necessity.  The lesson (whatever its merits or lack thereof) would not have worked if each student had to respond to a different symbol.

"Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Why wouldn't that work if each student used a different symbol?


Because "culture" (in the anthropological and sociological sense) is shared.  Individual, "idiosyncratic" variation is, by definition, not  cultural variation.

Each student using their own symbols might work fine for a psychology course, since psychology usually emphasizes individual uniqueness.  However, in this case, the topic of the lesson involved the shared, patterned, meaningful, learned behavior that anthropologists and sociologists study.  Part of the goal of the lesson was to investigate the ways in which different communities apply different meanings to symbols, and the only way that exercise would achieve the goal is if each of the students was responding to the same symbol.

The reason why one student might refrain from stepping on a Red Sox logo might be very different from the reason another student would avoid stepping on a picture of his mom, or a flag, or the word "love" or (etc.).  In order to evaluate the reasons for the various student responses to the symbol, it was necessary for them all to use the same symbol.  Introducing additional variables into the exercise would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to explain the similar responses.

Makes sense?
 
2013-03-25 02:51:59 PM  

James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badly

I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."


What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.

Questioning things is good for you. I hope you keep it up. :)
 
2013-03-25 04:51:43 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.


Can't believe I'm wading into this thread - and I hope someone else has already made this point - but the jurisprudence behind hate crime laws is that a second crime has been committed, akin to making a terroristic threat - i.e. if I punch someone in the nuts specifically because he's Norwegian, I've committed a hate crime - I punched someone in the nuts, AND I threatened everyone else who is Norwegian (and has nuts) by doing so.
 
2013-03-25 04:58:06 PM  

thefatbasturd: FloydA: thefatbasturd:

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.


Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper?  Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make.  I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates.  Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.

I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.

Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?


Jesus Christ, I wish people could learn how to spell Buddha!

/I keed
//Buddhist
 
2013-03-25 06:22:42 PM  

Beowoolfie: James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badly

I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."

What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.

Questioning things is good for you. I hope you keep it up. :)


It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?
 
2013-03-25 08:58:17 PM  

Beowoolfie: What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.


Nope, still stupid.
 
2013-03-25 09:25:32 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?


That's my opinion, yes. It was a stupidly-presented exercise that even an intelligent kid could easily misunderstand. And it doesn't matter at all to me that it was "Jesus". I'd feel the same if he'd instructed them to spit on pictures of their mothers.

I see the point he was trying to make. Certainly cultural context matters. But there were plenty of ways to demonstrate that point without asking a student to commit something they saw as a heinous act. This was in the same category as the stories we've seen where a teacher wanted to reenact a slave auction, and segregated the children by race to do so.

Decent idea, but terrible implementation. He should have started smaller, maybe stomping an American flag himself then inviting discussion about why that angered them. What he did forced religion into the workplace, which is just as wrong for an atheist as for an evangelical.
 
2013-03-25 09:28:19 PM  
What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...
 
2013-03-25 09:34:36 PM  

James F. Campbell: Nope, still stupid.


Dude, there are plenty of insults that'll score on me. Calling me "idiot" and "stupid" are so far off they just made me grin. :)
 
2013-03-25 09:37:21 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: 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.


This particular rabid, over-the-top atheist is in complete agreement with you. I'd have filed a complaint myself, had I been in that class.
 
2013-03-25 10:09:49 PM  

Beowoolfie: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?

That's my opinion, yes. It was a stupidly-presented exercise that even an intelligent kid could easily misunderstand. And it doesn't matter at all to me that it was "Jesus". I'd feel the same if he'd instructed them to spit on pictures of their mothers.

I see the point he was trying to make. Certainly cultural context matters. But there were plenty of ways to demonstrate that point without asking a student to commit something they saw as a heinous act. This was in the same category as the stories we've seen where a teacher wanted to reenact a slave auction, and segregated the children by race to do so.

Decent idea, but terrible implementation. He should have started smaller, maybe stomping an American flag himself then inviting discussion about why that angered them. What he did forced religion into the workplace, which is just as wrong for an atheist as for an evangelical.


He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point. The power of symbols was the reason for the lesson, and the instructor used one of the most widespread and known symbols in American culture. And the way you, this kid, and the other idiots in the thread are reacting proves the instructor's point extremely well.

There was NOTHING bad, wrong, evil, attacking Christianity, or whatever about this. All you idiots are doing is throwing pissy fits because you THINK someone was making a personal attack on yours or others beliefs. And yes, you said you're an atheist, I know, you're still getting outraged for the sake of those who aren't because they know this isn't something to be outraged about.

Beowoolfie: What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...


News flash: universities discuss things like religion. And you might be VERY surprised to hear this, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it upon their students or holding up one religion over others. For someone who claims to know why the instructor did it and how justified the student was to threaten the man and run whining to the media, you really don't seem to know anything.
 
2013-03-25 10:27:11 PM  

Beowoolfie: Dude, there are plenty of insults that'll score on me. Calling me "idiot" and "stupid" are so far off they just made me grin. :)


I don't care about getting under your skin. I care about being correct. You are an idiot.
 
2013-03-26 01:45:11 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point.

What an odd response. I never said, nor implied, that he did.

There was NOTHING bad, wrong, evil, attacking Christianity, or whatever about this. All you idiots are doing is throwing pissy fits because you THINK someone was making a personal attack on yours or others beliefs. And yes, you said you're an atheist, I know, you're still getting outraged for the sake of those who aren't because they know this isn't something to be outraged about.

And again you put words in my mouth. Gee, I don't know what "all us idiots" are doing. All I know is what I said: In my opinion, he did a terrible job at making a point that could, handled differently, have been valuable.

Beowoolfie: What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...

News flash: universities discuss things like religion. And you might be VERY surprised to hear this, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it upon their students or holding up one religion over others. For someone who claims to know why the instructor did it and how justified the student was to threaten the man and run whining to the media, you really don't seem to know anything.


WTF?? Are you even responding to the right person? Why would I be surprised universities discuss religion? Where did I say why the instructor did it? What I know is what he wrote in his lesson plan, same as everyone else knows. Where did I even mention anybody threatening anybody?  I don't know a great many things...including what the hell you're talking about now! Is this one of those things where you're just randomly raging because I violated the atheist party line, or something?

I don't think I'm saying half of what you think you're reading, so I'm calling this convo quits. Feel free to take the last word.
 
2013-03-27 01:05:13 AM  

Beowoolfie: Keizer_Ghidorah: He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point.
What an odd response. I never said, nor implied, that he did.

There was NOTHING bad, wrong, evil, attacking Christianity, or whatever about this. All you idiots are doing is throwing pissy fits because you THINK someone was making a personal attack on yours or others beliefs. And yes, you said you're an atheist, I know, you're still getting outraged for the sake of those who aren't because they know this isn't something to be outraged about.

And again you put words in my mouth. Gee, I don't know what "all us idiots" are doing. All I know is what I said: In my opinion, he did a terrible job at making a point that could, handled differently, have been valuable.

Beowoolfie: What he did also forced religion into the workplace ...

News flash: universities discuss things like religion. And you might be VERY surprised to hear this, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it upon their students or holding up one religion over others. For someone who claims to know why the instructor did it and how justified the student was to threaten the man and run whining to the media, you really don't seem to know anything.

WTF?? Are you even responding to the right person? Why would I be surprised universities discuss religion? Where did I say why the instructor did it? What I know is what he wrote in his lesson plan, same as everyone else knows. Where did I even mention anybody threatening anybody?  I don't know a great many things...including what the hell you're talking about now! Is this one of those things where you're just randomly raging because I violated the atheist party line, or something?

I don't think I'm saying half of what you think you're reading, so I'm calling this convo quits. Feel free to take the last word.


The point he was making WAS made and it WAS valuable, and it was handled EXACTLY as the exercise was supposed to be. One whiny little pissant screaming about his way of life being attacked and running to the media to cry after threatening the instructor does not make it a badly-thought-out exercise or wrong in any way.

Then what did you mean by "forcing religion into the workplace"? If you knew all of that, why were you upset he chose Christianity? It IS THE most prevalent religion in our culture, after all.

I'm sorry that you feel so angry and offended that I answered your questions and pointed out how strange and lacking of intelligence they were to cry "I'm leaving and I don't care what you have to say about it!". You're free to be offended and angry about a university professor doing his job and a sensitive Christian child feeling he was under attack by it, but the facts about the issue have been more than discussed and you still felt the need to cry offense and attack the instructor over imaginary assaults on religion.
 
Displayed 28 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report