Tuesday, February 19, 2008

More From the Liberal U.S. Campus Scene --Just Like Liberal Blogs

MORE ABOUT THE WM AND MARY CHAPEL CROSS-- Pres. Gene Nichol "secretly" ordered the removal of that cross from the school chapel. Fortunately, The Virginia Informer, a publication of a campus affiliate with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, brought national attention to the story and the Wren Chapel cross has been returned to the chapel.

JOHN HOPKINS U-- administrators funded an event featuring a porn movie director and then confiscated copies of a student newspaper reporting on the event--claiming the school had the right to remove "offensive materials," (but, of course, no right to remove porn, truly "offensive material," anywhere on campus, probably, or to prevent such a seminar by a porn director. Free speech is negatively selective at JHU.)

U. OF WISCONSIN--Tony, an A student, e-mailed Professor John Betton 2 articles with viewpoints differing from the prof's about the impacts of immigration. Prof. Betton took offense and accused Tony of making an "insulting assumption that you have the right to teach my class" and called his articles "right-wing racist crap." Tony went to the dean and was referred to a complaints committee headed by none other than Prof. Betton. (I have no update on this.)

TUFTS UNIVERSITY -- Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a network of campus affiliates with conservative newspapers produced by students on various campuses. At Tufts, The Primary Source is one of these papers. The editor, Douglas Kingman, said there was a "Soviet-style show trial" in which the paper was found guilty by the administration of "harassment and creating a hostile environment simply for publishing political satire --a ruling that completely IGNORES explicit school policies that protect controversial expression." The Committee on Student Life recommended that Tuft's student government "consider the behavior" of the magazine when allocating activities money --clearly paving the way for the shool to cancel funding and recognition of the paper. Presumeably, this doesn't happen when liberal views are expressed by papers or clubs applying for the student activities funds.

ONLY 12 PER CENT OF UNI'S REQUIRE STUDENTS TO TAKE EVEN ONE COURSE IN AMERICAN HISTORY OR GOVERNMENT--and many others water down such classes from a fear of being offensive --except when it comes to offending Christians, conservatives or long dead patriots who can't defend themselves against revisionist historians.

MANY UNI'S HAVE BLOCKED STUDENTS WHO WISHED TO SET UP MEMORIALS for victims of 9/11 attacks on the anniversaries of that tragedy.

TWO OUT OF THREE CAMPUSES DENY FREE SPEECH RIGHTS --acc'g to a poll in 300 schools. They "explicitly prohibit speech that the First Amendment protects off campus and all but eight have policies that could easily be interpreted as restricting speech."

Let me hasten to say here, that I think schools DO have a right to restrict some kinds of speech that our constitutional framers would have recognized as institutional right. I think vitriolic hate speech, obscene and pornographic material SHOULD be restricted in academic institutions, the same as slander and libel --especially in Christian and other religious schools which promote traditional Judeo-Christian-Western beliefs about morals. "Politically incorrect" speech, however, should not be restricted when it is reasoned with either religious rationale or factual concerns for public health and societal and individual well-being.

"Liberal academics duck genuine debates on the history of the West or ideology like the plague --they can't stand watching their ideas being shredded and exposed." --T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr. --Intercollegiate Studies Institute

I've found this to be true of some liberal blogs, if not most. They consider the Bible irrelevant as a guide for morality and wise decision-making. They cannot stand a good rationale behind intelligent design theory or creationism. They hate you if you don't think homosexuality is inevitable, healthy, necessary, or good. It's fair game to offend and censor the Christian and all his dearly held beliefs.

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


Christian Apologist said...

"Raise up your children in the way they should go and they will not depart from it"

If parents teach their children some common sense and American history and patriotism while they are growing up all this liberal crap that university profs teach will flow off of them like water on a duck.
In fact it is actually a good thing for students who have been taught to think rationally. While their fellow students are being brainwashed and dummed down they are able to see through the illogical arguments of the liberals and thus gain a competitive advantage over their peirs.
The bad thing about it is that we live in a democracy and if the majority of people are unthinking liberal sheep we will end up with a whole slew of unthinking liberal laws.

Barb said...

I would agree with you--though I've seen some kids decide that their parents were ignoramouses as they sit at the feet of liberal guru types in secular Uni's.

The Bible verse is a principle more than a prophecy or promise, I think. After all, God was the perfect father, but Adam and Eve sure did blow it.

The competitive edge over opponents may not help some gain faculty posts where the powers that be are determined to hire only liberals -- such a high percentage of faculty in secular ed. ARE liberals who equate political INcorrectness with pure evil. If you are not pro-gay, e.g., you are an awful bigot --just like a racist --and should be denied a university position. That makes some scholarly Christians stay quiet about their faith.

There are faculties who think Prof. Behe shouldn't have a position as one who challenged Darwinian orthodoxy.

say, I think that gal we see with you seems pretty sharp.

steve said...

Define "Liberal Crap", and what exactly is a "Liberal"?

Barb said...

liberal 'crap' was CA's term. I think he's referring to some of the issues I brought up.

Define liberal--examples of it are in the article.

Liberal can mean whatever you wish it to mean--but labels and words do "mean things" to the general public --and in America today, a liberal espouses abortion as a woman's right, gay marriage, the gay lifestyle as a good lifestyle. He thinks porn and obscenity are protected speech by the constitution; he thinks preachers should not speak out against lifestyle choices as evils and calls that "hate speech." He believes in political correctness --which means we offend no one with our speech or writings --except Christians. It is ok to offend Christians because Christians are offensive and bigoted. Liberals are usually the left wing of the Democratic party if not the whole party.

Religiously, he tends to think the bible is myth; creationists are ignorant; Jesus never rose from the grave or did any miracles.

He is probably pro-death for fetuses and pro-life for murderers.

Politically, he tends to think America is bad --and wrong --more so than other countries. All our problems with Islam stem from the Crusades and Palestine. He is sympathetic with Palestine more than Israel.

Everything wrong in the world is the fault of Christianity. He thinks John Lennon's "Imagine" is a good song, espousing a utopia where there is no religion.

A liberal wants to steal from the rich to give to the poor? no, probably himself. he just envies those richer than himself and wishes them to be poor. A liberal politician wants everyone else's money for his utopian schemes.

A liberal judge will rule in favor of a thief who sues you because he got injured on your property while trying to steal from you.

Liberals think anyone with a self-imposed hardship or injury or an unfortunate circumstance should be able to sue someone, responsible or not, in order to cover his expenses.

Liberals think truth is not objective and morality is relative. There is no moral authority higher than man's reasoning.

Barb said...

Liberals also want to erase all vestiges of Christianity in our national heritage/symbols/history --except negative aspects in the history books.

They want us to believe our forefathers didn't revere the Bible and Christ as much as they did.

The ACLU represents their positions well --seeking out town after town, to exalt the minority religions and stifle Christian traditions. Take Zion, Ill -founded by Christians --had Christian symbols in their town seal -- ACLU made them change it --which is wrong because it was their heritage. It didn't prevent others from having other beliefs or no beliefs.