USC professors blog, dangerous ground?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Okay so I need some BT perspective, there is a USC professor who has a blog, and something she wrote really seemed off base, here is her blog post. [[Begin blog post]] Monday the front page of the LA Times featured the saga of a young woman who feels oppressed by the fact that she cannot gay-bash at Georgia Tech, where she studies, among other things, the hatred passing as spirituality propagated in the Bible and Christianity as an institution. Pardon me while I boo-hoo-hoo. She's suing, of course, to retain her "rights," since the latest propaganda-ploy by those crafty Jesus-types is to flip reality on its head and claim that the people who own everything, run everything, make all the laws, and generally control life as we know it in the United States are in fact powerless and in need of defense. Howzat again????? I'm just re-reading Rubyfruit Jungle, Rita Mae Brown's defiant and heart-breaking and hysterical account of her heroine's life spent zigging and zagging to deflect the blows of the Moral Majority. They attack her character, her desires, her ethics, her beliefs, her looks, her choices, her actions; they commit her to an asylum for having consensual sex; they strip her of her college scholarship; they project every hateful belief they can onto her and feel righteous and justified in doing so. So exactly WHO is being oppressed? Is it the people who cannot marry, love freely, adopt, and be themselves, or is it the people who CAN marry, love freely, adopt, be themselves? Not a real hard question, particularly for smart college girls like that one at Georgia Tech. Unless of course her god insists that she minds other peoples' business. So a naked power play to discriminate against innocents disguises itself as a reasonable response to the Georgia Tech ban on hate-speech. Let me break down the logic of their rhetoric: I cannot let gays advance in their rights because I don't want them to and your stopping me from stopping them limits my "freedom." Nope. If we forced you to have gay sex, Ms. Christian; if we forced you to get abortions, Ms. Christian; if we prevented you from adopting because we don't want innocent children exposed to your brand of hate, Ms. Christian; if we forbade you from marrying your choice of partner, Ms. Christian; THEN you would have something to sue about. And I would be right there using my considerable powers to help you. But in the meanwhile, why don't you just try, just try, to do what your Jesus would do, and love your brother instead of suing for the right to call him a pervert? Just a thought. [[End blog post]] The part that bothered me was the generalization about Christians as seen here: “Since the latest propaganda-ploy by those crafty Jesus-types is to flip reality on its head and claim that the people who own everything, run everything, make all the laws, and generally control life as we know it in the United States are in fact powerless and in need of defense.” Am I just being to overly sensitive or has she (a professor) began to walk on dangerous ground? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Professors are supposed to walk on shaky ground...they are saddled with the responsibility of attempting to challenge feeble young minds, into thinking for themselves...something no doubt lost on the plastic people at USC...buying their degrees just, as it turns out, like they bought their national championship, (and runner up) football teams... You are probably right, though, this prof would probably be WAY better suited for someplace like Berkley, or Ann Arbor, where people more concerned with expanding their minds, than expanding their 'networks'... |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() darylljsmith - 2006-05-09 2:51 AM Professors are supposed to walk on shaky ground...they are saddled with the responsibility of attempting to challenge feeble young minds but i think my issue is with the generalization that she made about "jesus types." if i made a comment about black, jewish, or women with a generalization like that, i would be called a bigot. darylljsmith - 2006-05-09 2:51 AM something no doubt lost on the plastic people at USC...buying their degrees i think is a generalization that too is off base. in my accounting class the cut off for an "A" was 94%, very competitive. not all of us are legacy spoiled rich kids. some of us (like me) got good grades and can not afford the school, i am taking out huge loans and work full time. my tuition does not buy me a grade, it buys me a seat in class to compete (like all universities). |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() As a professor I would say she is extremely ignorant and sorely in need of help and prayer. But you know tie, she does spell pretty well. My Bible say's we are to love everyone. Did Jesus hang with the Rabbi's and the Parisees...no...he mingled with those he came to save. Gay, straight, half bent...it doesn't matter if you agree with the lifestyle or not, you still love them. This professor perhaps can't wrap her genius mind around that concept. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tyrant - 2006-05-09 5:17 AM but i think my issue is with the generalization that she made about "jesus types." It's not really a generalization if it accurately reflects what a group is doing. make no doubt, there is a large-scale movement afoot by people who, under the guise of Christianity, seek to oppress already-marginalized groups and force *their* morality on them. Sure, it's not representative of every Christian, but it is representative of a very large group of neo-cons who call themselves Christians. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have somewhat of a disdain for academia and "intelligentsia" in the college realms that isn't associated with applied science. You ever read Ann Coulter's web site? Here is a link: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi This weeks topic is about universities. It also refences a book by David Horowitz about professors in college... check it out. Both are provocative... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-05-09 7:11 AM Well said Jim and I should have added that there are "haters" dressed as Christians as well. It's kind of like if fast swimming was a sin, which I believe it is, well I would still care about you, and I would pray that someday, you too, would become a slower swimmer. tyrant - 2006-05-09 5:17 AM but i think my issue is with the generalization that she made about "jesus types." It's not really a generalization if it accurately reflects what a group is doing. make no doubt, there is a large-scale movement afoot by people who, under the guise of Christianity, seek to oppress already-marginalized groups and force *their* morality on them. Sure, it's not representative of every Christian, but it is representative of a very large group of neo-cons who call themselves Christians. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2006-05-09 7:32 AM ...I would still care about you, and I would pray that someday, you too, would become a slower swimmer. I appreciate it, my brother. But ya know, not gonna happen. Well, I guess it will. Everybody gets old. I'm already slower. I guess prayer does work. Damn you! Where can I get a "WWGCD?" t-shirt? |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() cerveloP3 - 2006-05-09 6:12 AM I have somewhat of a disdain for academia and "intelligentsia" in the college realms that isn't associated with applied science. You ever read Ann Coulter's web site? Here is a link: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi This weeks topic is about universities. It also refences a book by David Horowitz about professors in college... check it out. Both are provocative... Ann Coulter is 'provocative' in the same way as Rush Limbaugh; they say ridiculous things to garner attention. Here's a couple examples: "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." "We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States." "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." As for your question Tyrant, I'd say you're being a little too sensitive. If you're not the "Jesus type" that falls into her description then don't worry about it because she's not speaking about/to you. There are some out there that fit her description though. Edited by JBrashear 2006-05-09 7:06 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() So, I have a question for the general populace. What do you think this professor would do if we shut her blog down as being hate-speech? I mean, she does make broad generalizations about people of a different faith than her. But, because she's railing aginst the "majority", it's ok to talk in unsupported generalizations; if you are a member of the majority, though, yuo have to be PC all the time, and are unable to express your own beliefs? I think that freedom of speech protects all speech, whether we like it or not. If this student wants to say she thinks homosexuality is wrong, then she's allowed. If this professor wants to tell people in her blog that homosexuality is right, then she's allowed. The only other question then is what does this professor teach? If she's teaching something like history or political science, I would be concerned about how her personal thoughts are creeping into the classroom. There is a time and a place. If she can't be objective in her classroom, I'd have a big issue (i.e. giving poor grades to those who have a dissenting viewpoint, which I have seen happen). Otherwise, more power to her. Flame on. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() JBrashear - 2006-05-09 8:04 AM "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." I think you can safely call *that* a generalization... |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() ...where she studies, among other things, the hatred passing as spirituality propagated in the Bible and Christianity as an institution.... Let me break down the logic of their rhetoric... I lived on her side of the logical and rhetorical divide for decades. I came to believe that what she claims was true. Then I started to deconstruct my position. And what would you know, the claims turned out to be false! Imagine my surprise. I tell you what, I challenge her to put together a team to reasonably defend this statement: hatred passing as spirituality propagated in the Bible and Christianity as an institution. I'll put together a team to refute it. We'll lay the debate out before all BTrs. I'm confident that at the end, her position will be seen for what it is, mere political fluff. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Hey Don I always love to read your writings. Does "mere political fluff" mean it's bullsh&t? |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I thought it might be helpful to reference the article the blogger is discussing: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - Does "mere political fluff" mean it's bullsh&t? LOL... just down south. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() One of the things that unltra-liberals miss, either by ignorance or purposefully, is the fact that Christians have a constitutional right to practice their religion. I find it laughable that within the liberal culture it is fine to express hateful rants against christians, not just fine but an expression of "truth" and enlightened thought, or even bravery. What would be the liberal reaction if inplace of the term "christian" in the sited hate filled rant you had put "gay" or "black" or "jew"? Why then is it acceptable within the ultra-liberal community to engage in hate speach regarding Christians? The Constitution protects my "free exercise" of religion, just as much as it protects the establishment clause and free speach. What the author misses is that the protection of someones constitutional rights is not dependent on how we view their idiology. While this author rants at the Georgia Tech student for suing to protcet her right to free exercise of religion, I'm sure the same professor would applaud the ACLU's sueing a school board based on the establishment clause. (Remember the student has a right to express her beliefs just as much as anyone else does, whether those beliefs are repugnent or admorable) This mentality shows someones true colors...they are as biased as the radical religious right. Neither the ultra-liberals or the radical right are concerned with actually protecting individual rights, rather they are only concerned with advancing their own ideologies and philosphies. Ultra-liberals need to be at least consistent in their philosophy, hate is hate, no matter who it is directed against. Why is it permissible to spew hatred against Christians but not against some other group? Tyrant, you're correct in your gut reaction to this. This professor is a hatemonger disguised as a liberal thinker. She will justify her hate filled speach by saying she is just protecting the minority against the majority, and through the justification that she is teaching young minds to independently think. It's total B.S.! It's neither "enlightened", nor "true" nor is it even "liberal", it's bitter hate filled crap! But it's also protected speach. The great thing about the 1st Amendment is that while someone has the right to say almost anything, the flip side is that I don't have to be forced to listen to their crap. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ASA22 - 2006-05-09 9:27 AM One of the things that unltra-liberals miss, either by ignorance or purposefully, is the fact that Christians have a constitutional right to practice their religion. First of all, it's a blog. But obviously people have the righ to practice their religion. What irks me is how people bastardize religion the way that they do. Seriously, does anyone really believe that this woman suing to bash gays is following the example of Jesus? Didn't Jesus say judge not lest ye be judged? These so-called Christians that preach hate in the name of evangilism are no better than radical Islamists that use the Koran to justify killing infidels.
|
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Say this woman was a white supremecist, convinced the Bible preached that blacks were the devil. Say she sued a University to use the word "n*gger" at will, because the university's policies infringed upon her freedom to practice her religion. Who would be supporting her? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2006-05-09 8:07 AM Jim, after reading the comments of the professor I must ask, was she speaking of your wife or your mother? re Miss ChristianJBrashear - 2006-05-09 8:04 AM "Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant." I think you can safely call *that* a generalization... |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2006-05-09 10:00 AM Jim, after reading the comments of the professor I must ask, was she speaking of your wife or your mother? re Miss Christian Funny story: My family was very areligious. I wasn't baptized until I was an adult and had moved out of the house. So it our last name was pretty ironic. My mom, always the jokester, liked to make dinner reservations and then, upon entering the restaurant, announce to the hostess that "the Christians are here." More than once, the hostess said she didn't want any of our literature. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() a)it's a blog. free speech is still a guarantee in this country, even in academia, even if it offends, and yes, even if it is hateful. b) my sense is that "those crafty jesus tyes" refers to a certain very vocal segment of the Christian poulation who tend to be rather hateful. I consider myself a rather crafty Jesus type, but I don't think she is referring to me. c) Tyrant, I dare you, just once, to post something about triathlons. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-05-09 10:13 AM c) Tyrant, I dare you, just once, to post something about triathlons. triple dog dare... |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ASA22 - 2006-05-09 9:27 AM One of the things that unltra-liberals miss, either by ignorance or purposefully, is the fact that Christians have a constitutional right to practice their religion. >>> I think we can make a distinction between practicing one's religion, and using one's right to practice religion at the expense of another group. I find it laughable that within the liberal culture it is fine to express hateful rants against christians, not just fine but an expression of "truth" and enlightened thought, or even bravery. What would be the liberal reaction if inplace of the term "christian" in the sited hate filled rant you had put "gay" or "black" or "jew"? Why then is it acceptable within the ultra-liberal community to engage in hate speach regarding Christians? >>> I thought it was pretty gratuitous as well, until I read the article to which the blogger was referring. There's nothing wrong with peacefully practicing religion, but to use that religion as a justification to discriminate against some other group is, imo, worse than straight intolerance. The Constitution protects my "free exercise" of religion, just as much as it protects the establishment clause and free speach. What the author misses is that the protection of someones constitutional rights is not dependent on how we view their idiology. While this author rants at the Georgia Tech student for suing to protcet her right to free exercise of religion, I'm sure the same professor would applaud the ACLU's sueing a school board based on the establishment clause. >>> You've set up a straw man argument above... (Remember the student has a right to express her beliefs just as much as anyone else does, whether those beliefs are repugnent or admorable) This mentality shows someones true colors...they are as biased as the radical religious right. Neither the ultra-liberals or the radical right are concerned with actually protecting individual rights, rather they are only concerned with advancing their own ideologies and philosphies. >>> ... and you demolish your straw man here. You don't know whether the teacher would applaud the ACLU's suing of a school board based on the establishment clause. Ultra-liberals need to be at least consistent in their philosophy, hate is hate, no matter who it is directed against. Why is it permissible to spew hatred against Christians but not against some other group? >>> There is no indication that the so-called ultra-liberals to which you refer are not consistent in their philosophy. Tyrant, you're correct in your gut reaction to this. This professor is a hatemonger disguised as a liberal thinker. She will justify her hate filled speach by saying she is just protecting the minority against the majority, and through the justification that she is teaching young minds to independently think. It's total B.S.! It's neither "enlightened", nor "true" nor is it even "liberal", it's bitter hate filled crap! But it's also protected speach. The great thing about the 1st Amendment is that while someone has the right to say almost anything, the flip side is that I don't have to be forced to listen to their crap. >>> I'm sceptical that you have shown that the blogger has engaged in hate speech at all. I just re-read the first post, what stands out to me most is the last line where she says, "But in the meanwhile, why don't you just try, just try, to do what your Jesus would do, and love your brother instead of suing for the right to call him a pervert?". That doesn't sound to me like somebody who hates Christianity, it sounds like somebody who objects to the way that some self-proclaimed Christians use their religion to advance their agenda of intolerance. |
![]() ![]() |
Resident Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() possum - 2006-05-09 9:13 AM c) Tyrant, I dare you, just once, to post something about triathlons. Doesn't he post enough already about subjects he knows nothing about? |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() OPus, I generally agree with you. My primary concern would be in terms of this professor's broad generalization about Christians, and does he / she bring those generalizations into the classroom. Posting on a blog is one thing. Teaching it to students is another. I do not agree with the student in question either. I think that she has gone beyond her basic rights by sending letters to people. However, I do agree with certain points. A) As a student, she should not be forced to attend a seminar that goes against her religious views, for exactly the same reason a Quaker cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. That is a pracitce of their faith. By not attending, no one is being hurt. As for the funding issues the article talks about, that one's tricky. Can they legally not fund a group because it's faith-based, yet still be allowed to fund a group based on sexuality? That'd be an interesting Supreme Court case. |
|