Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, jesus, Florida Atlantic University, Paul Kengor, colleges, students, Delaware Democratic Party, professors, Ryan Rotela  
•       •       •

18591 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-24 09:22:42 AM  
"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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."

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."


Which illustrates the professor's point nicely, I'd say.

.
 
2013-03-24 09:41:12 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 09:52:20 AM  
Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs.

Does Mormonism have a tenet that you can't step on the name of Jesus?
 
2013-03-24 09:56:10 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 10:10:42 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 10:12:49 AM  

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.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 10:13:32 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.


Because they are crazy and there are a lot of them?
 
2013-03-24 10:16:49 AM  
"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.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 10:20:37 AM  
FloydA:

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.

Assuming that a Town hall article is even loosely based on reality.
 
2013-03-24 10:27:29 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 10:37:05 AM  

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.


Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.
 
2013-03-24 10:37:37 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 10:45:56 AM  

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.


Well good for you? I wouldn't do it. Not with Jesus' name, Mohammed's, the Buddha's, or Shiva's. The sacred isn't meant to be a literal interpretation. It's meant to be something we invest with significance. It's meant to reflect our best instincts and should be cared for.
 
2013-03-24 11:03:22 AM  

FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.


Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?
 
2013-03-24 11:05:10 AM  
Well, to me they are words.  Hence why I would not have any issues. They are not sacred to me.  If I was a participant in this activity I'd have passed with flying colors.  Now, if I was an observant of a religious event or something I'd be more respectful, but with this assignment, Im getting an A.
 
2013-03-24 11:16:03 AM  
Okay, Fark Townhall and fark the CBS article I read.

This one was slightly more informatiive:

"This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings," says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can't step on the paper and "discuss the importance of symbols in culture."
Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.
After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.


I think that lesson could have been taught without the actual exercise of stepping on a piece of paper. I'm not even religious and I would have had a problem with it because I respect other people's faith. Not everyone in the class was a devout Christian (I'm just guessing, but I think that's a safe bet). They could have used an American flag as well.

To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.
 
2013-03-24 11:16:11 AM  
Limbaugh was ranting about this earlier in the week.  I got the impression that there were details missing from the story.
 
2013-03-24 11:16:37 AM  
My religious sensibilities were offended when I got a TownHall pop-up ad advertising a book titled "Obama's Four Horsemen."  Equating out president to Satan is far more offensive than anything that could have happened on some campus at a college in Florida.
 
2013-03-24 11:20:05 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: My religious sensibilities were offended when I got a TownHall pop-up ad advertising a book titled "Obama's Four Horsemen."  Equating out president to Satan is far more offensive than anything that could have happened on some campus at a college in Florida.


Then don't read Townhall. Other news outlets are carrying this story too.
 
2013-03-24 11:22:37 AM  

Happy Hours: Then don't read Townhall. Other news outlets are carrying this story too.


Well, it was the source Fark linked to.  They didn't link to a different source.  As far as going to a different news outlet to read this story, no thanks.  It's an unimportant story.
 
2013-03-24 11:23:40 AM  
Happy Hours:
To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

But if you REALLY want to get someone's attention, then jump starting their emotions is a good way to go about doing it.  the tricky part is calming them down and getting them back to talking about things in a rational manner.  it's a valid approach and it can work...but it's not easy to pull off.
 
2013-03-24 11:25:17 AM  

Happy Hours: FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?


FTFA:"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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 kid did exactly what was expected and rather than understand the point he decided to cry "help, Christians are being oppressed." When the teacher's supervisor failed to share in the outrage the kid cried all the way to Fox News.

I suppose it's possible that the teacher messed up the lesson and rather than accepting the kid's refusal and using it, he tried to force the kid to do it. Considering where this is popping up, I'm guessing it's just butthurt about "oppressing Christians" but I have a friend that teaches down there and I'll ask her if there's anything more to it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 11:29:38 AM  

Happy Hours: Then don't read Townhall. Other news outlets are carrying this story too.


"Other" news outlets?  You think world nut daily is a news outlet?
 
2013-03-24 11:32:23 AM  

Happy Hours: FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?



The article made it pretty obvious:


"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."The bold text here indicates the lesson that the students were supposed to learn.  The lesson was that people will hesitate before doing something that might seem disrespectful to the name of Jesus.  Then the follow up, after they  don't step on the paper, is the important part of the lesson - the students are then asked to think about  why they don't want to step on it.  Symbols are important, and even though the thing on the floor is really just ink on paper, it means something significant to the students.

Think about it, for a minute.  If the paper had "Hitler" written on it, nobody would hesitate to wipe their feet on it, because we are pretty much in agreement that Hitler was a horrible person and earned our disrespect.  If the paper had the word "doormat" written on it, nobody would hesitate to step on it.  The lesson involves understanding what makes symbols important to our behavior, and names are a type of symbol.
 
2013-03-24 11:34:49 AM  
Clicked on TFA fully expecting it to be about Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design"
 
2013-03-24 11:48:10 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 11:48:54 AM  

St_Francis_P: "Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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."

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."

Which illustrates the professor's point nicely, I'd say.


It's a good lesson for the objective..... it nicely shows to students that symbols have power to influence human behavior. Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise. If everyone had gladly jumped on it than it would have shown that symbols, or at least that symbol, have no power.
 
2013-03-24 11:53:09 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise. If everyone had gladly jumped on it than it would have shown that symbols, or at least that symbol, have no power.


Be wary of believing Fark headlines:

Rotela took his concerns to Poole's supervisor - where he was promptly suspended from the class.

The university denied that anyone was forced to participate. "Contrary to some media reports, no students were forced to take part in the exercise; the instructor told all of the students in the class that they could choose whether or not to participate," the university stated.


Now, we don't know the whole story, but I have my suspicions.
 
2013-03-24 11:53:47 AM  
Arthur Jumbles:
 Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise.

I have not seen any evidence that the student was "punished" for refusing to step on the paper.  In fact, according to the description, that is the expected response, and I suspect that most of the class also refused.  I haven't seen any indication that the student was "punished" at all, TBH.  Just that he didn't understand the lesson and threw a tantrum about what he mistakenly imagined was happening.
 
2013-03-24 11:56:54 AM  

FloydA: Arthur Jumbles:
 Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise.

I have not seen any evidence that the student was "punished" for refusing to step on the paper.  In fact, according to the description, that is the expected response, and I suspect that most of the class also refused.  I haven't seen any indication that the student was "punished" at all, TBH.  Just that he didn't understand the lesson and threw a tantrum about what he mistakenly imagined was happening.


yup - that's my understanding as well.
 
2013-03-24 12:11:24 PM  
The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.
 
2013-03-24 12:13:17 PM  

vpb: Happy Hours: Then don't read Townhall. Other news outlets are carrying this story too.

"Other" news outlets?  You think world nut daily is a news outlet?


I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Happy Hours: Then don't read Townhall. Other news outlets are carrying this story too.

Well, it was the source Fark linked to.  They didn't link to a different source.  As far as going to a different news outlet to read this story, no thanks.  It's an unimportant story.


Maybe it's an unimportant story, but I will not hesitate to look for other sources of news if I don't like the linked source on Fark. I do the same when local TV stations try to tease me to stay tuned for their news. For example I might be watching the Simpsons on a Sunday night and the local Fox station will do a promo telling me "How the grass on your front lawn may be killing your children! Tune in to the news to find out!". And so I'll do a quick search and find out that a local university found bacteria in dog shiat or something. Is that really news? Of course not, but how your front lawn may be killing your children is a compelling and scary promo, isn't it? And before you go all anti-Fox because that's what channel the Simpson's are on, the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate pull the same shiat.
 
2013-03-24 12:13:32 PM  
Did the principal catch sayof--complained the college?
 
2013-03-24 12:14:57 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.


could you define the bullshiat in question?
 
2013-03-24 12:25:01 PM  

Happy Hours: "This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings," says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can't step on the paper and "discuss the importance of symbols in culture."
Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.
After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

I think that lesson could have been taught without the actual exercise of stepping on a piece of paper. I'm not even religious and I would have had a problem with it because I respect other people's faith. Not everyone in the class was a devout Christian (I'm just guessing, but I think that's a safe bet). They could have used an American flag as well.


I don't see anything that said they had to step on the paper.  Regardless of whether they stepped on the paper, the same discussion could be had.  "Hey, whiny media whore, you couldn't bring yourself to step on the paper. Why is that?"  And "hey, you, why did you step on it without hesitation?" What is the difference here, regarding understanding and meanings of symbols?  And then all of you who hesitated, but did it anyway? What changed your minds?

It could have been an interesting conversation, but the religious nutter decided to make a big case out of it because it made him uncomfortable. Though it seems that the entire point was discussing and dissecting said discomfort. Maybe he should go to a seminary (or whatever Mormons do) rather than a building of education.
 
2013-03-24 12:27:38 PM  
So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.
 
2013-03-24 12:38:07 PM  
The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.
 
2013-03-24 12:53:28 PM  

Happy Hours: Maybe it's an unimportant story, but I will not hesitate to look for other sources of news if I don't like the linked source on Fark. I do the same when local TV stations try to tease me to stay tuned for their news. For example I might be watching the Simpsons on a Sunday night and the local Fox station will do a promo telling me "How the grass on your front lawn may be killing your children! Tune in to the news to find out!". And so I'll do a quick search and find out that a local university found bacteria in dog shiat or something. Is that really news? Of course not, but how your front lawn may be killing your children is a compelling and scary promo, isn't it? And before you go all anti-Fox because that's what channel the Simpson's are on, the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate pull the same shiat.


 Well bully for you!
 
2013-03-24 01:07:40 PM  
[help-i'm-oppressed.jpg]
 
2013-03-24 01:09:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.


oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.
 
2013-03-24 01:11:14 PM  
You know its going to be quality when the first thing the site does is throw up an ad for "Obama's four horsemen" at you.
 
2013-03-24 01:12:10 PM  
It's a mormon?  who cares?

They're nothing more than scientologists that say Jesus than Xenu.   Their a cult and not deserving of respect.
 
2013-03-24 01:12:37 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.



Votes.
 
2013-03-24 01:12:46 PM  
*They're
 
2013-03-24 01:13:36 PM  
Religious fool doesn't understand his own religion. Video at 11.
 
2013-03-24 01:14:16 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.


and Id be one of those students.  Its not difficult to recite a prayer.  I still remember The 'Our Father'.
 
2013-03-24 01:15:31 PM  
Trolltastic non-story is trolltastic.
 
2013-03-24 01:17:20 PM  
So any student that doesn't want to stomp on the paper is asked to think about why - an exercise that leads to more introspection and a collegiate level of discussion of important symbols in a culture. Hell, push the envelope if that's the case. Put a cross, a star of david, an crescent moon, a yinyang, a swastika (the peace kind AND the Nazi kind), and an American flag on different pieces of paper and ask the students to stomp on and rip up whichever ones they think are appropriate.

Nowhere in the derpfest article is there any mention of tying one's grade to stomping on the paper (ie "If you don't do this, you will fail the class"), which WOULD be a violation of religious expression.

But what do I know, I'm a liberal and enjoy context.
 
2013-03-24 01:17:31 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.


Except that's not going to happen, because atheists would sue the professor's ass off and win.
 
2013-03-24 01:17:59 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 see you don't believe in apostrophes either.
 
2013-03-24 01:18:44 PM  
Stupid religious people.
 
2013-03-24 01:18:51 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.


So farking what? Like they weren't going to say that no matter what.
 
2013-03-24 01:19:45 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.


Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics.  Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC.  Wait a few years and we'll be right back here.   You know, circle of life and all.
/Whatever sells, sells.
 
2013-03-24 01:19:52 PM  
WTF is this? Shogun?
 
2013-03-24 01:19:59 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.


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
 
2013-03-24 01:20:24 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.


But would you be able to explain why you wouldn't step on your child's name? Because that part was the point of the assignment, you know...
 
2013-03-24 01:20:31 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.


an atheist? On Fark? Now I've seen it all
 
2013-03-24 01:21:24 PM  
Should have used "Obama's" name. Then img1.fark.net would worship her.

/srsly, stupid technique
 
2013-03-24 01:21:25 PM  

Happy Hours: I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.


I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Controversies
 
2013-03-24 01:22:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.


True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.
 
2013-03-24 01:22:38 PM  
Special snowflakes in college are special.
 
2013-03-24 01:22:41 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.


There's really no way to "win" the argument when it comes to religion or politics. There's no persuasion, no charitable way to talk about the point when you meet someone who thinks differently than you on those matters, regardless of your own belief system when it comes to religion or politics.  You can talk about them amongst friends just fine... but in company where you're expected to be polite because you don't know those people, religion or politics is probably best left unstated.

/of course, welcome to fark and all that, it's always okay to insult people of the other persuasion or something
 
2013-03-24 01:23:22 PM  
The townhall.com website is a fright! Jeez!!!!
 
2013-03-24 01:24:11 PM  
standupforthetruth.com

1. Print this picture
2. Make a video desecrating it in some creative and hilariously entering fashion
3. Post video to YouTube
4. Post link on Fark
5. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.
 
2013-03-24 01:24:15 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.


Nobody was required to step on the paper. In fact, the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The ensuing discussion focuses on why.

Notably absent from the article, in fact, is any mention of whether or not any students actually did choose to step on the paper. Given that this is a right-wing ZOMG WER BEAN PERSECOOTED propaganda piece, it is more probable than not that nobody did. The author would surely focus on such a fact in order to generate more outrage.
 
2013-03-24 01:25:58 PM  

RIP Critical Thinking 469 B.C. -- 2013 A.D.

 
2013-03-24 01:26:04 PM  

vpb: FloydA:

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.

Assuming that a Town hall article is even loosely based on reality.


I have seen no other source that quoted  the textbook and the assignment's purpose.
 
2013-03-24 01:26:07 PM  
So, what are the chances the student disrupted class and started an argument about the lesson which was the actual reason for "getting suspended from class" if that even happened?
 
2013-03-24 01:26:17 PM  
FTA: "Fox News obtained a synopsis of the lesson taught by Deandre Poole, who also happens to be vice chair of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party."

No, no trace of bias there at all.
 
2013-03-24 01:28:04 PM  
Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs

blog.angelatung.com
 
2013-03-24 01:28:07 PM  

pc_doc_54: FTA: "Fox News obtained a synopsis of the lesson taught by Deandre Poole, who also happens to be vice chair of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party."

No, no trace of bias there at all.


Democrats hate Jesus. Everyone knows that.
 
2013-03-24 01:28:09 PM  

Happy Hours: FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?


Yes, because I RTFA.
 
2013-03-24 01:28:18 PM  
This flash popup which assaulted my eyes when I clicked on this link says it all
img835.imageshack.us

Your typical paranoid right-wing yee-haw god-bothering types.
 
2013-03-24 01:28:20 PM  

Weaver95: Happy Hours:
To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

But if you REALLY want to get someone's attention, then jump starting their emotions is a good way to go about doing it.  the tricky part is calming them down and getting them back to talking about things in a rational manner.  it's a valid approach and it can work...but it's not easy to pull off.


Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched...
 
2013-03-24 01:29:32 PM  
I'm sure they mean it in a derogatory manner, but it's pretty ironic when you consider that the Lamb of God (aka Jesus Christ) is the figure in the Bible who opens the Seals of the Apocalypse, and is responsible for summoning the Horsemen for the final Revelation.

Basically, the crazy fundie nutjobs are inadvertently comparing Obama to Jesus. Go figure.

/The more you know!
//Knowing = Battle / 2
 
2013-03-24 01:29:54 PM  

rkiller1: 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.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics.  Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC.  Wait a few years and we'll be right back here.   You know, circle of life and all.
/Whatever sells, sells.



Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law."   "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

For example
"De jure discrimination" might refer to legally enforced Jim Crow laws prior to the ivil Rights Act of 1965, while "soup du jour" might refer to cream of broccoli.

The two terms sound similar, but misusing them can cause serious confusion.
 
2013-03-24 01:30:24 PM  

mekki: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.


There's more discussion to be had when everybody in the class does not look up to the symbol in question, like say an atheist student who decides not to step on the paper.

Plus it's probably cheaper and quicker to have each student write JESUS on a piece of paper then it is to draw or print out hundreds of copies of an American flag.
 
2013-03-24 01:30:32 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-24 01:30:49 PM  
The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.
 
2013-03-24 01:30:52 PM  

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.


unless you are catholic the most you will see in a protestant church is a cross. The fundies bash the catholics for praying to Mary the Saints, etc.
 
2013-03-24 01:30:57 PM  
The kid wasn't kicked out of the classroom for refusing the assignment. he was kicked out for playing the "Whine to the Media" card.
 
2013-03-24 01:31:15 PM  
So... What's the actual title of the class? It uses a book on intercultural communication...

You want to teach people about what it's like to have their religious positions blasphemed against you might have to blaspheme their religious positions. Welcome to college.

Wait until you hear the ethical vegans biatch and moan about having to do dissections in order to get their BS in Biology.
 
2013-03-24 01:31:15 PM  

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
 
2013-03-24 01:32:16 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.


Holdover, I think, from the founding period. Some of the original colonies were actually founded for the purpose of the members exercising their religious freedom (but not anyone else's). But the principle of religious neutrality got generalized and institutionalized in the Constitution. Quite a difference, when you think about it, from almost every other nation/culture on the planet, where there is generally an official State religion (this even in  societies where other religions are allowed). America is essentially unique in this regard. This actually makes sense in terms of the founders' deism.

Way too much blood has been spilled over the ages in the name of religion. This generally happens when one set of religious beliefs attains a lock on the power of the State. The answer is to keep them institutionally separate.

That does NOT mean getting the vapors every time some city councilman or senator professes that he is an evangelical Christian or even a Muslim - or a Mormon. Individual belief is NOT the same as institutional support. But trying to explain the nuance of that to fundamentalist atheists is generally a lost cause. (I know this for a fact: my wife and I go to periodic atheist hookups. Some of these people are more irrational that fundie Xians.)
 
2013-03-24 01:32:18 PM  

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


Complex historical reasons. A lot of it is tied up into what gets to count in a historically Protestant public square as "legitimate religion" in legal terms and what gets counted instead as "Popery" (Catholicism),  "Paganism"(Amerindian traditions), or "Cults" (Mormons). There is a vast literature on it. Good case in point would be the Mormon tradition.
 
2013-03-24 01:34:12 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.


Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.
 
2013-03-24 01:34:18 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: 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.

unless you are catholic the most you will see in a protestant church is a cross. The fundies bash the catholics for praying to Mary the Saints, etc.


The cross is a false idol.
 
2013-03-24 01:34:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: 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.

Holdover, I think, from the founding period. Some of the original colonies were actually founded for the purpose of the members exercising their religious freedom (but not anyone else's). But the principle of religious neutrality got generalized and institutionalized in the Constitution. Quite a difference, when you think about it, from almost every other nation/culture on the planet, where there is generally an official State religion (this even in  societies where other religions are allowed). America is essentially unique in this regard. This actually makes sense in terms of the founders' deism.

Way too much blood has been spilled over the ages in the name of religion. This generally happens when one set of religious beliefs attains a lock on the power of the State. The answer is to keep them institutionally separate.

That does NOT mean getting the vapors every time some city councilman or senator professes that he is an evangelical Christian or even a Muslim - or a Mormon. Individual belief is NOT the same as institutional support. But trying to explain the nuance of that to fundamentalist atheists is generally a lost cause. (I know this for a fact: my wife and I go to periodic atheist hookups. Some of these people are more irrational that fundie Xians.)


BTW, I'm shocked and appalled that we have not yet seen the old and busted "We're being oppressed" pie chart meme yet. Come ON, Farkers, you're slipping!!!!
 
2013-03-24 01:35:41 PM  

SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.


As an atheist, I'd have absolutely zero problem saying some ritual words about a two-millenia-dead prophet of a non-existent deity, its empty symbolism. So no, they wouldn't be benefiting from that.
 
2013-03-24 01:35:56 PM  

Tellurium: I see you don't believe in apostrophes either.


I am a huge grammar nazi but seriously? Respond to the point, not the typing. People post from phones and whatnot which tends to lead to a lack of apostrophes and such. None of it leads to a lack of understanding. If you didn't get the point  raerae1980was making, that's on you and you should be ashamed.
 
2013-03-24 01:35:58 PM  
If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.
 
2013-03-24 01:36:24 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


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-24 01:36:38 PM  
"Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."


Seems like the assignment succeeded more than the professor could have ever hoped.
 
2013-03-24 01:36:57 PM  
Kid wasn't even suspended, so this is...
 
2013-03-24 01:37:35 PM  
GAT_00:

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

FTFY
 
2013-03-24 01:37:37 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Controversies


You should stick to the palm beach post if you want liberal bias then.
 
2013-03-24 01:37:47 PM  

bugontherug: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.


the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.
Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.
 
2013-03-24 01:38:07 PM  

houstondragon: consider that the Lamb of God


Always makes me crave chislic.
 
2013-03-24 01:38:08 PM  

SubBass49: Kid wasn't even suspended, so this is...


Much ado about nothing (image never posted last time)
 
2013-03-24 01:38:12 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 01:38:53 PM  
Thank god those roman soldiers had no problem stepping on Jesus, amirite?

Tedious AW student is tedious, an AW.
 
2013-03-24 01:39:13 PM  

FloydA: rkiller1: 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.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics.  Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC.  Wait a few years and we'll be right back here.   You know, circle of life and all.
/Whatever sells, sells.


Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law."   "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

For example
"De jure discrimination" might refer to legally enforced Jim Crow laws prior to the ivil Rights Act of 1965, while "soup du jour" might refer to cream of broccoli.

The two terms sound similar, but misusing them can cause serious confusion.


LOL now I want broccoli soup :)
 
2013-03-24 01:39:43 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.


It's not just religious ideas and only religious ideas that are treated more gingerly than other kinds of ideas. Like I mentioned above, you could have done this same exercise with the American flag and had a similar outcome with some individuals. Heck, for someone you could have done this exercise with a dollar because for some, that is their God.

I am sure there is something you would not stomp on for whatever reason that someone else would think it's foolish. So, I ask you what is it and why would you not stomp on it?
 
2013-03-24 01:39:52 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.


What if he'd had the class drop "n bombs"?  Or stomp on pictures of women?
 
2013-03-24 01:41:56 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: Mrtraveler01: Happy Hours: I read an article from CBS and the Palm Beach Post. Those aren't exactly Al Jazeera, the BBC or even the PBS News Hour, but I do consider them to be news outlets more respectable than Townhall or WND.

I'm not too sure about the CBS affiliate in West Palm, they got bought out by Sinclair who has been known for having a pro-Republican bias in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#Controversies

You should stick to the palm beach post if you want liberal bias then.


Did you see those controversies? A lot of that was unnecessary BS on Sinclair's part. And now West Palm is subjected to it.

Are there examples of the Palm Beach Post being that liberally biased?
 
2013-03-24 01:42:00 PM  

skullkrusher: bugontherug: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.
Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.


I rarely agree with you but this I agree with 100%. This was a really pointless and offensive exercise.
 
2013-03-24 01:42:36 PM  

FloydA: rkiller1: eraser8: Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law."   "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."


I bow to your superior knowledge of words non-English.  Good thing I didn't write au jus or au gratin.
 
2013-03-24 01:43:03 PM  

skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.


I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon.  this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.
 
2013-03-24 01:43:43 PM  

Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.


From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.
 
2013-03-24 01:45:36 PM  

rkiller1: FloydA: rkiller1: eraser8: Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law."   "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

I bow to your superior knowledge of words non-English.  Good thing I didn't write au jus or au gratin.


It's my language a la mode.  ;-)
 
2013-03-24 01:45:36 PM  
This exercise just goes to show that not only are religious people completely irrational about their beliefs but when it's pointed out to them they get all "I'm being persecuted" and shiat. When you can no longer even talk about your beliefs, why you do or do not think and act a certain way, then the brainwashing of the church was successful.
 
2013-03-24 01:46:27 PM  

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

Complex historical reasons. A lot of it is tied up into what gets to count in a historically Protestant public square as "legitimate religion" in legal terms and what gets counted instead as "Popery" (Catholicism),  "Paganism"(Amerindian traditions), or "Cults" (Mormons). There is a vast literature on it. Good case in point would be the Mormon tradition.


I think it also has to do with the centrality of religious ideas or lack thereof to personal identity.
 
2013-03-24 01:46:53 PM  

ginandbacon: skullkrusher: bugontherug: Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.
Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.

I rarely agree with you but this I agree with 100%. This was a really pointless and offensive exercise.


Pretty much this.  Good lord, the first two years of college are filled with so many pointless classes and awful professors.  People spouting off nonsense, whether it was professors like this or the Econ guy teaching us the merits of the Laffer Curve.  You just have to shut up and take it.  I've got three graduate degrees and my hardest degree was my AA.  It's an exercise in the exact sort of mindless obedience this exercise was intended to ridicule..
 
2013-03-24 01:47:10 PM  
It's called a lesson in empathy. Be told to do something that violates your values.

Now you understand what it's like when you are told to violate others.

It is a university. That means your religious values are to be put on a shelf when you enter the classroom so you can learn things that go beyond what you feel comfortable with. Classes are meant to push you beyond your comfort zone. If that doesn't happen, you do not grow. This isn't elementary school where you are coddled and parents make sure everyone "feels good." If you hold strong religious convictions, social sciences are often going to be a hostile environment because most religious beliefs are built around "What I believe is utter truth and what you believe is hogwash" even though more progressive groups don't get in your face about it. Social sciences are about removing that part from yourself, which the highly religious simply find offensive.

Anyone who describes themselves as "devout" anything should try to avoid most social sciences classes.
 
2013-03-24 01:47:55 PM  

FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.


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.
 
2013-03-24 01:48:30 PM  
Woo, another crazy professor from my alma mater gets a green...now only if my headline was picked up a week ago...
 
2013-03-24 01:48:33 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.


It might have been more interesting if the professor gave a presentation about a made-up* religion and asked everyone to write the name of the made-up prophet on the paper, then step on it.

* 'made up' as in the professor made it up for the lesson, not an existing religion someone could argue was made up.
 
2013-03-24 01:48:56 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 01:49:31 PM  
Whatever.  You have the right to not follow the instructions.  Being asked is not the same as being forced.  Kid is a complete tool.
 
2013-03-24 01:49:48 PM  

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?


While I think this is much ado about nothing, it's the same as ANY OTHER Christian sect, it's disrespect to one of the most cherished and respected parts of the religion.

Seriously dude, pull your head out. The kid's reluctance is a total no brainer.
 
2013-03-24 01:50:28 PM  

Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon.  this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.


unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.
The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.
 
2013-03-24 01:50:28 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.


If someone asked you to write the name of your best friend or parents on a piece of paper, then put it on the ground and stomp on it, would you be eager to do it?
 
2013-03-24 01:51:59 PM  
How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss
 
2013-03-24 01:52:16 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: 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.

If someone asked you to write the name of your best friend or parents on a piece of paper, then put it on the ground and stomp on it, would you be eager to do it?


Symbols control you that much, eh?
 
2013-03-24 01:52:16 PM  
Indoctrination into religious phobias on college campuses?  Say it ain't so!

I think the professor could do with a little foreign travel.  Drop him off in Libya and see how well he fares.
 
2013-03-24 01:52:59 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 01:52:59 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.


This is when you need to remember that Rush works in the entertainment industry, and to some there is nothing more entertaining than getting whipped up about something which really has nothing to do with them. I used to listen to Limbaugh, and towards the end of that time, I started to realize that he was being sensational for effect to the point of almost bordering on sarcasm, and the callers would take the bait hook, line, and sinker.
 
2013-03-24 01:53:00 PM  

Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon.  this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.




I think this would also suffice as an answer to the question of why the professor used 'Jesus' and not 'Mohammed' or 'Buddha'.
 
2013-03-24 01:53:42 PM  

hawcian: Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.


Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.
 
2013-03-24 01:54:41 PM  
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

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.
 
2013-03-24 01:54:58 PM  

BolloxReader: It's called a lesson in empathy. Be told to do something that violates your values.

Now you understand what it's like when you are told to violate others.

It is a university. That means your religious values are to be put on a shelf when you enter the classroom so you can learn things that go beyond what you feel comfortable with. Classes are meant to push you beyond your comfort zone. If that doesn't happen, you do not grow. This isn't elementary school where you are coddled and parents make sure everyone "feels good." If you hold strong religious convictions, social sciences are often going to be a hostile environment because most religious beliefs are built around "What I believe is utter truth and what you believe is hogwash" even though more progressive groups don't get in your face about it. Social sciences are about removing that part from yourself, which the highly religious simply find offensive.

Anyone who describes themselves as "devout" anything should try to avoid most social sciences classes.


Professor could have really gone for the gusto and had the N-Word written in huge letters on the blackboard when kids came in. That'd teach them a lesson about the power of symbols while getting them out of their comfort zone alright.
Oh wait, you think that would be a poor idea? Yeah, me too.
 
2013-03-24 01:55:29 PM  

Dracolich: Symbols control you that much, eh?


I didn't give any indication of what i think. But you just indicated that you're very much controlled by what you want to believe about people, as opposed to what the facts dictate.
 
2013-03-24 01:55:50 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.


Henceforth farkied as such.
 
2013-03-24 01:56:42 PM  

johnperkins: 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.

It might have been more interesting if the professor gave a presentation about a made-up* religion and asked everyone to write the name of the made-up prophet on the paper, then step on it.

* 'made up' as in the professor made it up for the lesson, not an existing religion someone could argue was made up.


That doesn't work. That's like playing poker with monopoly money. You need to have the real thing or you don't feel and act the same. Like imagining looking over a cliff and actually looking over one. Big difference.
 
2013-03-24 01:56:59 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.


Thank you. I was actually surprisingly moved by that. I hope always to have respect for faith and to defend my brothers and sisters of any faith when I think they are being singled out for ridicule. 

Bless you and happy Easter.
 
2013-03-24 01:57:26 PM  

Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.


1) As I've pointed out upthread, many of the criticisms of the lesson are bullsh*t. Nobody was forced to do anything. In fact, the excerpted portion of the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The discussion is about why.

2) That being said, it's not clear to me the lesson is "fine." The idea of it isn't bad in principle; i.e., demonstrating expression of cultural values through actions or inaction. What troubles me, though, is that inevitably some students will choose to step on the paper, an act which is reasonably perceived as disrespectful to Christian beliefs. While there are appropriate venues for that kind of expression, one of those venues is not a university classroom at the instigation of the professor.

3) The student, the author, or the editor almost certainly lied about the student being suspended for reporting the incident.
 
2013-03-24 01:57:27 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 01:57:29 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.


Conversely, maybe the students in class were not Muslim, so it wouldn't have had the same symbolic significance.

This was not a subtle exercise, but for some reason it sounds like you didn't understand its point.
 
2013-03-24 01:57:38 PM  
The school can't go into details because of student privacy, but stated that nobody was punished for not participating in this assignment. I'll bet this little jackass complained, and when the administration blew him off or tried to explain the context of the exercise, he threw a little tantrum and THAT is what he was suspended for.

If critical thinking is difficult for you, college may not be the right choice. Try a technical school or go be a carpenter like Jesus.
 
2013-03-24 01:58:07 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 Power
 
2013-03-24 01:58:31 PM  

FloydA: rkiller1: 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.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics.  Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC.  Wait a few years and we'll be right back here.   You know, circle of life and all.
/Whatever sells, sells.


Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law."   "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

For example
"De jure discrimination" might refer to legally enforced Jim Crow laws prior to the ivil Rights Act of 1965, while "soup du jour" might refer to cream of broccoli.

The two terms sound similar, but misusing them can cause serious confusion.


It begs the question of whether it matters if one is disinterested in such fulsome concerns with matters of grammar.
 
2013-03-24 01:59:13 PM  

skullkrusher: Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon.  this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.
The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.


*sigh*

if that's what you want to believe then have at it.
 
2013-03-24 01:59:21 PM  

FloydA: Henceforth farkied as such.


You should reconsider that.
 
2013-03-24 02:00:34 PM  

serial_crusher: Did the principal catch sayof--complained the college?


Pricipal . Caught sayof school that has stoped Jesusstompsing " See, told ya so" Is He dead or not. CNN Says yes. <- maybe like this?
 
2013-03-24 02:01:47 PM  
It's paper and ink, there is no magical incantation and no magical power associated with stepping on it what's the big deal?
 
2013-03-24 02:02:44 PM  

FloydA: Happy Hours: FloydA: 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.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets.  Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?


The article made it pretty obvious:


"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."The bold text here indicates the lesson that the students were supposed to learn.  The lesson was that people will hesitate before doing something that might seem disrespectful to the name of Jesus.  Then the follow up, after they  don't step on the paper, is the important part of the lesson - the students are then asked to think about  why they don't want to ...


Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So any student that doesn't want to stomp on the paper is asked to think about why - an exercise that leads to more introspection and a collegiate level of discussion of important symbols in a culture. Hell, push the envelope if that's the case. Put a cross, a star of david, an crescent moon, a yinyang, a swastika (the peace kind AND the Nazi kind), and an American flag on different pieces of paper and ask the students to stomp on and rip up whichever ones they think are appropriate.

Nowhere in the derpfest article is there any mention of tying one's grade to stomping on the paper (ie "If you don't do this, you will fail the class"), which WOULD be a violation of religious expression.

But what do I know, I'm a liberal and enjoy context.



These.

Somewhat off topic, somewhat related:

Years ago I took a cultural anthropology course which ended up being one of the neatest courses I ever ended up taking. Due to the fact that so many people would get wound up about it, the professor made a note in the syllabus and stated the first day that she would refer to all religions as mythologies, don't be offended.

There were a few Christian students who did end up taking offense throughout the semester and tried to argue the validity of Christianity over what some Siberian/jungle/etc. tribe believed, and a few dropped the class.

I wonder how many drop, then pull out the persecution complex and complain, as the guy in the article seems to be doing.
 
2013-03-24 02:03:19 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 02:03:31 PM  

Happy Hours: After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.


So after class let out, the professor kicked him out of the room?
Anyone care to bet whether the kid was standing there throwing a shiatfit and the professor just asked him to step outside so he could lock up and go home already?
 
2013-03-24 02:04:14 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 02:04:30 PM  

Weaver95: skullkrusher: Weaver95: skullkrusher: the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

I disagree - his mother isn't a cultural icon.  this class was about the importance of symbols in a given culture.

unless you're reading a different article, the "cultural icon" bit isn't anywhere to be seen.
The importance of symbols. A name is a symbol. That's why they used one people would be hesitant to step on.

*sigh*

if that's what you want to believe then have at it.


yeah, I'll go with what's in the article and not something you made up.
 
2013-03-24 02:04:37 PM  
For those who are damning the student, try this thought exercise: what if the teacher made his students affix Romney bumper stickers to their cars?

/The teacher is a douche.
 
2013-03-24 02:04:37 PM  
Aren't colleges supposed to be a place of learning?  Crushing the fairy tales, dogma, and other nonsense of religion should be part of their mandate.
 
2013-03-24 02:06:26 PM  

Russ1642: hawcian: Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.


In coming to terms with my own lack of faith, I left a lot of other people's faith shaken.  That included 3 Lutheran pastors (one from the seminary), 2 Methodist ministers, 1 Catholic priest, several youth leaders, and countless others.  It wasn't like I was keeping score at the time, but in reflection it was a lot.  I wanted to believe.  I specifically looked to those who were the smartest within my church to find out why they believed.  In ending one conversation, they'd often point me to a significant person who inspired them to believe.  This eventually lead me to the seminary.  What I found there was that those most in touch with studying and teaching the faith had massive doubts with well-constructed rationalizations for not thinking about those doubts.  It's wishful thinking in a world filled with contrary evidence.  It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.
 
2013-03-24 02:06:27 PM  
Pop quiz: explain the difference between "step" (as used in the lesson description) and "stomp" (as used in the Townhall article).
 
2013-03-24 02:07:51 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Dracolich: Symbols control you that much, eh?

I didn't give any indication of what i think. But you just indicated that you're very much controlled by what you want to believe about people, as opposed to what the facts dictate.


Trolls shouldn't get defensive.  It's unprofessional.
 
2013-03-24 02:07:54 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.


Religion gives the self hope that it will not be extinguished when the body dies.  Nothing is more important to the self than its survival.  Impugn religion and you are attacking the self's survival.
 
2013-03-24 02:09:16 PM  

cybrwzrd: But then again, I am of the belief that ~95% of the worlds problems would go away if religion ceased to exist tomorrow.


Which is not remotely accurate, and a gross oversimplification.

Religion is just a good method to control the public, and get them to support wars and things. Those using religion for various agendas don't genuinely believe it themselves. If it were gone, they'd just have to use other methods to manipulate the public, which already work like a charm on most atheists.

/this war is about freedom and liberty
 
2013-03-24 02:10:26 PM  
It would seem what the real lesson is what happens when a douche-bag trifecta is in play. A douche-bag prof. having a lesson that could lead to someone stomping on a name of a profit of one of the current main-stream religion. A douche-bag student having a problem about the lesson because someone dares have different views then his. And thirdly douche-bag right-wing news outlets (FoxNews, Townhall) mixing up the facts proclaiming the kids where forced to participate when in fact, they weren't.
 
2013-03-24 02:11:04 PM  

Wolfmanjames: For those who are damning the student, try this thought exercise: what if the teacher made his students affix Romney bumper stickers to their cars?

/The teacher is a douche.


For those who can't be bothered to read the article, or even really much of the thread, try this thought exercise: what if the teacher didn't make anyone do anything whatsoever?
 
2013-03-24 02:11:09 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: Henceforth farkied as such.

You should reconsider that.


The guy went out of his way to insult me, when I was being reasonable.  He claimed that I oppose voluntary prayer in school, which is simply a lie  (as contrasted with mandatory prayer, which I do oppose) .  He implied that atheists are hypocrites who would not step on the word "atheist," which is just idiotic.  And he implied that I was the ethical equivalent of the WBC, which is just unabashed, and unforgivable dickishness.

ISTM that the only reason he said anything polite about you was as a backhanded way of saying something nasty about me.  That was particularly annoying in light of the fact that I have made every effort to be reasonable in this thread, and have not, to my knowledge, said anything caustic or inflammatory at all.
 
2013-03-24 02:12:02 PM  
If you really want to get outraged by something FAU is doing, consider that the main sponsor of their new football stadium is the GEO Group. They run privatized prisons.
 
2013-03-24 02:12:37 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 02:13:32 PM  
This reminds me of the story where a professor was trying to get a classroom full of students at one of the big Texas schools to think about why voting is important.  So he started posing questions about why vote if your vote hasn't ever made a difference.  Has any election you've ever participated in ever been decided by a single vote where your participation or decision made any impact?  Rather than taking the lesson and thinking about the symbolic and other purposes of voting, one student stormed out and called a conservative talk show to complain that liberals were trying to convince them not to vote.

I have no problem with this lesson, whether it was Jesus, another prophet, the American flag (or another flag) or a picture of the POTUS... or any past president, that the students were asked to in some way disrespect.  Learning facts and tables is useless and will be forgotten.  Learning different ways to think about or consider a problem or situation is a life-long skill.  Developing that can be uncomfortable.
 
2013-03-24 02:13:53 PM  
Would they act the same way if they swapped the word to be Mohammad?
 
2013-03-24 02:14:12 PM  

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.


hahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2013-03-24 02:14:19 PM  

Dracolich: Trolls shouldn't get defensive. It's unprofessional.


Your grip on reality seems even more tenuous now.

/backs away slowly
 
2013-03-24 02:14:48 PM  

FloydA: Think about it, for a minute.  If the paper had "Hitler" written on it, nobody would hesitate to wipe their feet on it, because we are pretty much in agreement that Hitler was a horrible person and earned our disrespect.  If the paper had the word "doormat" written on it, nobody would hesitate to step on it.  The lesson involves understanding what makes symbols important to our behavior, and names are a type of symbol.


What would have made it even more interesting, as an experiment if nothing else, would have been if the instructor had written the word "Mohammed" on one side and "Jesus" on the other. Place them "Mohammed" side up before letting the little darlings in and then let the stomping commence. Then have the students flip the paper over and ask those who are offended by realizing they had also stomped Jesus why it is OK peachy fine great fun to stomp Mohammed, but not Jesus, as Mohammed is just as important a name/symbol to somewheres about a billion people as Jesus is to them and about another billion people.

I honestly do not think that would really make too many of them think too terribly hard or stop any impending whining, but as an admirer of the oft-maligned Sly One, it would amuse me greatly.
 
2013-03-24 02:15:05 PM  
Happy Hours: Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?
I don't know how to read!!!

FTFA:  Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.
 
2013-03-24 02:15:28 PM  

mekki: 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.

It's not just religious ideas and only religious ideas that are treated more gingerly than other kinds of ideas.


A picture of a fetus would have been better than any religious symbol.  Even atheists attach symbolism to such things.
 
2013-03-24 02:15:39 PM  

Wolfmanjames: For those who are damning the student, try this thought exercise: what if the teacher made his students affix Romney bumper stickers to their cars?


Rather harder to get off the car, afterward. A car magnet wouldn't be so physically permanent.
 
2013-03-24 02:16:40 PM  

FloydA: ginandbacon: FloydA: Henceforth farkied as such.

You should reconsider that.

The guy went out of his way to insult me, when I was being reasonable.  He claimed that I oppose voluntary prayer in school, which is simply a lie  (as contrasted with mandatory prayer, which I do oppose) .  He implied that atheists are hypocrites who would not step on the word "atheist," which is just idiotic.  And he implied that I was the ethical equivalent of the WBC, which is just unabashed, and unforgivable dickishness.

ISTM that the only reason he said anything polite about you was as a backhanded way of saying something nasty about me.  That was particularly annoying in light of the fact that I have made every effort to be reasonable in this thread, and have not, to my knowledge, said anything caustic or inflammatory at all.


Herein is your problem. Fark is not the place for that kind of outrage. You deserved every one of his cutting words. I hope he wounded you. Deeply.

= P
 
2013-03-24 02:17:45 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.


'Bullshiat', of course, is the word most of us would use to define a really important lesson on culture and symbols, a lesson I actually would love to see happen in my Anthro class (I seem to be the only one who really grasps that American culture is just that,  a culture, not The Way The World Works(tm), and I'm willing to bet that's just my Assburger's working).

/Seriously, I really hate it when people go whine about 'bullshiat' that actually serves a purpose. Yes, your boss is having you do those trust exercises for a reason. No, you are not a special snowflake that can get out of it by trying to look cool and edgy and pretending it's not 'real' enough for you.
 
2013-03-24 02:17:52 PM  

Karac: Happy Hours: After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

So after class let out, the professor kicked him out of the room?
Anyone care to bet whether the kid was standing there throwing a shiatfit and the professor just asked him to step outside so he could lock up and go home already?


"Expressed his concerns" is code for "threw a tantrum."  "Said he would tell his supervisor and the media" is a kid saying, "Imma call the news and you're gonna get fired!"

Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."
 
2013-03-24 02:18:48 PM  

Cornelius Dribble: Pop quiz: explain the difference between "step" (as used in the lesson description) and "stomp" (as used in the Townhall article).


Stomping is more fun.

/step is also less violent sounding to some
 
2013-03-24 02:20:19 PM  

TheBigJerk: Karac: Happy Hours: After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

So after class let out, the professor kicked him out of the room?
Anyone care to bet whether the kid was standing there throwing a shiatfit and the professor just asked him to step outside so he could lock up and go home already?

"Expressed his concerns" is code for "threw a tantrum."  "Said he would tell his supervisor and the media" is a kid saying, "Imma call the news and you're gonna get fired!"

Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."


This.  If the student did return to class, it was his own choice.
 
2013-03-24 02:21:49 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Cornelius Dribble: Pop quiz: explain the difference between "step" (as used in the lesson description) and "stomp" (as used in the Townhall article).

Stomping is more fun.

/step is also less violent sounding to some

 
2013-03-24 02:22:22 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 02:23:24 PM  
I find it so damn funny that the same group of people acting like this is nothing to get worked up over turned one guy burning a Koran in to an international incident with their incessant whining and crying about it. If the students had been asked to this to a piece of paper with the name "Mohammed" on it there would be a screaming, sign waving crowd of protesters outside the school and the internet would light up with furious "Islamophobia" articles.

But hey, it's just Jesus on the paper, so get over it and the student is getting upset over nothing.
 
2013-03-24 02:23:42 PM  

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.)
 
2013-03-24 02:24:19 PM  
I had several students express similar concerns when I taught evolution in freshmen biology classes. I told them they didn't have to believe it, but they had better know it since they would be tested on it.

/I actually had the occasional student dispute my assertion that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist.
 
2013-03-24 02:25:16 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.


It's not an experiment, it's an exercise. It's not about religion, it's about symbols. I haven't seen any indication that the teacher isn't religious himself. Stupid kid with stupid problems.
 
2013-03-24 02:26:28 PM  
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.
 
2013-03-24 02:26:32 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 02:26:59 PM  
Sentence the Professor to stomp on a portait of Muhammed, cell phone video upload to YouTube and let's see how this ignorant bastid feels about the reaction ....
 
2013-03-24 02:27:23 PM  
Sounds like a reasonable lesson, but would be better accomplished as a thought experiment in Florida, where Christian culture is taken pretty seriously.
 
2013-03-24 02:27:34 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.


You may not believe in God but you certainly believe in magic if you think that would actually happen.
 
2013-03-24 02:27:46 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: 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.


Not really a good comparison; you might look up Brody's 1979 paper on "Institutionalized Sport as Quasi-Religion".

How humans do "symbolic" thinking and how they do "religious" thinking seem very closely related.
 
2013-03-24 02:28:18 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: FloydA: Think about it, for a minute.  If the paper had "Hitler" written on it, nobody would hesitate to wipe their feet on it, because we are pretty much in agreement that Hitler was a horrible person and earned our disrespect.  If the paper had the word "doormat" written on it, nobody would hesitate to step on it.  The lesson involves understanding what makes symbols important to our behavior, and names are a type of symbol.

What would have made it even more interesting, as an experiment if nothing else, would have been if the instructor had written the word "Mohammed" on one side and "Jesus" on the other. Place them "Mohammed" side up before letting the little darlings in and then let the stomping commence. Then have the students flip the paper over and ask those who are offended by realizing they had also stomped Jesus why it is OK peachy fine great fun to stomp Mohammed, but not Jesus, as Mohammed is just as important a name/symbol to somewheres about a billion people as Jesus is to them and about another billion people.

I honestly do not think that would really make too many of them think too terribly hard or stop any impending whining, but as an admirer of the oft-maligned Sly One, it would amuse me greatly.



That would certainly teach an interesting lesson, but not the same lesson that this exercise was meant to teach.
 
2013-03-24 02:28:46 PM  

PsiChick: TheDumbBlonde: The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.

'Bullshiat', of course, is the word most of us would use to define a really important lesson on culture and symbols, a lesson I actually would love to see happen in my Anthro class (I seem to be the only one who really grasps that American culture is just that,  a culture, not The Way The World Works(tm), and I'm willing to bet that's just my Assburger's working).

/Seriously, I really hate it when people go whine about 'bullshiat' that actually serves a purpose. Yes, your boss is having you do those trust exercises for a reason. No, you are not a special snowflake that can get out of it by trying to look cool and edgy and pretending it's not 'real' enough for you.


I wonder if he could have done it with the word, "America".

Actually that, too, is an interesting aspect of this.  I stop to think about what symbols wouldn't cause shiat like Townhall throwing a tantrum, because I consider the hurty widdle fee-fees of people who aren't even taking the damn class.
 
2013-03-24 02:30:07 PM  
"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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."


/Really? Not that i am a bible thumping screamer, but one has to wonder if they had done this with a picture of Allah, if the zealots in the Islamic quarter wouldn't have burned the university down and sawed off everyone's heads. Just saying.
 
2013-03-24 02:31:02 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 02:31:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 02:31:17 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus.  Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead.  Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that.  it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.


Well, I'm not sure that everyone would be okay with it.  If a public university professor were to lead the class in Christian prayer, as an exercise to show secularists that they shouldn't be so sensitive about having to recite mere words, the ACLU would be filing lawsuits claiming that the prayer was unconstitutional.

This is the same thing in reverse.  If it unconstitutional to have prayers in the classroom of a public institution, isn't it equally unconstitutional to lead students in an exercise that displays hostility toward religious beliefs?
 
2013-03-24 02:31:43 PM  

FloydA: ginandbacon: FloydA: Henceforth farkied as such.

You should reconsider that.

The guy went out of his way to insult me, when I was being reasonable.  He claimed that I oppose voluntary prayer in school, which is simply a lie  (as contrasted with mandatory prayer, which I do oppose) .  He implied that atheists are hypocrites who would not step on the word "atheist," which is just idiotic.  And he implied that I was the ethical equivalent of the WBC, which is just unabashed, and unforgivable dickishness.

ISTM that the only reason he said anything polite about you was as a backhanded way of saying something nasty about me.  That was particularly annoying in light of the fact that I have made every effort to be reasonable in this thread, and have not, to my knowledge, said anything caustic or inflammatory at all.


I missed that. I'm sorry.
 
2013-03-24 02:31:59 PM  
What the instructor should have done is steal a bunch of communion wafers and have them stomp on those.

/'Cause then you'd actually be stomping on the body of Jesus.
//Stupid professor. You're teaching at college level; construction paper and crayons are SO high school, get a clue.
 
2013-03-24 02:32:26 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: "Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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."


/Really? Not that i am a bible thumping screamer, but one has to wonder if they had done this with a picture of Allah, if the zealots in the Islamic quarter wouldn't have burned the university down and sawed off everyone's heads. Just saying.


I would've thought the outrage would've been stupid regardless of it was Jesus or Mohammed, it is a valid  lesson.

If people are too stupid to understand the lesson like the Mormon attention whore who had to get a local TV station involved in this, then that's their problem I suppose.
 
2013-03-24 02:33:15 PM  

Epicedion: t's not an experiment, it's an exercise. It's not about religion, it's about symbols.


I was just responding to the people here trying to make this about religion. I understand the objective of his experiment, but if he had used something other than a religious figure it would have been more clear, and less subject to the atheist/religious tug of war both sides are so eager to take part in.

I refuse to believe he is so ignorant as to not understand why using a religious figure would be more provocative than anything else, and take attention away from the real point of the lesson.
 
2013-03-24 02:34:59 PM  
ginandbacon:

I missed that. I'm sorry.

You never need to apologize to me. :-)   I was just pointing out my perspective.
 
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?
 
2013-03-24 03:28:00 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...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.
 
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.
 
2013-03-24 04:53:42 PM  

s2s2s2: 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.


Evil is the result of irrationality. I think I have made that clear by saying that immorality is caused by a lack of rationality,
 
2013-03-24 04:54:33 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: Which is not remotely accurate, and a gross oversimplification.


Is it? I'm not so sure. The ME would be a lot more quiet, for one thing.

Religion is just a good method to control the public, and get them to support wars and things.

It's a good way to get people to do what you want them to do.

 Those using religion for various agendas don't genuinely believe it themselves. If it were gone, they'd just have to use other methods to manipulate the public, which already work like a charm on most atheists.

What other methods would those be? Religion trains people to uncritically accept whatever their leaders tell them. You could say similar things about communism, but ideologies with infallible leaders are closer to religion than anything else. (to err is to be human, and so on)

/this war is about freedom and liberty

Not sure which war you're talking about.
/not sure if serious, either
 
2013-03-24 04:55:01 PM  
Considering the fact that the whole point was to show irrational responses to symbolism, this sounds like the most effective lesson ever.
 
2013-03-24 04:55:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours"


No, YOU look at history.

Back in the day, the Christians were raiding the Muslim held Jerusalem to "free the holy land" you say. Do you have any idea how wars were conducted back then? Knights would gather their loyal men, band together with weapons of war, and then go somewhere. When they got there they would sack it and take anything they wanted; treasure, food, women. Along the way there and back they would forage. Foraging in today's nomenclature would be called robbery.

Now let's look at Vikings raiding English monasteries. They didn't do it to show Odin is better than Jesus. They did it because monks had a lot of wealth, made good slaves, and had no weapons of their own. Again, greed.

Perhaps we can look at Muslim insurgents. Dissatisfied minorities trying to gain power. Just like every other insurgent group. Yeah, they want Muslim law, but the FARC wants FARC law and the Klan wants Klan law. Everyone wants to be top ramen.

Atheism isn't some magical cure for human nature. Religion's been used to justify all kinds of things, but it's not the only justification. The Iraq War, a modern crusade, was totally secular. Removing religion will just bring in some other bullshiat and put funny hat makers out of business.
 
2013-03-24 04:55:20 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /totally agree, but religion gives them a viable? excuse.


Viable in the sense that most people had some level of belief in the myths as literal, and were not able to independently research the source materials for themselves, or understand them if they did have access.

"It is for lack of knowledge that my people perish." One of my favorite lines in the Bible.

/Raised Transdenominational
/Now more of a Panwhateverist
 
2013-03-24 04:57:21 PM  

cybrwzrd: Evil is the result of irrationality. I think I have made that clear by saying that immorality is caused by a lack of rationality


I'm cool with that. Religion farked up my life, but I'm not going to blame a myth* for my problems.


*We may define "myth" differently
/*
 
2013-03-24 04:57:37 PM  
It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.
 
2013-03-24 04:59:02 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.


What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?
 
2013-03-24 04:59:29 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.


Agreed. Maybe the kid was more upset that some of the other students stomped the papers with glee. So he blames the professor for giving them the opportunity on class time.

I'm also interested to know if this kid is on a scholarship(but I think I know the answer).
 
2013-03-24 04:59:42 PM  

cybrwzrd: 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?


No, he's saying that religion doesn't cause evil; it justifies evil that's going to be done anyhow.  I can teach a child to hate gays without the Bible.
 
2013-03-24 05:00:49 PM  

ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?


Right? Even as a myth, he's had quite an impact on the world, albeit not at all in line with his stated purpose.
 
2013-03-24 05:01:32 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.


Golly, it's almost as if ignorant people are attracted to religion.
 
2013-03-24 05:02:53 PM  

ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?


Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.
 
2013-03-24 05:03:09 PM  

s2s2s2: ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?

Right? Even as a myth, he's had quite an impact on the world, albeit not at all in line with his stated purpose.


he wasn't all great.
 
2013-03-24 05:04:42 PM  
why the hell does any minor interpersonal issue become massive news
 
2013-03-24 05:05:22 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.


It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.
 
2013-03-24 05:06:06 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.


Thank you.
 
2013-03-24 05:06:08 PM  

doglover: Bit'O'Gristle: Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours"

No, YOU look at history.

Back in the day, the Christians were raiding the Muslim held Jerusalem to "free the holy land" you say. Do you have any idea how wars were conducted back then? Knights would gather their loyal men, band together with weapons of war, and then go somewhere. When they got there they would sack it and take anything they wanted; treasure, food, women. Along the way there and back they would forage. Foraging in today's nomenclature would be called robbery.

Now let's look at Vikings raiding English monasteries. They didn't do it to show Odin is better than Jesus. They did it because monks had a lot of wealth, made good slaves, and had no weapons of their own. Again, greed.

Perhaps we can look at Muslim insurgents. Dissatisfied minorities trying to gain power. Just like every other insurgent group. Yeah, they want Muslim law, but the FARC wants FARC law and the Klan wants Klan law. Everyone wants to be top ramen.

Atheism isn't some magical cure for human nature. Religion's been used to justify all kinds of things, but it's not the only justification. The Iraq War, a modern crusade, was totally secular. Removing religion will just bring in some other bullshiat and put funny hat makers out of business.


People are much easier to control when they do not think about things critically before demanding things of them. That is what religion does - blind faith of the masses allows those in power to do whatever they want.

A society built around the ideas of critical thought, reason and the golden rule of do whatever the hell you want as long as it does not harm another person is something we should strive for, not fear.
 
2013-03-24 05:06:45 PM  

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?


Irrelevant, since he wasn't forced to step on it anyway. The lesson appeared to be about the power and value of symbols in religious beliefs. It seems like a good topic to me.
 
2013-03-24 05:07:15 PM  

ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.


Correct. We should only teach grown-ass adult college students things they already believe so that those special little grown-ass adult snowflakes don't ever have their sensibilities challenged.
 
2013-03-24 05:09:58 PM  

eddiesocket: 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?

Irrelevant, since he wasn't forced to step on it anyway. The lesson appeared to be about the power and value of symbols in religious beliefs. It seems like a good topic to me.


i.stack.imgur.com
 
2013-03-24 05:10:19 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.


I haven't watched "South Park" in a long time, but I'm fairly sure they covered this topic.
 
2013-03-24 05:10:21 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: the more I truly believe that now is the time for decent folks to stop being quiet.


I'm old enough to have done with being quiet. It's an absurd way to go through life.
 
2013-03-24 05:10:35 PM  
What's the big deal? They're in Florida. Could've told themselves it was Hay-Zeus instead of Jesus. They sure don't have a problem stomping on immigrants.
 
2013-03-24 05:11:37 PM  

TheBigJerk: PsiChick: TheDumbBlonde: The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.

'Bullshiat', of course, is the word most of us would use to define a really important lesson on culture and symbols, a lesson I actually would love to see happen in my Anthro class (I seem to be the only one who really grasps that American culture is just that,  a culture, not The Way The World Works(tm), and I'm willing to bet that's just my Assburger's working).

/Seriously, I really hate it when people go whine about 'bullshiat' that actually serves a purpose. Yes, your boss is having you do those trust exercises for a reason. No, you are not a special snowflake that can get out of it by trying to look cool and edgy and pretending it's not 'real' enough for you.

I wonder if he could have done it with the word, "America".

Actually that, too, is an interesting aspect of this.  I stop to think about what symbols wouldn't cause shiat like Townhall throwing a tantrum, because I consider the hurty widdle fee-fees of people who aren't even taking the damn class.


That's probably  why 'Jesus' was used--most of America is Christian in name only. They register as one for the census and go to church once on Easter. But yeah, pretty much no matter what the teacher's screwed, so why not go balls-out?
 
2013-03-24 05:12:21 PM  

ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.


How does this belittle their students?

"This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings," says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can't step on the paper and "discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Then the student decided to act like this to the professor:


Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.

After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.


Sorry, the student decided to act like a douche and as a result, I have zero sympathy for him.
 
2013-03-24 05:14:37 PM  

Epicedion: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.

Correct. We should only teach grown-ass adult college students things they already believe so that those special little grown-ass adult snowflakes don't ever have their sensibilities challenged.


I had professors challenge my beliefs in many areas without ever making me feel threatened or embarrassed. They nurtured me and my peers and pushed us to question the tenets we came to school with. They helped us grow without knocking us down. Maybe I just got lucky.
 
2013-03-24 05:15:18 PM  

ginandbacon: The number 7 and the letter Q!: Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.

Thank you.


Thank you for being the kind of person I can respect in a discussion. I'm Christian but I don't think Atheists (not sure if that should be capitalized, but trying to be respectful) have no morals. Heck, I love science (as much of it as I understand, and love reading about the parts I don't) and it hasn't made my God one bit smaller.

We can be different and still work toward decency for everyone.
 
2013-03-24 05:16:01 PM  

ginandbacon: Epicedion: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.

Correct. We should only teach grown-ass adult college students things they already believe so that those special little grown-ass adult snowflakes don't ever have their sensibilities challenged.

I had professors challenge my beliefs in many areas without ever making me feel threatened or embarrassed. They nurtured me and my peers and pushed us to question the tenets we came to school with. They helped us grow without knocking us down. Maybe I just got lucky.


So this would make you feel threatened or embarrassed? Step to the back of the special grown-ass adult snowflake line please.
 
2013-03-24 05:19:59 PM  

Mrtraveler01: How does this belittle their students?


Can you not see how asking a student to write out the name of the religious symbol they identify as a personal savior and then telling them to defile that might be a bit demeaning?

It's just crass and really unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to introduce students to the idea that religious symbolism can be a tad overwrought. I would be really upset if one of my Christian friends was exposed to this in a classroom. 

It's not helpful.
 
2013-03-24 05:20:04 PM  
My question for this whole thread is wtf is anybody responding to skinnyhead?

/Right TF
 
2013-03-24 05:22:15 PM  

cybrwzrd: People are much easier to control when they do not think about things critically before demanding things of them. That is what religion does - blind faith of the masses allows those in power to do whatever they want.

A society built around the ideas of critical thought, reason and the golden rule of do whatever the hell you want as long as it does not harm another person is something we should strive for, not fear.



The golden rule is a part of every religion I can think of. People will still do horrific things to one another for any reason the first chance they get. Most religions also promote critical thinking and reason and in fact are the source of tools like logic itself, if you practice them properly and are actively participating in the philosophical side of the faith.

Where you're confused is you think religion makes the people in the Bible Belt the way they are. It doesn't. People are just like that, and Christianity happens to be what's landed on them. Take that away, it will be something else. Look at North Korea. It's all secular and all about the party and a lot worse than even crazy Muslim countries like Pakistan where speaking against Islam can get you hanged.

If you learn about people your cynicism goes to 11 and your hope of an easy answer, like the childish belief religion is actually the root of religious strife, fades. But there is hope. It's called acceptance and living a good life. If you just do what you can to make your life good without hurting others, and encourage others to do the same, things seem to work out alright most of the time.
 
2013-03-24 05:22:34 PM  

ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.


How was it rude and pointless and a power trip? It was a discussion about symbols and how we react to them. If you honestly think it was anything else, especially some kind of evil vicious attack, then you're the one with the problem, just like the kid.
 
2013-03-24 05:24:02 PM  

Epicedion: So this would make you feel threatened or embarrassed? Step to the back of the special grown-ass adult snowflake line please.


It would threaten me because I would view it as an abuse of power. It would embarrass me because I would hate to see a teacher lower themselves so much. 

Were I a Christian student, I would feel personally attacked and shamed in front of my peers. 

None of that is an example of what I would consider exemplary teaching.
 
2013-03-24 05:25:47 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.


/Well, so was Mickey Mouse, and i can see him, but you don't see me treating him as a godhead and bowing and scraping to him.
 
2013-03-24 05:28:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols


That oddly only focused on one symbol.
 
2013-03-24 05:28:24 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: How was it rude and pointless and a power trip? It was a discussion about symbols and how we react to them.


In this case, it wasn't "religious symbols", it was the name of one, in particular, that any professor worth a damn would know is a hot button for MANY people in this country. He can claim a general reason all he wants, but he chose a specific name. Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?

A: Because THIS exercise was a specific question about christian symbols.
 
2013-03-24 05:29:17 PM  

ginandbacon: Mrtraveler01: How does this belittle their students?

Can you not see how asking a student to write out the name of the religious symbol they identify as a personal savior and then telling them to defile that might be a bit demeaning?

It's just crass and really unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to introduce students to the idea that religious symbolism can be a tad overwrought. I would be really upset if one of my Christian friends was exposed to this in a classroom. 

It's not helpful.


HE DIDN'T TELL THEM TO DEFILE IT AND ONLY DEFILE IT, DIPshiat. HE WASN'T MAD ABOUT THE STUDENTS WHO DIDN'T STEP ON IT. IT WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE POWER SYMBOLS HAVE IN OUR CULTURE. THE STUDENT'S NOT STEPPING ON IT IS NOT THE FARKING PROBLEM, IT WAS THE STUDENT'S OVERBLOWN AND ATTENTION-WHORING REACTION.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, OR DO I HAVE TO BREAK OUT THE PUPPETS?
 
2013-03-24 05:29:39 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 05:31:20 PM  

Infernalist: 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.


/Sure they are.  I don't believe that you can make a statement that you are 1. Atheist and 2. that jesus was a great man. Even saying that, you had pronounced your belief that he was the son of God, or even existed at all, as the bible tells us.  I don't believe that you can say there isn't a God, therefore, no (son of God) or Jesus if you will, then say that Jesus was a great man.  One or the other dude. Pick a side.
 
2013-03-24 05:32:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: The number 7 and the letter Q!: ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.

/Well, so was Mickey Mouse, and i can see him, but you don't see me treating him as a godhead and bowing and scraping to him.


I don't know, Mickey always struck me as kind of a jerk. Leading Minnie on all those years with nary a proposal (or a hint of mousey action).

I guess everyone's religion is different. I was raised to evaluate everything, including my holy book. I can follow Jesus without scraping, I believe.
 
2013-03-24 05:32:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW, OR DO I HAVE TO BREAK OUT THE PUPPETS?


Can you write it out very big in crayons for me?
 
2013-03-24 05:33:25 PM  

ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols

That oddly only focused on one symbol.


s2s2s2: Keizer_Ghidorah: How was it rude and pointless and a power trip? It was a discussion about symbols and how we react to them.

In this case, it wasn't "religious symbols", it was the name of one, in particular, that any professor worth a damn would know is a hot button for MANY people in this country. He can claim a general reason all he wants, but he chose a specific name. Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?

A: Because THIS exercise was a specific question about christian symbols.


Gee, maybe that's why he picked it, because Christianity is such a big deal in America. Would you guys have been this angry and hateful and whiny if he had used Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or the Dali Llama, or the San Francisco 49ers, or Nintendo, or America's Next Top Model? And he wasn't doing it to make some kind of atheist statement, or to ridicule Christianity, or anything your conspiracy theorist retard minds might think of.

It's like you people are going out of your way to see is as only some kind of anti-Christian liberal atheist attack.
 
2013-03-24 05:35:08 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: or even existed at all


There is quite a bit of evidence that Jesus existed. You seem ignorant.
 
2013-03-24 05:36:37 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: The number 7 and the letter Q!: ginandbacon: 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.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just in case you get a different answer, there's the right one.

/Well, so was Mickey Mouse, and i can see him, but you don't see me treating him as a godhead and bowing and scraping to him.



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.

Some of the things that Jesus is purported to have said are actually pretty good ideas (some of the Beatitudes, for instance).  Religion as a social institution doesn't appeal to me at all, and I have no belief in anything supernatural whatsoever, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jesus was a good guy.   It's not really fair to hold Jesus accountable for the behavior of his fan club.
 
2013-03-24 05:37:03 PM  

s2s2s2: Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?


Because those would unlikely be symbols prevalent in our society. And the professor DIDN'T FARKING SAY "YOU MUST STEP ON IT OR I'LL FAIL YOU!". This right here seems to be the major point of contention that you have a problem understanding.
 
2013-03-24 05:37:21 PM  

ginandbacon: Epicedion: So this would make you feel threatened or embarrassed? Step to the back of the special grown-ass adult snowflake line please.

It would threaten me because I would view it as an abuse of power. It would embarrass me because I would hate to see a teacher lower themselves so much. 

Were I a Christian student, I would feel personally attacked and shamed in front of my peers. 

None of that is an example of what I would consider exemplary teaching.


The student wasn't required to do anything, and was in fact expected to refuse. An abuse of power would be to require it and grade someone poorly or reject them from the class for refusing, and this was in fact the opposite of that. That the student overreacted to a perceived slight without seeing the activity through (and that you would apparently do the same) only reflects poorly on the student (and you, even more so since you already know the trick to the activity). To paraphrase, the point of the activity is to show that people invest heavily in arbitrary symbols like names, and nothing teaches better than personal experience. Even bettef, the teacher wasn't even the originator of the assignment, as he got it from some textbook teaching manual.

In other news, higher education isn't for everyone.
 
2013-03-24 05:37:34 PM  
What bible verse forbids this?
 
2013-03-24 05:39:27 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 05:39:47 PM  

The number 7 and the letter Q!: We can be different and still work toward decency for everyone.


Amen and Amin.
 
2013-03-24 05:41:22 PM  
And as to the class and the act itself, I see what the teacher was trying to do, although he must have known it would have caused a scrap in the end. It's about symbology. It was a depiction of what "we" think "jesus" looked like, although nobody has any idea if he was real or just made up. I'm going with maybe he was a real man, but just that. Not the son of "God", but just a man trying to change things for the better. I have no problem with this. And if indeed this is the case, i wish we had more men or women trying to make things better for everyone.

But to take a man, mortal, and elevate him to Godhood, or at the least, the son of God, to wow the people that you're trying to convert to "Christianity" is reprehensible. Why not just say, hey, here is a guy with some great ideas on how to make things better through some good laws we should live by, and everything wouldn't be so farked up all the time? He's got some good ideas..lets spread that around.

I'll tell you why, because the whole "rising from the dead and "ascending" on wings to be with his all powerful father" not to mention the whole super healing power is MUCH better theater than "just some cool dude with a good idea or two". Little harder to sell the latter. Much easier the former.
 
2013-03-24 05:42:45 PM  

FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.


When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.
 
2013-03-24 05:42:57 PM  

andersoncouncil42: What bible verse forbids this?


It's gotta be in there somewhere. Maybe mixed in with the verses that tell followers to execute disobedient children and menstruating women and shellfish eaters and people working on the Sabbath and wearers of blended fabrics and farmers who raise two crops in one field and those who refuse to convert to Christianity and men who lay with other men.
 
2013-03-24 05:43:56 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


How was a single student singled out?
 
2013-03-24 05:44:40 PM  

ginandbacon: Bit'O'Gristle: or even existed at all

There is quite a bit of evidence that Jesus existed. You seem ignorant.


/you forgot to put the 10 percent of your earnings into the collection plate for jesus. He needs the cash. Watch out, satan is behind you.
 
2013-03-24 05:44:52 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?


You do realize that there's a massive amount of violence all around the world that occurs solely because it's commanded by various religions, right? I mean, if you were talking strictly about the US, it might be understandable (though still not entirely correct, since religiously motivated violence still does occur even there), but to say that about the world is just hilariously wrong.
 
2013-03-24 05:45:32 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


He WASN'T singling out a specific student. For fark's sake, try thinking instead of reacting once in a while.
 
2013-03-24 05:52:23 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?
 
2013-03-24 05:52:47 PM  

Epicedion: ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.

How was a single student singled out?


My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion. 

Again, I am an atheist. But I would have no joy in demeaning the sacred symbol of a great many people I love and respect. I would react the same way were this directed at Mohammed or Buddha or Shiva as I said before. I don't get a lot of pleasure from disrespecting other peoples faiths.
 
2013-03-24 05:53:31 PM  

cybrwzrd: I am of the belief that ~95% of the worlds problems would go away if religion ceased to exist tomorrow.


I used to think that way.  Then I realized that we're all savages and we'd find something new to fight about eventually :(

More on topic: I remember doing a similar exercise in one of my University classes (don't remember which one).  A couple of the students had a problem with the assignment, but once the teacher (and a few classmates) explained it, they backed down.  The kid in TFA just wasn't willing to listen.  He wanted to feel oppressed.  That's just my take on it.
 
2013-03-24 05:54:55 PM  

ginandbacon: Epicedion: ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.

How was a single student singled out?

My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion. 

Again, I am an atheist. But I would have no joy in demeaning the sacred symbol of a great many people I love and respect. I would react the same way were this directed at Mohammed or Buddha or Shiva as I said before. I don't get a lot of pleasure from disrespecting other peoples faiths.


For the exercise to be effective it needed to be a symbol that people would recognize and identify with in some way. If no one identifies with it it's not a goddamn symbol.
 
2013-03-24 05:54:55 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


That didn't happen though.  No student was singled out.  The exercise was assigned, the students were offered the opportunity to take part or not, this one student chose to be offended (precisely as the exercise predicted), and then after class, when the other students were leaving, this one student confronted the teacher and threatened to complain to school administrators and the media.  Once again, the student was not singled out.  The student initiated the confrontation after class.

Remember that TownHall is not a reliable source of accurate information; it is yellow journalism at its worst.  It is probably unwise for us to base our conclusions on their description of the event, since they have a history of being someone less bound by the tenets of accurate, factual reporting than we might prefer.  Events almost certainly did not transpire in the way that the article describes.

We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.
 
2013-03-24 05:55:06 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?


Were the students asked to write out the name of Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, or Yahweh?
 
2013-03-24 05:57:43 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?

Were the students asked to write out the name of Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, or Yahweh?


Okay, now you're just being stupid for the sake of continuing a pointless argument.
 
2013-03-24 05:57:58 PM  

ginandbacon: Epicedion: ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.

How was a single student singled out?

My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion. 

Again, I am an atheist. But I would have no joy in demeaning the sacred symbol of a great many people I love and respect. I would react the same way were this directed at Mohammed or Buddha or Shiva as I said before. I don't get a lot of pleasure from disrespecting other peoples faiths.



I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.
 
2013-03-24 05:58:01 PM  

FloydA: We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.


Fine but this story is being reported in other media and I know you well enough to know that you care about teaching. I doubt that you would defend this method in ant instance. It reeks of bad pedagogy.
 
2013-03-24 05:58:20 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?

Were the students asked to write out the name of Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, or Yahweh?


Christ on a popsicle stick, stop whining.
 
2013-03-24 05:59:32 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.

Fine but this story is being reported in other media and I know you well enough to know that you care about teaching. I doubt that you would defend this method in ant instance. It reeks of bad pedagogy.


*sigh* or any.
 
2013-03-24 06:00:54 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?

Were the students asked to write out the name of Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, or Yahweh?


Nope. Jesus remains the most common religion is this country and would therefore be more likely to have meaning to the largest number of students. I really don't think this could be considered singling out a student.

That aside, you might have a case for something akin to 'singling out' if the exercise instead stipulated a minority religion.
 
2013-03-24 06:03:16 PM  
FFS... this is a hypersensitive culture. Ergo, we cannot ask students to step on the name of their god just as we can't hang Halloween ghosts from trees. The end. Stop being shocked when people are offended. This is the world we live in.

A nation of pussies.
 
2013-03-24 06:03:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 06:04:37 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.


That is a very cogent and reasonable response and one I am going to have to think over a little bit. But I am 46 and have had the benefit of a great many incredible teachers. Are you suggesting that a 19 or 18 or 20 year old is able to push back if a teacher (a person in a position of power) behaves in an immoral fashion? Especially if you were raised in a tradition that teaches you to obey and submit to authority?
 
2013-03-24 06:04:58 PM  
Hey, at least people who didn't step on the "Jesus" weren't executed like back in 1600s Japan...
 
2013-03-24 06:05:00 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: You sure this was singling out a student? Considering that the most common religion in this country remains Christianity?

Were the students asked to write out the name of Mohammed, Buddha, Shiva, or Yahweh?


As I mentioned up thread, that would not have worked.

Remember, the goal of the exercise was not to get students to step on the paper.  The exercise specifically predicted that they would not do so, and then the class was expected to discuss why they would not.

I also would have been uncomfortable stepping on the paper, even though (a) I am an atheist, (b) the name of Jesus isn't the same as the person or the ideas he represents, and (c) that's not what the guy would have called himself anyway.  Despite the fact that I know all of these things, I still would have been uncomfortable stepping on the paper, and that is the whole point of the exercise.  That symbol has power in our culture; it influences the way that we act, even those of us who are not religious, and that's precisely the lesson that the exercise was supposed to teach.

Unfortunately, in many parts of the US, if you wrote  Śiva or even YHVH, the students would have no idea what those symbols meant, and if you wrote Buddha or Mohammed, some students would actually take pleasure in stepping on them.  As a result, those symbols would not be effective for this exercise.

If the class were being taught in a predominantly Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish community, a different symbol would be necessary for the exercise to have the same effect, but Florida is not predominantly Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish.  A widely respected, accepted, and recognized symbol was necessary in order for the exercise to have the desired effect.  A US flag would have been an effective replacement (although then the teacher would be actually violating the Flag Code, so that's also not a good idea.)

(I don't think the exercise would work at all in a predominantly Buddhist community; the Buddhist students  would all say "OK" and walk all over the paper.  Buddhists are unusual that way.)
 
2013-03-24 06:06:43 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.

Fine but this story is being reported in other media and I know you well enough to know that you care about teaching. I doubt that you would defend this method in ant instance. It reeks of bad pedagogy.


I also care about teaching - the exercise is certainly  engaging, something that one strives for in this context. However, like any topic that has the potential to be controversial it has to be handled delicately and with explicit acknowledgement and inclusivity given the diversity of opinion and beliefs. That being said, such controversy should not be shied away from, especially given the topic of the class. If handled well, such an exercise can provide a very teachable moment.
 
2013-03-24 06:07:36 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.

That is a very cogent and reasonable response and one I am going to have to think over a little bit. But I am 46 and have had the benefit of a great many incredible teachers. Are you suggesting that a 19 or 18 or 20 year old is able to push back if a teacher (a person in a position of power) behaves in an immoral fashion? Especially if you were raised in a tradition that teaches you to obey and submit to authority?


All this really shows is that some people need to be shocked out of their cultural upbringings if they're going to participate in intellectual activities about culture at a meta-level rather than just in the mud of their own culture versus other cultures. If you want to be insular and reactionary, just stay home.
 
2013-03-24 06:09:20 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.

That is a very cogent and reasonable response and one I am going to have to think over a little bit. But I am 46 and have had the benefit of a great many incredible teachers. Are you suggesting that a 19 or 18 or 20 year old is able to push back if a teacher (a person in a position of power) behaves in an immoral fashion? Especially if you were raised in a tradition that teaches you to obey and submit to authority?


Still trying to understand why you think the teacher was "behaving immorally", considering he didn't force anyone to do anything and had the students discuss why they did and didn't step on a piece of paper with a name on it.
 
2013-03-24 06:14:02 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.

Fine but this story is being reported in other media and I know you well enough to know that you care about teaching. I doubt that you would defend this method in ant instance. It reeks of bad pedagogy.


Personally, I wouldn't use an exercise like this, because there are other ways to get the same message across that have less risk of this type of escalation.  It would have struck me as "likely to piss off the whiniest students" so I would never have even considered it unless a senior faculty member told me to do so.  But that's me- I've got my teaching strategies, others have theirs.  TBH, I doubt that this particular prof is going to be assigning this exercise again if he can avoid it.

But then again, maybe he has had a lot of success with it in the past- getting students to think about why and how we respond to symbols and notions of the sacred.  If so, maybe he was having an "off" day, or maybe this one student was just looking for something to be offended about.  Personally, I would suspect the later, simply because probably 80-90% of the class are Christians, and this was the only student who complained.

But YMMV.  I won't argue with you about it.  It's a sunny afternoon here, and I have whiskey, and that's much more appealing right now than arguing.
 
2013-03-24 06:15:25 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 06:15:29 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.


They were not required to. The exercise assumes that most will not comply and their reasons are supposed to form the basis of class discussion. The guy complaining is a dick.
 
2013-03-24 06:16:23 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.

That is a very cogent and reasonable response and one I am going to have to think over a little bit. But I am 46 and have had the benefit of a great many incredible teachers. Are you suggesting that a 19 or 18 or 20 year old is able to push back if a teacher (a person in a position of power) behaves in an immoral fashion? Especially if you were raised in a tradition that teaches you to obey and submit to authority?


I think if the student is in a place where they believe that 'pushing back' in a confrontational manner is the right thing to do, we should do our best to ensure that approach should be a last resort. My opinion is that inclusivity and recognition of diversity and dealing with this sort of thing in a sensitive manner is sometimes lacking in the post-secondary context, especially given that many professors do not have much formal training in education.  It's getting better in some regards (more awareness of the issue) but worse in others (more reliance on sessionals who have even less teaching experience), but progress towards competence in this areais slow. I'm also an advocate for the existence of independent entities similar to an ombudsman - someone a student can talk to that is outside of the academic administrative unit.

In summation, the student shouldn't have to push back in the first place if the teaching environment is run well, and if so, there should be an independent entity the student should be able to talk to.
 
2013-03-24 06:17:37 PM  
But...but....but libtards say Christians are not persecuted!
 
2013-03-24 06:18:13 PM  

FloydA: ginandbacon: FloydA: We may argue about whether or not the exercise was ill-advised, or whether or not it was handled properly and competently; I certainly don't know enough to hold any strong opinion about that.  But I do know that when TownHall (or WND, American Thinker, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or any of the other usual suspects) raises a fuss about...well, anything really, that their descriptions are highly suspect.

Fine but this story is being reported in other media and I know you well enough to know that you care about teaching. I doubt that you would defend this method in ant instance. It reeks of bad pedagogy.

Personally, I wouldn't use an exercise like this, because there are other ways to get the same message across that have less risk of this type of escalation.  It would have struck me as "likely to piss off the whiniest students" so I would never have even considered it unless a senior faculty member told me to do so.  But that's me- I've got my teaching strategies, others have theirs.  TBH, I doubt that this particular prof is going to be assigning this exercise again if he can avoid it.

But then again, maybe he has had a lot of success with it in the past- getting students to think about why and how we respond to symbols and notions of the sacred.  If so, maybe he was having an "off" day, or maybe this one student was just looking for something to be offended about.  Personally, I would suspect the later, simply because probably 80-90% of the class are Christians, and this was the only student who complained.

But YMMV.  I won't argue with you about it.  It's a sunny afternoon here, and I have whiskey, and that's much more appealing right now than arguing.


It's raining and freezing here, and there's no beer cold. Bring the suck.
 
2013-03-24 06:21:25 PM  

Epicedion: ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: I don't think the intent was for anyone to derive pleasure from the experience, but instead an impetus to examine why one values such a symbol, sacred or otherwise. Note that that is what you have explicitly done here - therefore I would argue that the exercise would prove useful to students in the same way.

That is a very cogent and reasonable response and one I am going to have to think over a little bit. But I am 46 and have had the benefit of a great many incredible teachers. Are you suggesting that a 19 or 18 or 20 year old is able to push back if a teacher (a person in a position of power) behaves in an immoral fashion? Especially if you were raised in a tradition that teaches you to obey and submit to authority?

All this really shows is that some people need to be shocked out of their cultural upbringings if they're going to participate in intellectual activities about culture at a meta-level rather than just in the mud of their own culture versus other cultures. If you want to be insular and reactionary, just stay home.



I agree that shock and a bit of disruption of existing ideas is certainly useful but we have to be careful about reactions to said shock. It has to be balanced with a recognition that different students will react differently to it, and therefore a soft touch or safety net is prudent, if not necessary. As an example, if it was me running this course, I would have performed it as a thought exercise to take a bit of the edge off and immediately followed up with an open discussion to let the students express what they were feeling (the latter works wonders in my experience in preventing them from stewing in it).
 
2013-03-24 06:22:27 PM  

Epicedion: f you want to be insular and reactionary, just stay home.


If you think that I am from an insular and reactionary background, you might want to get to know me a bit.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Still trying to understand why you think the teacher was "behaving immorally", considering he didn't force anyone to do anything and had the students discuss why they did and didn't step on a piece of paper with a name on it.


I think that the teacher's decision to make this particular exercise about Jesus was uncalled for and weird. It seemed like (from the teaching material) that it should have been a more general lesson. And would have had greater value if students had to confront defiling their own deity vs. the deity of others. That would have brought the point home in a concrete way, do you not agree?
 
2013-03-24 06:25:55 PM  

FloydA: But YMMV.  I won't argue with you about it.  It's a sunny afternoon here, and I have whiskey, and that's much more appealing right now than arguing.


There's a couple of values we can both agree on and enjoy. Sláinte  my friend :)
 
2013-03-24 06:27:37 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: I agree that shock and a bit of disruption of existing ideas is certainly useful but we have to be careful about reactions to said shock. It has to be balanced with a recognition that different students will react differently to it, and therefore a soft touch or safety net is prudent, if not necessary. As an example, if it was me running this course, I would have performed it as a thought exercise to take a bit of the edge off and immediately followed up with an open discussion to let the students express what they were feeling (the latter works wonders in my experience in preventing them from stewing in it).


Which is exactly how the lesson was done in the first place. The kid still decided to turn it into a media circus.

ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: Still trying to understand why you think the teacher was "behaving immorally", considering he didn't force anyone to do anything and had the students discuss why they did and didn't step on a piece of paper with a name on it.

I think that the teacher's decision to make this particular exercise about Jesus was uncalled for and weird. It seemed like (from the teaching material) that it should have been a more general lesson. And would have had greater value if students had to confront defiling their own deity vs. the deity of others. That would have brought the point home in a concrete way, do you not agree?


Not really, because the POINT OF THE GODDAMNED LESSON WAS  SYMBOLS AND THEIR POWER IN OUR CULTURE, NOT CHRISTIANITY VS THE REST OF RELIGION. AND SINCE CHRISTIANITY IS THE MAJOR RELIGION OF AMERICA, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO USE IT AS THE FOCUS.

Why is it that farking difficult for you to understand this? Why?
 
2013-03-24 06:29:01 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: the student shouldn't have to push back in the first place if the teaching environment is run well


Exactly and very well put.
 
2013-03-24 06:30:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Why is it that farking difficult for you to understand this? Why?


I guess I'm just hopelessly retarded.
 
2013-03-24 06:30:49 PM  
If you step on the paper and feel uncomfortable, or you refuse to step on the paper and place it back on the desk, the point is made: We humans sometimes confer power to symbols that shape our actions, beliefs and emotions.  The only way this exercise doesn't make its point is if I'm the student, because I probably wouldn't have been paying attention and would have sat there wondering why everyone was standing up...but if asked, sure, I'll step on it.  Hell, I would moonwalk on it because it's a piece of paper and it wasn't made venerable in my eyes because I scrawled "Jesus" on it with my Ticonderoga #2.

I will say that this exercise WILL single out a closet Christian who doesn't want anyone to know that he is a true and devout believer.  Either that, or to keep the religiosity secret, the closet Christian steps on the paper and feels like a total Judas the rest of the week.  In deference to those who feel uncomfortable letting the Christian cat outta the bag, the exercise could be tweaked: Have them take out two pieces of paper. On one write "Step here" and draw an X on the paper.  Now, take the second piece of paper and write "JESUS" and place it on the floor next to the "STEP HERE" paper. Ask them to look down at  both sheets and consider whether they would have a problem stepping on the "JESUS" paper, but not the "STEP HERE" paper and then write an  8000 word paper (APA format)  on why.   Oh, and it's due tomorrow, asshats.

/There. I hope you senstitive, closeted Jesus freaks are happy. I was watching basketball tonight, but now I'm doing a stinking paper.
 
2013-03-24 06:35:29 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: 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.


The confederate stuff is normal. The local chapter had a big ol' picture of Robert E. Lee as you walked in the main door and they've romanticized the "southern gentleman, mint juleps, and pretense" paradigm basically since their inception.
 
2013-03-24 06:36:08 PM  

ginandbacon: Damnhippyfreak: the student shouldn't have to push back in the first place if the teaching environment is run well

Exactly and very well put.

There's only so much as a teacher can do with an insular jerk. Some folks cannot be taught due to their preconceived notion that their way of life is under attack. As a communications major, the student should have had a basic understanding of challenging logical preconceptions, as opposed to taking personal offense to this teaching approach. Not for nothing, but taking the side of this student is not far from taking the side of a petulant child screaming in the checkout aisle at the grocery store.
 
2013-03-24 06:37:18 PM  

FloydA: 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

[i105.photobucket.com image 640x454]


Also instructive: the Spanish conquest of Latin America, in particular Mexico. Cruel and barbaric, with forced conversions to Catholicism and you got tortured to death if you didn't (to greatly simply a much more nuanced and lengthy process). The point being, of course, that it is likely that many of the local tribes welcomed the new religion as an alternative to getting your beating heart ripped from your living body by the Aztecs.
 
2013-03-24 06:38:50 PM  

Somacandra: Should have used "Obama's" name. Then [img1.fark.net image 77x27] would worship her.

/srsly, stupid technique


And Fark Liberals would be having cows.
 
2013-03-24 06:45:55 PM  
As written, the experiment is rather innocuous.  The professor needs to learn how to follow instructions and the students need to learn to act like adults attending a university, not whiny high-schoolers.  It sounds like they deserve one another.
 
2013-03-24 06:59:59 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: 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.

unless you are catholic the most you will see in a protestant church is a cross. The fundies bash the catholics for praying to Mary the Saints, etc.


There's also the "graven image" thing which is common to all three Abrahamic faiths, but which people interpret differently.  Muslims are pretty well-known for  not liking representational art.  Different groups are more or less stringent.
 
2013-03-24 07:00:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 07:02:08 PM  
He should have done this like 100 times with Mohammed and filmed it, just so he could pull out the tapes and show them after the inevitable butthurt media frenzy over doing it once with Jesus.
 
2013-03-24 07:23:57 PM  
from FAU's website:

"...we can confirm that no student has been expelled, suspended or disciplined by the University as a result of any activity that took place during this class.

This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."


Too bad they didn't stand strong against stupidity. Something like "The University holds dear to its core values, including academic integrity. We will not second-guess one of our professors simply because one student lacked the cognitive or temperamental capacity to understand a lesson."
 
2013-03-24 07:34:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Would you guys have been this angry and hateful and whiny if he had used Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or the Dali Llama


Show me angry and hateful in any of my posts.

I don't really care about this exercise, and would not have been offended by it, but I can understand why someone else might. Is my ability to sympathize with someone else another one of those evils that only religion could have burdened humanity with?
 
2013-03-24 07:35:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: s2s2s2: Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?

Because those would unlikely be symbols prevalent in our society. And the professor DIDN'T FARKING SAY "YOU MUST STEP ON IT OR I'LL FAIL YOU!". This right here seems to be the major point of contention that you have a problem understanding.


I've never suggested that it was a requirement. I don't think you are doing a good job on the analytics.
 
2013-03-24 07:38:15 PM  
Interesting that they weren't instructed to write "Jesus Christ" just "Jesus." Also it sounds like the point of it was that they were always able to refuse - that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Of course, none of us were there.
 
2013-03-24 07:39:11 PM  

Biological Ali: You do realize that there's a massive amount of violence all around the world that occurs solely because it's commanded by various religions, right? I mean, if you were talking strictly about the US, it might be understandable (though still not entirely correct, since religiously motivated violence still does occur even there), but to say that about the world is just hilariously wrong.


No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

Religion is the tool. Man is the one using it to his own ends.
 
2013-03-24 08:01:15 PM  
FloydA:
The point of the exercise was to get the students to think

Hence the religious objection. /snark
 
2013-03-24 08:01:34 PM  
Nobody was forced to step on the paper.
Nobody was suspended or punished.
The class exercise proved the point it was supposed to make.

Clearly this is a huge outrage and heads should roll.
 
2013-03-24 08:32:04 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 08:42:18 PM  

No Such Agency: FloydA:
The point of the exercise was to get the students to think

Hence the religious objection. /snark


Snark, sure. It is true though.
 
2013-03-24 08:50:00 PM  

s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."


There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.
 
2013-03-24 09:02:14 PM  

Dracolich: Russ1642: hawcian: Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.

In coming to terms with my own lack of faith, I left a lot of other people's faith shaken.  That included 3 Lutheran pastors (one from the seminary), 2 Methodist ministers, 1 Catholic priest, several youth leaders, and countless others.  It wasn't like I was keeping score at the time, but in reflection it was a lot.  I wanted to believe.  I specifically looked to those who were the smartest within my church to find out why they believed.  In ending one conversation, they'd often point me to a significant person who inspired them to believe.  This eventually lead me to the seminary.  What I found there was that those most in touch with studying and teaching the faith had massive doubts with well-constructed rationalizations for not thinking about those doubts.  It's wishful thinking in a world filled with contrary evidence.  It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.


And who the HELL are you to decide what is the "right thing" for them? I will never understand that about so many Fark Atheists (capital A intended because for these idiots, unlike most atheists, it IS a religion) What is it that pisses you off or scares you SO much about someone else believing something different than you? Atheists scream so loud about Christians pushing their beliefs on others, but it is perfectly FINE for them to push their non-belief on people? WTF???? As one idiot in this thread said "It's okay to question or ridicule them to make them examine their faith" Question yes. Ridicule no. All you do in that is piss anyone off who isn't already of your own mind. I'm short if you want respect for your choice to not believe you DAMN sure better be prepared to respect someone else's right to believe.
 
2013-03-24 09:03:35 PM  
I think that some posters in here could benefit from trying this exercise themselves.  If you think the exercise was pointless and meant to target certain individuals, go on, try it.  How did you feel when you stepped on it?

I can understand why the professor chose Jesus as opposed to God or Mohammad, or Mom, given the Christian overshadows in American culture.  Who is it, primarily that doesn't want gays to marry?  Who is it, primarily, that wants to restrict certain healthcare?  Must someone be Christian to get elected to higher office in this country?  Sometimes this introspection is necessary, especially for the students exactly like this student who would whine and complain to the media about the assignment.  Why is it so damned important that someone not ask you to do this?  Why is it so damned offensive to you?  Why do you see no value in it and see it as completely pointless?   If you can get a few words out about it, it wasn't completely pointless, was it?  What are you going to do with this knowledge?

That was the whole idea.  It's sad that the point / relevancy of the exercise is even being debated on Fark.
 
2013-03-24 09:13:41 PM  

Dracolich: It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.


Eh...Religion (as a supertype) wasn't *just* invented by con men and wasn't *just* forced into people by youth indoctrination or by-the-sword conversions.  People invented it, and accepted it, because they did need it.

Of course those of us that don't...well we're just trying to make the world a better place without crushed and oppressed and beaten with other people's psychological crutches.
 
2013-03-24 09:20:45 PM  

gadian: It's sad that the point / relevancy of the exercise is even being debated on Fark.


that said...
Piss on Jesus, Mo-homo, Abraham, and Buddha,

Grow your own and lve in peace.

Farking assholes toting guns spittle breathing fire and fungus among us should all DIAF.
Let people sleep at night with out wondering if some enlightened asshole will murder them in their sleep.

/Buddhist.
 
2013-03-24 09:31:39 PM  

thefatbasturd: 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?


No, I believe you misunderstood FloydA's response.

The point of the exercise was to show how  culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.

Now, obviously, there will always be students who will step on the paper regardless, but you just need to look at this thread (and FloydA's response to you) to find non-Christians who wouldn't step on the paper for non-religious (cultural and societal) reasons, which was one of the results the lesson intended.

Personalizing it would have taken any kind of comparative/societal aspect away from it. It would have been all about individual symbolism, which wasn't the point.
 
2013-03-24 09:41:48 PM  
Town Hall? Pass.
 
2013-03-24 09:47:04 PM  

Girion47: It's a mormon?  who cares?

They're nothing more than scientologists that say Jesus than Xenu.   Their a cult and not deserving of respect.


I hear they have a mandatory 10% tithe and because of that their own private social security system.

There's a lot of money they can wield. Imagine if they set their sites on political offices.
 
2013-03-24 09:52:57 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-24 09:54:56 PM  

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


How was this student singled out?  Everyone was told to stomp on the same word.
 
2013-03-24 10:07:46 PM  

ginandbacon: My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion.


The exercise quoted in TFA was not about religion.

""Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "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."

It was desired that most students would not stomp on the word, despite being ordered to do so by an authority figure.  That resistance is what highlights the importance of symbols. The students are asked to "think about it for a  moment" in order to heighten the importance of the symbol.  The word, "Jesus," was chosen because the authors assumed the classroom would contain a high percentage of students to whom that symbol is quite important.

Everything about the exercise is designed to demonstrate the power of symbols, not to disparage religion in general or any particular religion.
 
2013-03-24 10:10:06 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 it would introduce an unknown and uncontrolled set of variables in a thought-experiment that's already dealing with variable factors.  If anything, using Jesus's name is an acknowledgement of the power and respect that particular symbol carries, not an attack on anyone's religion.

I've met plenty of thoughtful, introspective religious folks of various faiths, Christian and otherwise.  I can't imagine any of them having problems with the premise of this exercise, since the focus was on why the students would choose not to step on the paper and the significance of the symbol within our culture.  However, dummies gonna dumb, I guess, as this thread amply shows.
 
2013-03-24 10:16:24 PM  
Has the term "holy snowflake" been coined yet?
 
2013-03-24 10:20:34 PM  

ginandbacon: When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


Wow, are you a troll or just a farking moron?
 
2013-03-24 10:22:33 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.


Why? The word "Jesus" isn't Jesus, and the name of a sports team isn't the team. If you're teaching symbology, this is an excellent demonstration of the power of symbols.
 
2013-03-24 10:31:19 PM  
I'm just pissed that I gave a hit to a site that immediately treated me to a pop-up ad for a book comparing Obama's re-election to the apocalypse. That's not a news site, it's a crazypants blog.
 
2013-03-24 10:33:48 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Sup, letrole?


It's a surname!
 
2013-03-24 10:38:46 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 10:43:51 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-24 10:52:49 PM  

Ahvren: The point of the exercise was to show how  culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.


Exactly.  I could write the most important people/things in my life on a piece of paper - , my mom's (who passed away) name, my boyfried's name, my cats' names, my band's name.  My own name, even.  Why would anyone who isn't me (or related to my boyfriend or me) have any issue stomping on a piece of paper that said "Jason"?  As personally important to me all of the above are, they are not pervasive influences or icons in our culture. That is why they chose "Jesus."  Even atheists recognize who Jesus is.  Christians worship him.  Jews acknowledge and wait for his return. Muslims consider him a Prophet.  Agnostics certainly feel something.  And even many atheists will say "there is nothing wrong with the general message of Jesus."

I don't understand how people can't see the point of this illustration and how interesting and valuable the ensuing discussion should be, beyond someone throwing a hissy fit of epic proportions that this exercise was even proposed.  (Am I still correct that nobody was forced to step on the paper?  I'd love to know how religious beliefs were violated here....)
 
2013-03-24 11:00:21 PM  

serpent_sky: Jews acknowledge and wait for his return.


>_>
 
2013-03-24 11:01:22 PM  
Anyone upset about this exercise COMPLETELY missed the entire point of the thing.
 
2013-03-24 11:02:29 PM  
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.
America is not some homogeneous culture that you can make such broad statements about.  This is a massive country with 300+ million people across 3.8 million sq miles.  Do you really think the dominant culture the in Bible Belt is the same as Hollywood or New York?   Christianity most certainly is NOT the dominant cultural influence in a University.  Therefore, by your own argument stomping on Jesus would be MORE likely to be interpreted as sinceredesecration than, say, stomping on the name MLK Jr. or perhaps Darwin.
 
2013-03-24 11:07:49 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.


It doesn't pay to be the only sane guy in the asylum.
 
2013-03-24 11:15:39 PM  

Biological Ali: s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.


True. We all know only the religious are homophobes!
 
2013-03-24 11:41:11 PM  
Dummy missed the point that the relevance of symbols is deminstrated by students NOT stomping in the word representing the name of Joshua Ben Joseph aka jesus, the son of god, whatever

So he gets an F for "fark you".

I hope the final exam is an essay question on why people hesitated to step on paper with a word written on it(not the actual person or the bible). Maybe this douche can redeem himself a bit.
 
2013-03-24 11:42:19 PM  

Hickory-smoked: 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.


Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?
 
2013-03-24 11:44:53 PM  

brian_ellenberger: Christianity most certainly is NOT the dominant cultural influence in a University


Spoken like a typical delusional "persecuted" christian.
 
2013-03-24 11:50:09 PM  
LOL, liberal arts classes.

/smug computer scientist
 
2013-03-24 11:51:02 PM  

albatros183: My question for this whole thread is wtf is anybody responding to skinnyhead?


www.wilsonstation.com



FloydA: Remember that TownHall is not a reliable source of accurate information; it is yellow journalism at its worst.


Or more precisely, TownHall at its finest is an example of yellow journalism at its worst. Usually, TownHall doesn't crawl that far out of the slime.
 
2013-03-24 11:54:21 PM  
And yet we complain about the lack of critical thought in education.
 
2013-03-25 12:01:09 AM  
biscuette.com

static.gotpetsonline.com

Stop.

Frisk.
 
2013-03-25 12:11:03 AM  

s2s2s2: Biological Ali: s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.

True. We all know only the religious are homophobes!


You know, you don't have to keep posting if you've no longer got a point.
 
2013-03-25 12:21:48 AM  

Raptop: I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?


Sure. Race-based white-collar bank fraud would probably qualify -- preferentially routing black folks' life savings to a numbered account in the Caymans, say.

Still needs a crime, or criminal-grade mens rea, though. And most racists aren't that indirect, though I suppose there's extreme outliers.
 
2013-03-25 12:31:07 AM  

Raptop: Hickory-smoked: 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.

Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?



Good catch.

Lol at the lad trying to teach ME about "Hate Crimes".

I learned from the masters -  the originating authors of the very CONCEPT of "Hate Crimes" in the United States:


1.bp.blogspot.com

No one hates like the ADL hates.
 
2013-03-25 01:08:03 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: 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.

It doesn't pay to be the only sane guy in the asylum.


I've always found the old adage "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" to be overly optimistic.
 
2013-03-25 01:18:23 AM  
I'm so liberal I label myself a "European socialist", and my wife is a tenured professor. Unsurprisingly, I'm also an atheist. For the record, Deandre Poole's actions fill me with disgust.

The story called him "associate professor", which would mean he has tenure. So don't be upset when he doesn't get fired. If we look him up 2 years from now, he'll probably be working at a community college anyway. Universities have 400 years experience in punishing professors who screw up this badly.
 
2013-03-25 01:20:49 AM  
Help, help! I'm being...


i651.photobucket.com

Harrumph!
 
2013-03-25 02:01:27 AM  
I'd like to know what the other students in the class say happened.  All this got us was "student says, teacher says".
 
2013-03-25 02:22:37 AM  
Raptop:
Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?


That depends if "Violence against Property," like vandalism or arson, are still violence.

I would suggest that they are. The more I think of it, I can't even say what a "non-violent hate crime" would look like. Bank embezzlement against black people? Anti-Jewish drug possession?

The important thing here is, Amos Quito was completely wrong about everything, and hopefully he knows that now if he didn't before.
 
2013-03-25 02:27:23 AM  

Amos Quito: Good catch.

Lol at the lad trying to teach ME about "Hate Crimes".


Oh, sorry I missed reply earlier.

Your Boobies asked the question if discussing the action of stepping on a paper with "JESUS" written on it constitutes a hate crime. If you're still confused on that point, then very clearly someone needs to teach you about the legislation, "lol"ing or not.
 
2013-03-25 02:32:05 AM  

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.


...what?
 
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."