What is Digg?46 Comments
- Chitownmortgage, on 04/12/2008, -2/+16This is a canard! Why is it that if someone holds a belief in G-d they are automatically labeled as closed minded, yet those who have closed their minds and hardened their hearts to G-d are considered enlightened and open minded?
- Antarcticn, on 04/12/2008, -1/+14You misrepresent what the news article reports. It says the student has no problem with exploring philosophy; which includes "examining alternative ideas". By the way, *essential* in whose opinion? Yours? The philo prof in-charge of brainwashing?
That is the first nazi-like step to deleting her personal belief system and replacing it with the prof's own. So, of course, the victimized student does have a problem for being unjustly persecuted by a self-deified demigod professor who bludgeons conformance and compliance with heavy-handed "see things my way or your grades shall suffer." Perhaps you can explain the philosophy that justifies such wickedness in the name of education. - Antarcticn, on 04/12/2008, -2/+14Students are entitled to voice their opinions only if they echo opinions expressed by the professors. How is this not a professor promoting its own personal religion in a godvernment institution?
- rocdoc, on 04/12/2008, -2/+13How can this class be a mandatory requirement is it is taught by a bigoted professor who is supposed to be open minded.
- Christianptriot, on 04/12/2008, -2/+10Liberal universities and colleges are simply churning out more and more close-minded, intolerant people who are mirror clones of the professors who grew up either experimenting with drugs in the '60s or are the progeny of those parents.
Home schooling doesn't stop at 12th grade, folks. - LibertyTreeBud, on 04/12/2008, -1/+9I'm glad she didn't back down. The course sounds like BS. Look where philosophy has got us, now? Monsanto still poisons everything on earth and the government still makes money off it. Our Constitution is in the shredder and most are too drugged up to care or know what to do. some philosophy. Government schools/colleges suck the life from you.
- TYRONEBR549, on 04/12/2008, -2/+10I am glad she is standing up for what she believes. Hurray for her!!!!
- Chitownmortgage, on 04/12/2008, -2/+10You attack those who disagree with you by casting aspersions on their intelligence. This tactic truly engenders intelligent debate. Please - go ahead and defend my beliefs then. Take up the opposite side. Can you?
- Antarcticn, on 04/12/2008, -1/+8@cp
Been there. Done that. One of the best at seeing the other side of things. Sometimes too patiently. Still prefer my beliefs. I think you and the philo prof should be students in my class, graded per my criteria. I won't even give you a syllabus with a breakdown of percentages of grade weight. That way I can make up the rules as I go. How many university profs made you suffer that fate? - truth4freedom, on 04/12/2008, -5/+11Tyranny strikes again. Our universities have been stocked with dried up 60's radicals who embrace Marxist philosophy at the expense of truth and freedom.
- Hetman, on 04/12/2008, -1/+6This is an epic fail by the professor. He should be fired, or at least asked to quit. I do not believe that Religion is good for a society. But you cannot force a person to denounce their religious beliefs either. This professor was just an idiot.
- drachemorder, on 04/12/2008, -2/+7You don't understand what the lawsuit is about. From the article:
"This is because the course goes beyond merely requiring knowledge of prominent philosophers and their arguments or ways of thinking, which Gina does not object to."
In addition to the lower grades, the ACLJ said, the professor has called the student "closed-minded," "uncritical," "hurtful," and "blinded by belief."
"While a college professor may encourage students to be informed about viewpoints and arguments that differ from their own, it is inappropriate – and unconstitutional – for a public college professor to make passing a required course (and thus graduation) contingent upon a student's willingness to express agreement with philosophical viewpoints that conflict with her religious beliefs," the ACLJ said."
So, the problem here isn't that the girl refused to learn the material or discuss the material or understand the material or anything like that. It's that she refused to AGREE with the material. There is a large difference between understanding something and agreeing with it. - Nannybell, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5But unfortunately there will be a new crop right behind them unless we demand change.
- DelayedEraser, on 04/12/2008, -2/+6In response to everyone, I really apologize for apparently offending so many, because that is not my intent. I don't mean to say that it is closed minded to believe in God and to refuse to waver in that belief – that's faith, and that's good and honourable and fulfilling to many people. But in order to participate in philosophical discourse, one must be able to "acknowledge the possibility" that God might not exist and explore the implications of that possibility to their full extent. Having done so, most will retain their faith, and their faith will be stronger for it.
Furthermore, a college philosophy course is not just about memorizing the words that make up different theories and attaching them to different names – it is about attempting to truly understand the meanings of these theories, the way they interact with each other, the implications of each, and so on. - Antarcticn, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3I dugg you up because of the clauses "marxists, weak godvernments who won't allow for dissent since they are at best on shaky ground, and Truth is on their side." If you say "Truth is NOT on their side," then the other two clauses perfectly describe today's federal-mafia US criminal godvernment. It's corrupt insurrectionists keep passing anti-Constitution "law" after "law" to forbid dissent of their many ongoing and escalating crimes. That'd include using academia to brainwash malleable minds and codifying into "laws" such that dissent = Hate Crimes, and differing thoughts & opinions = failure in school.
- Navigator7, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5This is simply about removing God.
The ability to have a room full of yoots who have denied God is a wonderful tool for evil.
Would you not agree with me if the professor said to deny your belief of the fire triangle?
Heat fuel and air are required for fire.
Without all three fire ain't happening.
Go ahead and tell me, professor, all you know about fire but until I hear some compelling logic I'll have my own beliefs.
Same for those who believe in God ... - iamnormal, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5In academia, people have the choice of using evidence, reason, logic and facts if they have them. Only those who lack such resort to force. This is true with evolutionists, atheists, Marxists, and others forms of dogmatism. The more force used, the less basis for the belief of the instructor. This reminds me of countries with strong governments who can afford to allow for dissent since they know that the truth is on their side vs. weak governments who won’t allow for dissent since they are at best on shaky ground and the people if allowed will replace them with better. Such people usually network to protect their weak positions from reason and adulthood. Academia is often such a sanctuary for weak closed minds today.
- Navigator7, on 04/12/2008, -4/+6Our school system's liberal ideology are a threat to national security.
Conservatism holds an entirely different belief than the liberal professor in this topic.
He demands submissive behavior before instruction or denies a grade.
Liberal ideology reduces the human condition to waste, suffering and ultimately death.
A conservative sways opposing views with common sense, values, a well grounded philosophy and truth. A conservative prefers to be in the company of those who don't think like he does but those who think opposite.
A belief in God is essential because without him, through Jesus...we are a lost people.
This explains the failure of liberal ideology ... The fact there are good christian liberals makes no matter.
The ideology is flawed and always will remain flawed. - cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Antarcticn. Sorry about that. It is late. I didn't see that you wrote "Still prefer my beliefs." So please cancel my "I think, however, some of the lessons didn't take - else you could not be quite so confident that what you believe in is right."
- Christianptriot, on 04/12/2008, -3/+5CP is right in his assertion. But the sign of a highly-educated spiritual mind is that while they can see why people believe or hold to other thoughts or systems, they know that only God has created the true system we all need to follow.
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Interesting and clever response. I think it would be more in line with evidence to change it to:
the sign of the highly-closed spirtual mind is the absolute assurance that what they believe in is right and other beliefs are wrong. - cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3You know, questioning your own beliefs is the way knowledge is added in science. Not a bad idea, right?
- Christianptriot, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2The US military academies - Harvard and Yale - William & Mary - pretty much EVERY college inthe country who wants a student who is motivated by themselves and not by some test-oriented mentality of public school.
- NomadOfNorad, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3One does not have to "acknowledge the possibility" that someone or something does or does not exist in order to persue a thought experiment, since a thought experiment is merely moving a set of symbols around in ones' head like pieces on a game board, one can still engage in the thought experiment even if it involves something totally inverted from your own firm and verified knowledge... to require a person to avow to the possibility of same, however, is not only unnecessary to the experiment, it might actually harm the experiment. To make a person "acknowledge the possibility" that a dearly held belief in fact is wrong is a tactic for trying to indoctrinate. Indoctrinating is not teaching, it is tampering with a person's soul. Teaching is imparting information to people, so that they can make up their own mind of what reality is.. Indoctrinating is trying to make them see reality identically to the way you do, and to not question those views. The two are not compatible.
- Chitownmortgage, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Since, as you say evolutionists have evidence on their side, why is academia so against any sort of acknowledgment of any other theory as to the origin of the universe? I would think that if the theory that all life sprang from lightning striking a mud puddle which animated some proteins were the absolute truth, then the argument would stand of its own accord and there would be no reason to fear another viewpoint.
- Nannybell, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Good thoughts.
- NomadOfNorad, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Very!
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Looking at your posts here and there, I can believe you were good at doing that. I think, however, some of the lessons didn't take - else you could not be quite so confident that what you believe in is right.
Only profs teaching 'mushy' courses seem to have done that. But, I think you are trying smoke and mirrors - as that doesn't seem to be the situation here. I might have to re-read the article, but I thought the prof made it clear that this one thing was a requirement of the course - but I could be wrong. - Nannybell, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3"I do not believe that Religion is good for a society."
That's a broad statement. - cpsteinmetz, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Let me answer these three comments together.
1. It is obvious that you all get your information from lying creationists / ID-ists / other religionists. You might just try to look at some actual science some time. In fact, truth4freedom just repeats the same tired old lies - as though telling a lie long and loud enough will make it not a lie.
Here is a reply from a fellow named ncairns which I liked very much: http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=ev ...
You're welcome."
2. Chitownmortgage asks "why is academia so against any sort of acknowledgment of any other theory as to the origin of the universe? ... there would be no reason to fear another viewpoint. " Consider the situation of religions. Why, if they are sure they have the "absolute truth," do they fear another viewpoint? With science, the situation is similar but worse. Religions have absolutely no objective evidence for their views, while science does (which is a major difference between the two). Yet with all the evidence and the results that have given the world great technological advances, there is a powerful faction which would deny almost all science, and would like us to go back to the Dark Ages. Wouldn't you be fearful? - Nannybell, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3"there is no way you can pursue an education in philosophy" . . . "If this student can't recognize that examining alternative ideas is *essential* to developing her own beliefs, then she has no place in a philosophy class."
Is she pursuing an education in philosophy, or was she merely required to take this course?
Examining alternative ideas is definitely part of a philosophy class, but developing her own beliefs is her own personal business. She has no obligation to change her mind one bit. That is a very liberal notion that is dangerous to our civil liberties. - Antarcticn, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3OK . . . not to be a stickler . . . but, what "evidence" do evolutionists have? Especially evidence that stands up to something stronger than their version of the "duck test" -- you know, when an evolutionist says "It LOOKS like a duck, WADDLES and QUACKS like a duck, so it must be a duck because I say so."
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I think you rely too much on the ACLJ very biased point of view - as reported in a very biased source. I don't think requiring a student to examine a possibility is forcing her to *agree* to anything.
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"A belief in God is essential because without him, through Jesus...we are a lost people." As you can make such an bold assertion backed by no evidence whatsoever, it is obvious that you have never examined the possibility that god doesn't exist.
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Have you gone off the deep end?
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1No one asked her to change her mind - only to examine possibilities. And that is something not limited to a particular course or major.
- Antarcticn, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Surviving "the system" education means meeting demands of hypocrisy. Students must get the grades to earn the degree. Most future employers don't care a whit about GPA and degree majors as much as they care that students proved they have enough discipline to play the game for 4+ years to get the degree. There are exceptions such as IT and computer experts. If you talk to enough HR professionals and bosses who actually hire people, they want to see the degree because it connotes discipline; like breaking a wild bronco before it's your riding horse.
They want busted broncos. The hypocrisy is not harming your personal value system with garbage forced upon you as a university victim/student with liberal professors/brainwashers. So, the student is crossfired: get the degree, but don't get sucked into the lack-of-morality abyss. Thus, home schooling continues after 12th grade. It's a lifetime process. - Christianptriot, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2You are absolutely correct, unfortunately. Today';s liberal train of thought is train-wrecked by anyone with some independent thinking and reasoning skills.
- Antarcticn, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1It's OK. No harm, no foul. Your comments I've read on various diggs are usually even-handed and level-headed. Though I'm confident in what I believe is right, I evaluate new info to see if it fits into my belief system. If it's totally contradictory and wrong, then I reject it. Maybe it works for another person, but not for me. If it strengthens my belief system (makes it more complete and/or "bulletproof"), it has a home.
- truth4freedom, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2Evolutionists have not one shred of scientific evidence to support macro evolution. Until they can refute irreducible complexity they cannot even begin to shore up the THEORY of macro evolution. I personally do not think it is anything more than a hypothesis at this point. The Creationism and ID theory both have massive amounts of scientific evidence to support them. Even Einstein was an ID proponent. Academia is a Marxist hell right now where dissent cannot be tolerated.
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1 I surely didn't cast aspersions on anyone's intelligence. I could however, cast some on your reading ability. I implied that certain posters were "uneducated" - by the definition I gave. You were the one who inferred that to mean a lack of intelligence.
Of course I could defend your point of view - ia view based upon absolutes, and a view that requires one believe in a particular kind of god and followers' writings. That doesn't mean I would even begin to agree with it, or that my defense was adequate to show one should believe it. In fact, just the opposite. Having tried to defend your point of view, I find it defies logic and lack evidence to support it. - but at least I was open minded enough to examine the evidence. - Antarcticn, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1I don't always believe that I know the most right thing. I don't know more than I do know. But, I recognize things that are wrong, lies, evil, sinister and/or wicked. Just a knack ever since I can recall. Where I'm still seeking what is most "right", I can, thus, be 'mushy' in the interim.
If the philo prof made it a requirement to discard personal belief in God, then why doesn't it become a brain surgeon, cut off the tops of victim/students' heads, scoop out the 'bad thoughts' and cram the philo prof's thoughts into the skull to replace them? Thought Police and thought control is where this goes.
Students are capable of weighing the philo prof's views against their pre-existing paradigms (built from life experience/education) and producing assignments accordingly. The prof rejects that. "Not good enough! You're not thinking and doing per my diktats!" And that's unfair as grading criteria – which should be mostly objective; not so subjective, and definitely not biased by the prof's capricious whims. - Nannybell, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0But how does that work out in the real world? Who will accept a degree from a home-based college?
- cpsteinmetz, on 04/13/2008, -4/+1About your statement "Only those who lack such resort to force. This is true with evolutionists, atheists, Marxists, and others forms of dogmatism" As Willy Wonka would say - stop, reverse that.
Evolutionists have evidence on their side, and mainly get tired of folk trying to force religion on science. So they "force" creationists, ID supporters and other religionists to not teach religion in science classes. Oh yes, they "force" people to be brainwashed in museums - as opposed to what happens at the "Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum" - the AIG museum in Kentucky.
Atheists using force ? Right. Such as in the Spanish Atheist Inquisition. - cpsteinmetz, on 04/12/2008, -10/+2Obviously, the folk who do not understand your viewpoint have never had a philosophy class, and probably never a college class. One classic definition of an educated person is someone who can defend beliefs counter to their own. These posters don't seem to be able to even begin to entertain any belief counter to their own.
- DelayedEraser, on 04/12/2008, -12/+4The concerns are not entirely ungrounded, but the simple fact is there is no way you can pursue an education in philosophy without exploring and comparing multiple world views and possibilities. If this student can't recognize that examining alternative ideas is *essential* to developing her own beliefs, then she has no place in a philosophy class.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is