AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > May > 03 > Entry
Should commencement speeches reflect the values of a university?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Distinguished staff and faculty, proud family and friends, and the Class of 2008—welcome to my diatribe against commencement speaker selection politics.
It’s become a post-spring break tradition, hasn’t it? A fierce ideological litmus test goes unheeded, an uproar ensues.
The recent sexual harassment problem at the University of Georgia (six male employees were implicated) caused some, including Professor Janet Frick, to question UGA’s pick of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Frick explains: “any speaker embroiled in controversy about sexual harassment—-yes, that includes former President Bill Clinton-would be seen as an ill-advised choice this year.”
Frick’s concerns may be partisan-free but I doubt that’s ubiquitous; politics are usually at play in these disputes. In 1992, the choice of Condoleezza Rice was criticized by many liberals at Stanford. As one senior declared, “My concerns are Rice’s policies and actions, not her personally.” Fine,but this isn’t an election, it’s a speech, given by a Stanford grad and former provost of significant stature.
Liberals and conservatives alike gripe on websites and organize petitions and boycotts. NAACP head and civil rights activist Julian Bond’s selection riled Republican students at George Washington recently, and a couple of years ago the Catholic Cardinal Newman Society added another self-proclaimed “mildly pro-choice” leader to their list of commencement villains. Who got added to the conservative group’s hit list? That’s right—Condoleezza Rice.
Is a commencement speaker’s job to inspire a life path similar to their own? What an impossibly tall, presumption-filled order . With countless speakers on the docket and the sonorous recitation of hundreds of names, most of us want a stimulating guest that keeps us awake. No wonder Stephen Colbert, hilarious and controversial, won with polls of students from Miami University to Notre Dame to Princeton. Princeton got him this year; too bad he can’t clone himself.
Commencement, despite the “bon voyage” atmosphere, signifies the beginning of something. Class of 2008, I can’t think of a better way to launch into real world living than by listening to a thought-provoking commencement speaker, whether or not they share your values.
And if you really hate what a speaker represents? Head off campus, take that energy you would put into changing the speaker, and change the world instead. Don’t they still teach that in college?
Rebuttal
Many universities have become so steeped in ideological groupthink that students should recruit speakers to challenge it: I just think they should do that at every time other than graduation. Maybe then they will actually hear something to stimulate their thinking before they become set in their ideology - at the ripe old age of 21.
Commencement celebrates years of hard work. Administrators should schedule speakers to exhort graduates and challenge them to excel, not present a specifically ideological message that they know will be offensive to many. The school should be applauding their students, not disrespecting them. I believe that even in the case of one of my pet peeves: state schools that shouldn’t even have an entrenched (often liberal) ideology. And it’s even more true with values-driven private schools.
Remember the fracas last fall when Columbia University invited Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak? Would Andy really want Ahmadinejad - a thug who denies the Holocaust and calls for the elimination of Israel — to give the commencement speech to Yeshiva University, a Jewish college down the street?
Should a female-only school like Mount Holyoke invite a male speaker? Not that a man would necessarily be offensive, but since the school exists to inspire women shouldn’t a woman give the final trumpet call? Likewise, there are 99 black colleges, 32 tribal colleges, and hundreds of religion-specific colleges in the United States. Wouldn’t a speaker be a disappointment if they cannot intimately identify with the audience’s history, culture or beliefs?
In an email interview, Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. said they look for speakers, “who reflect the values of Liberty University, who are appropriate role models for the graduates.” Should this dedicated Christian school really invite a dedicated atheist to speak? Falwell indicated, “We have invited a more diverse group of speakers during the school year,” but for commencement, “We, of course, would not invite a speaker whose lifestyle and values are not compatible with the school’s mission. We want to inspire graduates …to establish priorities that are appropriate to be successful in family life, their careers and their relationship with God.” Clearly, someone like atheist author Christopher Hitchens fails to meet this criteria. Perhaps Columbia can get him.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By w00t
May 4, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s counter-argument would be more reasonable if Andrea had actually mentioned “private, values-based colleges”.
While it’s perfectly appropriate for a school like Liberty to have a religious-themed commencement speech, the commencement speeches at public and “non-values-based” private universities should be the traditional “go out into the world and kick some a*” commencement addresses.
Commencement speeches should speak to ALL the graduates, not just some.
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
It’s good of Shaunti to defend the rights of right-wing religious nuts to only hear speakers that agree with them. That helps preserve the bubble.
But overall, Andrea’s point is (as usual) the better one. A diversity of viewpoints is GOOD for America (and bad for blind, authoritarian-following sheep).
Of course, the speaker should be able to offer something of substance—you can’t just invite any random nutjob or Supreme Court justice onstage. Clarence Thomas, for example, would be a poor choice unless you could arrange for Scalia to be there as well, so Thomas could nod in all the right places.
By Love Filled Liberal
May 5, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
It’s good of Shaunti to defend the rights of right-wing religious nuts to only hear speakers that agree with them.
But overall, Andrea’s point is (as usual) the better one. A diversity of viewpoints is GOOD for America (and bad for blind, authoritarian-following sheep).
Good to see another open minded liberal who respects the right of fellow citizens to worship how they want. No bigotry there.
Of course, the speaker should be able to offer something of substance—you can’t just invite any random nutjob or Supreme Court justice onstage. Clarence Thomas, for example, would be a poor choice unless you could arrange for Scalia to be there as well, so Thomas could nod in all the right places.
No close mindedness there. The viewpoint of a good old liberal. No hate there, nosireebob. (Copyleft, you have a little drool hanging from your lip)
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
The thing about an open mind is when a mind is left completely open, everthing falls out. You gotta stand for something or you’ll fall for anything. Silly Liberals.
A speaker should reflect the values of an institution, as should the faculty and staff.
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this
Your straw man is amusing. Why should I be filled with love and tolerance for bigotry and hatred?
By Truth
May 5, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
I’m stunned.
Andrea is admitting that some colleges lean left? Say it ain’t so. I thought that the whole world was centrist and only Oral Roberts U and FOX News leaned right.
The next thing you know, she will be admitting that Dan Rather had an agenda.
By lovelyliz
May 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Can’t somebody remove the spam and faux ads from this message board?
By Love Filled Liberal
May 5, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Why should I be filled with love and tolerance for bigotry and hatred?
So now you know why people dislike you.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
lovelyliz
Andrea said that they are understaffed. This would take like what? Three minutes to do?
By Truth
May 5, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Gandalf, the Grey
Stand for what? Slamming others because they take the uncommon stance of actually believing in a higher power?
I thought this country was founded because of a need for religous freedom?
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
I always know I’m on the right track when Gandolt disagrees with me. Thanks, Grey Guy!
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
I didn’t say what you had to stand for…that is my point, stand for something. I may not agree with it, but better than being a air head that is filled with the next comment made by a talking head on your side. Just because something is messed up and unpopular, it isn’t necessarily the goverments job to fix it.
If a war being popular was a reason to fight it, John McClellan would have won the presidential race of 1864, defeating Lincoln and the war between the states would have been over. With a draw. Of course Lincoln’s illegal little war was unpopular! But did his winning it make us a greater country and (eventually) lead to equal treatment under the law for all americans? Damn Skippy!
I don’t think our great country was founded because of the need for religous freedom, just that the founding fathers wanted to separate the church (a church) from the goverment. Taxation without representation was a far bigger issue.
By lozen
May 5, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
The purpose of a university is educating students. What are the other values of an institution of learning? Copyleft, don’t ya just love how people on this blog can read the minds of all the others on the blog? I love your comments. People do not dislike you! Yes, religious freedom was part of the reason for the founding of this country. And then the ones who came here to find religious freedom immediately wanted to tell everyone how to worship. This country has always been schizophrenic when it comes to religion. “I want freedom to worship as I see fit but I don’t want anybody else to have that freedom because my religion is the only TRUE religion and people who don’t worship like me are WRONG!”
By Dave
May 5, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Actually Shaunti…. Christopher hitchens is EXACTLY what the graduating class of “talibangelicals” need to hear at their commencment address….it may NOT be too late for them to still be “saved” from their world of make believe. They might just be better prepared to live in and for “this world” on which we all spin…as oppossed to the “make believe” one in which they dedicate their lives to getting in to. If more people thought like Hitchens….this world would be a better place.
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Lozen, that is true for Mormons and for Muslims. Schizophrenic sects if there ever were any! Buddists, Taoist and Chirstians aren’t so bad. Hindus with that whole cow thing are a bit scary as well….as for the rest..as long as they aren’t eating little children, live and let live.
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Blind, fanatical faith is not compatible with a free society, but we let fundies live here anyway.
We don’t, however, guarantee that religious zealots will be “shielded” from opinions and ideas they disagree with. If you’re that frightened of the free exchange of ideas, move to a theocracy.
As an American, I have zero respect for blind stupidity and the arrogant, fanatical type of faith so common among evangelicals and Libery/Bob Jones/Jesus Camp University. I have the utmost respect for legitimate, THOUGHTFUL faith that recognizes other viewpoints as possible, acceptable, and even valuable in a free society.
By chuck
May 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Copyleft,In light of this statement you made, you are being pretty hypocritical:
A diversity of viewpoints is GOOD for America (and bad for blind, authoritarian-following sheep).
If you believe this statement you made, you should welcome a conservative speaker with open arms. If you have ever been on a college campus, you would know that the vast majority (one study put it at 81%) of college professors are FLAMING LIBERALS. In order for your statement to be put into practice, it would just about have to be done at commencement because they sure aren’t hearing a “diversity of viewpoints” in college classrooms.
What is it exactly that you are afraid of? Are you afraid that if these college students hear a conservative speaker at graduation that they may go out and do…what…NOT HAVE AN ABORTION? JOIN THE MILITARY? GET A JOB FOR A (GASP) BIG CORPORATION?
Get a clue lefty.
By Archie
May 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
My answer to the topic question is yes and no. If you’re a value-driven university or a unique,niche-driven university or college then yes the commencement speech should reflect the values of that place but if you’re a scientific,research,fact-based university then the commencement speech should not reflect any particular values. I don’t think the late Rev Falwell would be a good commencement speaker for Morehouse but Condi Rice would be a good commencement speaker for the University of SC because although Condi is a republican she is the Secretary of State of America. A christian school should not invite a known atheist to speak but a known atheist could give the commencement speech for the University of SC as I was taught by several agnostic professors although there is no official declaration the my alma mater is atheist.
By chuck
May 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
“I want freedom to worship as I see fit but I don’t want anybody else to have that freedom because my religion is the only TRUE religion and people who don’t worship like me are WRONG!”
So INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDING speakers who don’t agree with YOUR world view is different from your statement…how?
By chuck
May 5, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
We don’t, however, guarantee that religious zealots will be “shielded” from opinions and ideas they disagree with. If you’re that frightened of the free exchange of ideas, move to a theocracy.
Unless of course zealots are LIBERALS. We must shield them from anything conservative at all costs. After all, we wouldn’t want them thinking for themselves now would we?
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, you won’t know what hit you when the nuclear weapon factory disguised as a mosque go’s off in your neighborhood. Silly Liberals! (I see that weapon is not plural.)
By kimberly
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
snerk Chuck, I think I went to the same University as you did. Would you say the prevalent thinking at YOURS was “liberal?” Hey, wasn’t that you on the concourse with Sister Cindy, Brother Jed, and Rusty Yates with the big black hats hollering that the rest of us would burn in “HAY-ull” because we’re all “HO-errrs?” Haha!
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, you silly liberal!
By Dave
May 5, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Chuck why is it that up to 81% of college professors are as you call them: “flaming liberals”…? (BTW…we libs wear that term “lberal” as a badge of honor these days…one only mneed to look at what the neo-cons have done to our country and around the world)…. well anyway…as I was saying… could it be that those that choose to EDUCATE themselves to the highest level, that question things, read, learn, ask questions end up being liberals? Why is that Chuck? Something to be damn proud of if you ask me… it shows that those who are the most educated, the majority of them…end up as liberals. Sorry if this goes over your head…you might just need to be a liberal to figure out what I was trying to get at… ;-)
By Truth
May 5, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
lozen
This country has always been schizophrenic when it comes to religion. “I want freedom to worship as I see fit but I don’t want anybody else to have that freedom because my religion is the only TRUE religion and people who don’t worship like me are WRONG!”
LOL!! That one goes in the book.
So the problem you have with religous people is that they insist on telling others that they are wrong. I see. LOL!! So what the hell are you telling them? That they are right?
LOL!!
By Bruce
May 5, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Watch out Dave. That “my way is the only way” thinking is exactly what you are spewing your hatred about.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
This is hysterical.
The subject mentions religion and the floor is slippery with liberal drool.
Calm down guys. We get that you think that you and only you know the truth. Try to think of religous people as human beings that care about others and have families. 99% of them just want you to have a better life, unlike most of the liberals on here that apparently want them to set down, shut up and listen to NPR like the rest of the real independent thinking intellects.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Dave
Having professors in a closed college environment where they can insist that others agree with them is actually the perfect occupation for a liberal.
But you may be shocked to learn that professors aren’t the only people with advanced degrees, There are some people who actually combine that degree with other skills and find a job, or start a business, or maybe even go into the military.
Yep. Be proud of that liberal professor. Agree with his politics. Hell, he might just even give you a passing grade.
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
You’re making false assumptions again, Chuck… and making yourself look silly in the process. (Again.)
Of course I’d welcome a conservative speaker at a university—if one could be found with someone of value and interest to offer. But William Buckley’s dead, and he was the last great thinker modern Republicans had. Clarence Thomas certainly isn’t in his league—the man has no thoughts of his own and nothing to say, except “[Wait for Scalia to speak]; [pause]; “I agree.”
An INTELLIGENT conservative speaker could, and should, be welcomed at any university commencement. Where can one be found? Today’s crop of prominent conservatives would pose a serious risk to the students: the risk of bored to death by the lack of intellectual vigor and the profusion of tired cliche’s masquerading as “ideas.”
Dave, you identified the obvious, Occam’s-Razor style conclusion: education leads to more liberal attitudes. The conservative response, of course, is that “there must be something wrong with education, then.” Yes, from their perspective, there is. THINKING is always a threat to hardcore believers, which is why they frown on it.
By Dave
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Really Bruce? You see me? If I DID believe in some make believe fictional man floating up in the air…and his gay son, along with his mom, etc… (something along the line of a fable)… I think as I grew older I’d switch religions and go for the one that gives you 14 virgins when you die. I mean, if you’re 16, or 20…you might still be able to score a few virgins…but when you get to 45, 55, 65, etc… I mean THEIR heaven seems like the place to go if you’re a guy… How come the “talibangelicals” version of the bible does not promise you little hotties to have sex with all day and night long…if it did…i’d write a $50,000 check to my local mega church today. Now THAT’S a ticket to heavan I’d seriously consider paying for!
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
You’re making false assumptions again, Chuck… and making yourself look silly in the process. (Again.)
Of course I’d welcome a conservative speaker at a university—if one could be found with something of value and interest to offer. But William Buckley’s dead, and he was the last great thinker modern Republicans had. Clarence Thomas certainly isn’t in his league—the man has no thoughts of his own and nothing to say, except “[Wait for Scalia to speak]; [pause]; “I agree.”
An INTELLIGENT conservative speaker could, and should, be welcomed at any university commencement. Where can one be found? Today’s crop of prominent conservatives would pose a serious risk to the students: the risk of bored to death by the lack of intellectual vigor and the profusion of tired cliche’s masquerading as “ideas.”
Dave, you identified the obvious, Occam’s-Razor style conclusion: education leads to more liberal attitudes. The conservative response, of course, is that “there must be something wrong with education, then.” Yes, from their perspective, there is. THINKING is always a threat to hardcore believers, which is why they frown on it.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
As an American, I have zero respect for blind stupidity and the arrogant, fanatical type of faith so common among evangelicals and Libery/Bob Jones/Jesus Camp University. I have the utmost respect for legitimate, THOUGHTFUL faith that recognizes other viewpoints as possible, acceptable, and even valuable in a free society.
Wow. So you are completely tolerant with anyone . . as long as they agree with you. LOL!! I think you should apply for the Nobel.
Today is practically Comedy Central on here. LOL!!
By Mystery Solved
May 5, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Your straw man is amusing
Occam’s-Razor style conclusion
Copyleft = 72John. Bet on it.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
copyleft
An INTELLIGENT conservative speaker could, and should, be welcomed at any university commencement. Where can one be found? Today’s crop of prominent conservatives would pose a serious risk to the students: the risk of bored to death by the lack of intellectual vigor and the profusion of tired cliche’s masquerading as “ideas.”
And of course, YOU get to decide what could be considered intellectual vigor. YOU get to decide what are tired Clichés and YOU get to decide what are real and viable ideas.
I am really learning a lot today about how absolutely open-minded liberals can really be. LOL!!
Religion always brings out the best in you guys.
By Mystery Solved
May 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
That “my way is the only way” thinking is exactly what you are spewing your hatred about.
Don’t forget, buddy, liberals CAN’T hate. By definition. Just ask one.
By chuck
May 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Copyleft, you have made some really stupid statements in the past, but this one is beyond the pale:
Clarence Thomas certainly isn’t in his league—the man has no thoughts of his own and nothing to say, except “[Wait for Scalia to speak]; [pause]; “I agree.”
Thomas graduated from Holy Cross in 1971 with honors.
Thanks to his sterling academic record, Thomas was admitted to the law schools at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania. He chose Yale because of the financial support it offered him. At Yale, he continued to do well academically.
So copyleft, which college did you graduate from. I’m guessing you dropped out from a JC after a couple of semesters. If you were one tenth as accomplished as Clarence Thomas, MAYBE people might actually care what you have to say. Until then we’ll just continue laughing at it.
What’s really hilarious is that you have fallen into the typical liberal trap of thinking that ONLY liberals are capable of rational thought…and you don’t even realize that YOU are the ones who want to repress free thought. Apparently no liberal can resist the siren call of conservatism. If these students are so weak-minded that they will be swayed by ONE commencement speech, I am horrified about what the future might bring for them.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
hollering that the rest of us would burn in “HAY-ull”
Instead of fighting all week about liberal vs. conservative, I would love to hear each one of y’all’s personal beliefs regarding an “afterlife”. Does anyone other than chuck and Monica believe in a literal Heaven and Hell??
Personally, I believe that spirit is intimately connected with material, such that when the body dies, so does the “spirit”.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
The problem is the media.
Liberals, imagine that every time you turned on the TV, you were preached at by conservatives, and very self righteous, know-it-all-make-a-joke-about-you-if-you-disagreed-with-them conservatives. Or better yet, think about having all FOX News’s to watch. Imagine almost every entertainment show being infested with anti-liberal, pro-conservative propaganda. Imagine Comedy Central being pro-conservative. Imagine Johnny Carson being complementary toward Dan Quaile.
This is why Conservatives are so much more tolerant toward other’s ideas than liberals. We are not the “go along” crowd. We have had liberalism shoved down our throats since 1968. One network (FOX NEWS) doesn’t march in goose step with the rest of the propaganda machine and liberals declare it the world’s greatest evil.
But it’s days like this when liberals show their true colors, their true lack of respect or even tolerance of other’s ideas.
“They don’t think like me, so I hate em. And what’s worse, they have the gall to actually tell me that I am WRONG.”
Need to get out of here. You guys do keep it up. You are a wealth of information, today.
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 5, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
I don’t hate liberal, just hate listening to them. They make no sense. The reason so large a percentage of liberals are in acedemia is that they can’t make it in the real world, but ya’ll knew that.
By Bruce
May 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Yes really Dave. It doesn’t matter if you believe in “a make believe fictional man floating up in the air…and his gay son, along with his mom, etc… “. You just think your right and those that do believe are wrong. So what makes you so different than those you speak against? What makes you so right?
By Liberal
May 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
“I don’t hate liberal, just hate listening to them.”
You have your wish. This liberal is leaving the building. More pointless than usual today. Knock yourselves out praising each other. Don’t wait up.
By Mara
May 5, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
my take on the issue: it depends on what the school sees as its mission. Is their function to open the minds of their students, expose them to wider schools of thought, and allow them to explore their differences? If this is their “mission” then certainly they should welcome speakers of all stripes.
If they see their raison d’etre as turning out ideological foot soldiers, then inviting those with contrary views would be…contraversial. Regent University, for example, inviting a Paul Kurtz (google him), or Berkely inviting Beverly LaHaye, would be a waste of everybodies time and a needless annoyance.
Then we have those wage-slave universities that exist only to prepare their students for employment. In these cases, having a speaker who focuses on religion or international diplomacy might not be the best fit.
that’s my $.02
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
No, what’s typically hilarious about you, chuck, is your instant resort to personal attacks based on completely unfounded assumptions… the telling sign of a closed mind feeling threatened by new ideas.
As for “unlimited tolerance,” the caricature that liberals are supposed to embrace—it’s nonsense, of course. Karl Popper pointed out:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”
So, no: liberals do NOT stand for unlimited tolerance, even of evil and hatred. We DO get to make value judgments. And we DO have ethical standards… just not the ones that fascists, zealots, and bigots would prefer.
To you, that makes no sense. “If you’re not blindly in lockstep with religious and Republican decress, you have no morals and no values!” is the belief that’s been drummed into your little skulls. The fact that this view has no connection to reality has never bothered the authoritarian/follower type. Facts and logic don’t matter; only BELIEF does.
Yes, chuck and “Truth,” I DO get to decide who’s worth listening to and who isn’t. And so far, you’ve both missed the mark by a pretty wide margin. Do you think you can do any better? I’m waiting….
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
By the way, chuck, you raise an interesting point on Shaunti’s side; Apparently students at conservative-Christian college are so weak-minded they can’t withstand exposure to even ONE atheist speaker.
Am I right? After all, you DID just make that very same argument about liberals’ “fear” of conservative speakers… care to refute it?
By Copyleft
May 5, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Curious: To answer your question, I have no idea if any afterlife exists, and I know of no reason to think one does.
By Mara
May 5, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Curious - I would love to hear each one of y’all’s personal beliefs regarding an “afterlife”
have you ever read the Celestine Prophesy?
By Curious
May 5, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
I have no idea if any afterlife exists, and I know of no reason to think one does.
I appreciate the input, Copyleft. Since a “spirit” is, by definition, non-material, it’s not possible for me to imagine how a non-entity can transcend the material body to which it is associated.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
So, if “rational argument” isn’t enough to change the hearts and minds of those who are “intolerant”, by what means do you propose to “suppress” them? Perhaps by “fists and pistols”? For a fairly smart fellow, you seem to have a blind spot regarding your own brand of intolerance. No offense, of course.
By Mara - Devil's Advocate
May 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Copy - if one sees “the soul/spirit” as the energy which animates a living body, then some kind of “afterlife” would seem to be inevitable since energy can’t be destroyed, only changed.
Of course, this would also indicate that there was no “moment of creation” since it can’t be “created” either.
By Dave
May 5, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
Bruce….Because you have, nor do you offer: ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF of his/her existance.
Belief in ALL organized religions have one common denominator… a “fear” of death. People have this fear that life just ends….so all religions offer people a “next life” that not only exists AFTER this life…but it’s a “better” life than this one on earth. If people would get over the fact that they just die…that it’s just like before you were born…blank…nothing…kind of peaceful if you ask me… than perhaps it is THIS world they would care about and not the make believe one that can’t be shown to exsist. Why is it that as you get older…Santa is now fake, same with the Easter Bunny, but everyone keeps believing in some fictional thing floating out in the clouds? One dreamed up when people could not explain nor reason as to why it rained or thundered. Why is it YOUR religion is the “correct” one? If you were born in Saudi Arabia… do you think you would believe in the same god? Or some gay named jesus? Probably not…99.9% no… But just because you had parents that told you that this “thing” was true…. they brain washed you from a little child…and your fear of death makes you feel that “need” to believe…to think that you can live forever and ever…
Just like all things living…all things die…. you to shall face that same fate… as we all do and will… Maybe there are those of us that care about THIS place we live in, and don’t need to WAIT to get to the “other side”…..
By Curious
May 5, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
have you ever read the Celestine Prophesy?
I have heard of it, but don’t know much about the details, Mara. Does that book, or associated philosophy speak to you? If you can summarize what it means to you, I would be very appreciative.
By Truth
May 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
The problem is that you don’t understand your own intolerance. You do get to decide your own standards, but it is never about that. It is you deciding who should appear where or who should be the intelligent speaker. It is YOU that want to make the rules for others, and that is indeed the mantra of so many liberals; particularly liberals that have a distinctive bigotry toward anyone who might have a religous belief.
You aren’t the only liberal this morning that couldn’t wait to scream: “To the bandwagon!!!” Almost everyone that appeared did. I think what is so disgusting about all this is the fact that your ilk seems to think that selective bigotry is OK, as long as it is the accepted bigotry of the fair minded left.
Once bigotry is accepted, it becomes harder and harder to see the problems with it.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
if one sees “the soul/spirit” as the energy which animates a living body, then some kind of “afterlife” would seem to be inevitable since energy can’t be destroyed, only changed.
Einstein’s famous equation, E = M*c^2 postulates that matter and energy are two “faces” of the same underlying entity. In my personal belief system, “spirit” represents the integrated, intelligent way in which said matter/energy arranges itself so that it becomes “purposeful”. In this way of thinking, the matter/energy component of the organism certainly transcends death, but I question whether the particular intelligence associated with a particular collection of matter/energy still exists once the particular organism ceases to exist.
Of course, this would also indicate that there was no “moment of creation” since it can’t be “created” either.
I will agree that “Creation” is a logical impossibility, since it always begs the question “What existed BEFORE Creation?” In the end, I think the inability to answer that question points more toward an inherent weakness of our own brand of logic than anything else, however.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Because you have, nor do you offer: ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF of his/her existance.
Dave, the first rule of true Scientific Inquiry is to recognize the limitations inherent in said inquiry. If you wish to hold the Scientific Method up as some kind of “gold standard” of truth, you’re missing out on about 99% of the big picture.
so all religions offer people a “next life” that not only exists AFTER this life…but it’s a “better” life than this one on earth.
Sorry, not true. In faiths which incorporate a reincarnation type of “afterlife”, there’s no guarantee that the next life will be better than the present one. In many branches of Zen Buddhism (Soto, for example), the question of an “afterlife” is never directly addressed.
By Mara
May 5, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Curious - please keep in mind that I’m agnostic by nature. As such, I tend to look for “natural” explanations instead of “magic” ones. The idea of the “soul” being actual energy, for example. Were I able to suspend my disbelief enough to “believe” in God(s), I would probably tend toward one of the earth religions, paganism, wicca, shamanism…simply because they mix the tangible with the spiritual.
The Celestine Prophesy is a fictional novel that suggests some interesting paths of inquiry in regard to “spiritual” matters. The book discusses various psychological and spiritual ideas that are rooted in many ancient Eastern Traditions. The main character of the novel undertakes a journey to find and understand a series of nine spiritual insights on an ancient manuscript in Peru. -
From Celestine Phophesy wiki - The Nine Insights
The First Insight… A Critical Mass
A new spiritual awakening is occurring in human culture; an awakening brought about by a critical mass of individuals who experience their lives as a spiritual unfolding, a journey in which we are led forward by mysterious coincidences.
The Second Insight… The Longer Now
This awakening represents the creation of a new, more complete worldview, which replaces a five-hundred-year-old preoccupation with secular survival and comfort. While this technological preoccupation was an important step, our awakening to life’s coincidences is opening us up to the real purpose of human life on this planet, and the real nature of our universe.
The Third Insight… A Matter of Energy
We now experience that we live not in a material universe, but in a universe of dynamic energy. Everything extant is a field of sacred energy that we can sense and intuit. Moreover, we humans can project our energy by focusing our attention in the desired direction, in that where attention goes, energy flows, influencing other energy systems and increasing the pace of coincidences in our lives. It is possible to see this energy enveloping all living things.
The Fourth Insight… The Struggle For Power
To gain energy, we tend to manipulate or force others to give us attention and thus energy. When we successfully dominate others in this way, we feel more powerful, but they are left weakened and often fight back. Competition for scarce, human energy is the cause of all conflict between people.
The Fifth Insight… The Message of the Mystics
Insecurity and violence ends when we experience an inner connection with divine energy within, a connection described by mystics of all traditions. A sense of lightness or buoyancy along with the constant sensation of love are measures of this connection. If these measures are present, the connection is real. If not, it is only pretended.
The Sixth Insight… Clearing the Past
The more we stay connected, the more we are acutely aware of those times when we lose connection, usually when we are under stress. In these times, we can see our own particular way of stealing energy from others. Once our manipulations are brought to personal awareness, our connection becomes more constant and we can discover our own evolutionary path in life, and our spiritual mission, which is the personal way we can contribute to the world. Here the four main “control dramas”—the Interrogator, the Intimidator, the Aloof and the Poor Me—are discussed. Each person unconsciously prefers one of these four to suck energy out of others (as described in the Fourth Insight).
The Seventh Insight… Engaging the Flow
Knowing our personal mission further enhances the flow of mysterious coincidences as we are guided toward our destinies. First we have a question; then dreams, daydreams, and intuitions lead us towards the answers, which usually are synchronistically provided by the wisdom of another human being.
The Eighth Insight… The Interpersonal Ethic
We can increase the frequency of guiding coincidences by uplifting every person that comes into our lives. Care must be taken not to lose our inner connection when we have become part of romantic relationships. Uplifting others is especially effective in groups wherein each member can feel energy of all the others. With children it is extremely important for their early security and growth. By seeing the beauty in every face, we lift others into their wisest self, and increase the chances of hearing a synchronistic message.
The Ninth Insight… The Emerging Culture
As we all evolve toward the best completion of our spiritual missions, the technological means of survival will be fully automated as humans focus instead on synchronistic growth. Such growth will move humans into higher energy states, ultimately transforming our bodies into spiritual form and uniting this dimension of existence with the after-life dimension, ending the cycle of birth and death.
again lwt me say that I am aware that this is a fictional work, so take it for whatever it’s worth.
By Bruce
May 5, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
Dave I don’t believe I said anything about what I believe. My only comment was that you scream about religious folks telling you they are right when you are doing the same thing. I guess what I am saying is, with all due respect, you sir are a hypocrite. The most dangerous kind of human.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
again lwt me say that I am aware that this is a fictional work, so take it for whatever it’s worth.
Honestly, I don’t see any new ground covered by the philosophy associated with The Celestine Prophecy as presented here. It appears to be an amalgam of ancient spiritual wisdom and “new-age” concepts, with some psycho-babble thrown in for good measure.
In my studies of History, it has always struck me that each generation feels like we are in “The End Times”, and are thus on the verge of some grand “breakthrough”, whether it is the traditional “Rapture” of the Bible, or here a transformation of our bodies into spiritual form and uniting this dimension of existence with the after-life dimension, ending the cycle of birth and death. Just an observation.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
I guess what I am saying is, with all due respect, you sir are a hypocrite. The most dangerous kind of human.
I’m a hypocrite. Aren’t we all??
By Truth
May 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Curious
I would love to hear each one of y’all’s personal beliefs regarding an “afterlife.
I hope there is an afterlife. Out of this massive, ageless universe, if I just get these few years on this tiny rock in this remote solar system imbedded deep withing this meaningless galaxy, during these few years, I would be pis*ed.
Everyone has a religion. Whether you worship a higher authority or you worship your own ability to reason, you are worshipping something.
I believe that God is nature. God is red, blue and Yellow. God is Oxygen and magnesium. God is the rules that make the universe work. Do those rules say that we can live in more than one life? No one knows. Chuck has faith that his way is the way. But so does Copyleft. But neither one knows.
I guess we are all guaranteed to live on through children and even through things we have done, but I would like to have another shot. I think I have had them before and I think I will have them again. But do I know? Of course not.
I do know that the chances of me being born in this country, at the top of the food chain (literally), when I am working in front of a computer instead of mining coal in 12th century England or any other gruesome profession is an unbelievable long shot.
I just hope I do this well in the next life, if there is one.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
I just hope I do this well in the next life, if there is one.
Truth, thanks for an eloquent statement of your belief system.
I’m hoping that kimberly and lozen weigh in today, as well as any “lurkers” on board.
Since the question of an afterlife is essentially unanswerable, maybe in the end it’s unimportant. For some reason, it fascinates me because it taps into so many areas of our brains, both our “logical” side, and our “emotional” side. And, it stimulates feelings of either hope or hopelessness, which I think are our ultimate motivators to either get out of bed in the morning, or not.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
If I do come back as an animal, I would wish to be a beautiful mini-rex rabbit. However, I would most likely come back as a stray dog…..
By chuck
May 5, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
…the telling sign of a closed mind feeling threatened by new ideas.
Yep. I’M THE ONE saying that people should not be allowed to speak because of their ideology.
By Monica
May 5, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
As for the topic question: does anyone actually listen to speakers at graduation? Call me shallow, but I have no recollection of the keynote speaker at my college graduation. I was just waiting for my degree to be conferred upon me, “with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto.”
By chuck
May 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Apparently students at conservative-Christian college are so weak-minded they can’t withstand exposure to even ONE atheist speaker.
Am I right? After all, you DID just make that very same argument about liberals’ “fear” of conservative speakers… care to refute it?
In fact, I will refute it. I did not go to a Christian college except for one quarter, but when I went to a secualr college I went to hear all manner of speakes. I WANTED to hear what they had to say. One of the more famous athiests that I heard speak was Ashley Montagu and actually was a student panelist in a round table discussion/debate with him. If you aren’t familiar with him you can find hime here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montagu
We got into a great discussion on whether or not Jesus was the Son of God as I claimed or just a god man and teacher. You see, I’ve done all of the intellectual exploration that I needed to do to find the truth. You know next to nothing about my faith, but claim that you know it all. Who is actually closed minded? You obviously are.
By chuck
May 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
oops…GOOD man and teacher
By Curious
May 5, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
You see, I’ve done all of the intellectual exploration that I needed to do to find the truth. Who is actually closed minded?
Thanks for answering your own question, chuck. Pretty amazing that you know the all the answers to essentially unanswerable questions. I guess Richard Feynman, who said that he is more comfortable saying “I don’t know” than trying to support a bunch of guesses isn’t quite as smart as YOU. BTW, do you even know who Richard Feynman was??
As for the topic question: does anyone actually listen to speakers at graduation? Call me shallow, but I have no recollection of the keynote speaker at my college graduation. I was just waiting for my degree to be conferred upon me, “with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto.”
Through a stroke of good fortune, the speaker at my graduation was Bob Hope. I’ll never forget that! Very cool guy.
By Curious
May 5, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
We got into a great discussion on whether or not Jesus was the Son of God as I claimed or just a god man and teacher.
Since there are no existant writings attributed directly to Jesus, how do you know what the man/Messiah ACTUALLY said, chuck? Or, are you a mind-reader of some kind?
By Dave
May 5, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Ah yes Bruce….it is “I” that is dangerous… as there have been no wars fought in history because of one’s religious beliefs… yes all of those that believe in a god are peaceful and loving… you are very right. There are no hypocrites when it comes to religion…just ask Ted Haggard!
By lozen
May 5, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Liberals, imagine that every time you turned on the TV, you were preached at by conservatives, and very self righteous, know-it-all-make-a-joke-about-you-if-you-disagreed-with-them conservatives. Well, we could talk about call in radio shows…
Imagine Johnny Carson being complementary toward Dan Quaile. Imagine Rush being complimentary toward Clinton or Gore or Kerry.
This is why Conservatives are so much more tolerant toward other’s ideas than liberals. Ha, ha, ha.
We are not the “go along” crowd. We have had liberalism shoved down our throats since 1968.
We have had conservatives try to take away our right to our own bodies/reproduction/birth control choices since the 60s or before. We have had conservatives take children away from mothers because the mothers were gay. We have had conservatives froth at the mouth at the idea of gay marriage. I could go on and on. But you are more interested in the great disadvantages of tv shows for conservatives apparently than the politics involved in trying to make women have children they can’t support.
By Cat Stevens
May 5, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Then I found my head one day when I wasn’t even trying
And here I have to say, ‘cause there is no use in lying
Yes the answer lies within, so why not take a look now?
Kick out the devil’s sin, pick up, pick up a good book now
By lozen
May 5, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Take this test and see if you did better than I did. Very interesting…
www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/
By Truth
May 5, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen
Imagine Rush being complimentary toward Clinton or Gore or Kerry.
LOL!! This is the best you have? LOL!! Rush Limbaugh was not America’s favorite late night host for 35 years. You just don’t get it.
You have choices other than Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives had no other choice but liberals entertaining them for 40 years.
By Copyleft
May 6, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this
“Yep. I’M THE ONE saying that people should not be allowed to speak because of their ideology.”
Well, I’m certainly not the one saying that, Chuck. More assumptions on your part. Remember when I said a diversity of views is a GOOD thing? and that I’d welcome a conservative speaker, if one could be found with someone of value to say?
I was pointing out that a commencement speaker shouldn’t be just any random shmoe off the street. And Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be a good choice because all he does is parrot Scalia.
As for “Truth”: Yes, I recognize my intolerance of bigots and zealots. No, I don’t see that as hypocrisy. You keep arguing with a liberal-caricature you’ve created in your own mind, so you can shout “Aha—gotcha! Liberals aren’t allowed to have standards and ethics, ‘cuz then they’d be hypocrites!”
But that’s just nonsense, and I think you should be able to see why. If I believe in freedom, do I therefore support someone’s freedom to tyrannize others? Of course not. Is that hypocritical? Again, no. You’re playing silly “gotcha” games, trying to score points against a hated liberal instead of addressing the topic.
By USinUK
May 6, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Conservatives had no other choice but liberals entertaining them for 40 years.
maybe that’s because CONSERVATIVES JUST AREN’T THAT FUNNY. Want proof?? try the aborted Daily-Show clone that Fox attempted (Half-Hour News Hour, or some such nonsense) - cancelled after only a couple of shows.
Dennis Miller used to be funny when he was an equal-opportunist absurdist on SNL and HBO - now, he just seems like an angry old man. His show on CNBC didn’t last that long, either.
Drew Carey tried to run a conservative comedian association, but had to shut it down due to lack of interest.
As for Johnny Carson - criminey, give it a rest. He took over as host in 1962 and left in 1992 - during that time, he had JFK, LBJ and Carter to poke fun of (11 yrs), but for majority of his tenure he had Nixon, Ford and Reagan (20 yrs). In other words, for only 1/3 of his time on the air were Dems in the WH - the rest were GOP. So, yes, he spent more time poking fun of the GOP than the Dems - Get over it.
By Jake
May 6, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Copyleft, from your comments, it appears that you have either had too much dealings with a few “bad apples” who call themselves Christian, or have not met enough Christians.
Much of what you say, I and many other Christians would agree with 100%. Unfortunately, and this is common in blog arenas, some of your comments are including too broad statements and innuendo that suggest, or outright state, that you have little regard for others whose view points you believe are too different from yours.
Hopefully my first paragraph above is right, and my second one above is wrong. Your comments ranged from thoughtful and witty, to small minded retorts, so I can’t tell. (again, this is common in a blog arena).
God be with you regardless.
By Skeptical Empathy
May 6, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
The story, as it was told to me, does not ring completely true. Not to be insensitive, but if you plot the stated details on a timeline, they just don’t add up. Not saying it was impossible, by any means, but elements were omitted and/or fudged. Might believe that it happened, but cannot buy that it happened that way. Convincing effort, though.
By Mara
May 6, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Jake - it appears that you have either had too much dealings with a few “bad apples” who call themselves Christian, or have not met enough Christians
So are you saying that it’s a minority of “faux Christians” that insist that the US is a “Christian” nation and everyone else should shut up and deal(I got that infamous e-mail more than twice…)? That there’s nothing wrong with forcing the jewish kid, the hindu kid, or the atheist kid to acknowlege “god” when they can solute the flag?
It’s a minority of “faux Christians” that contend religiosity (and christianity in particular) is the ONLY basis for morality? Is it also a minority of faux Christians who believe that gays are immoral abominations and their agenda is to destroy this nation and tear down “marriage”? That “liberals” want to take your bible, force your kids to have sex (and abortions) and tear down all the churches? (okay, that last bit is a paraphrase of numerous rants and political ads I’ve heard and not verbatim quotes)
That evolution, biology, geology, cosmology and paleontology are lies foisted on decent people by god-hating secularists?
If this is so, maybe you need to take a look at who is speaking for you, because their words are filled with anger, hatred, and condemnation for those who don’t share their ideology.
btw, may Zues be with you, too.
USinUK - you mean you don’t find Ann Coulter hysterically funny!? I’m SHOCKED….LOL!!
By Truth
May 6, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
opyleft
As for “Truth”: Yes, I recognize my intolerance of bigots and zealots.
All religous people are not zealots and bigots. In fact, I would bet that more liberals are zealots and bigots than religous people.
By Truth
May 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
What Christians are you guys talking about? Where do you get these quotes that are nothing but anti-Christian nonsense.
This happens every time religion is brought up. You find some nut like Haggy and because of what he says, you condemn anyone that has ever opened a Bible.
By Truth
May 6, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
USinUK
my point was that conservatives are subjected to anti-conservative propaganda on a daily basis and have been for 40 years. (As you apparently agree) Because of that, we have learned to look past that and enjoy the entertainment.
Liberals have never had to do that. If a show is anti-liberal, you don’t watch it, you throw rocks at the studios. (See RNC Convention, NYC, 2004)
This fact explains why so many liberals are so hard core about not accepting or respecting the beliefs of others. Look at what Copyleft has written these past two days. He is convinced that everyone but agnostics are zealots and bigots, (of course making him the bigot)
By Truth
May 6, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Mara
So are you saying that it’s a minority of “faux Christians” that insist that the US is a “Christian” nation and everyone else should shut up and deal(I got that infamous e-mail more than twice…)?
How many people are required to send out an internet email? Do you think it took every member of every church.
You are grasping at straws.
By Mara
May 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
How many people are required to send out an internet email?
just one. and then the next one who forwards it to ten people, and the next two who forward it to ten more each, etc. etc. Tacit agreement from the majority. Only perhaps one in a hundered will reply to “All” and assert that the statement is a bunch of hooey and they should all be ashamed of themselves.
The last time I got it it had been forwarded seven times to multiple recipients. The only “reply all” repudiation that I recieved was the one I sent out.
What’s the old saying…something about “all evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing”?
By Dave
May 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
After 7 1/2 years…
Gays are STILL GAY….abortion is STILL legal! YAY!!!! Go Obama!!! “Talibangelicals” SUCK!!! Get OUT of the bedrooms of the people and start CARING ABOUT PEOPLE!!!! I’ll take a prez that sleeps with interns anyday over the clowns you voted in…TWICE! Though I guess it’s OK with you all for Iraqi Muslins to be slaughtered…as they’re not “really” human…right? When you say “all life is sacrid”….what part of “all life” are you missing….how can you say that “collateral damage” is OK when it comes to even one single “innocent” human dying…. damn talibangelicals!!!!
By Dave
May 6, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
You know what I LOVE about you “talibangelicals”… and your “gay marriage” ammendment? You did not turn ONE SINGLE gay person straight! Gays are STILL gay.
You see…me? I have to say…if this “marriage ammendment” was NOT passed, I think I was almost about to turn gay myself. I would have divorced my wife, married my best friend…and then? We BOTH would have become public school teachers (or pastors) only for ONE reason…to turn YOUR children gay!!!
Look at it this way… IF we ALL turn gay, there will be NO MORE NEED FOR ABORTIONS!!!
(well, at least unless you are a gay woman raped by a straight man…because that NEVER happens…as almost ALL rapes are done by gays…right?!?!)…
Where’s Ted Haggard when I “want” and “need” him? Does he STILL get “private” meetings with Dubya at the White House? What did they talk about during their “prayer sessions” when he DID go to the White House? Only Allah knows…. Or….maybe the gay baby Jesus knows as well! ;-)
By Copyleft
May 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Be fair, Mara. Jake’s asking a legitimate question (unlike “truth,” who’s spewing more presumptuous nonsense).
No, I’ve been very careful to distinguish the minority of fundamentalist zealots from mainstream, sensible, peaceable Christians—which I do believe constitute a majority, albeit a quiet one.
Did you miss the part where I specifically condemned BLIND faith, and noted my respect for rational, thoughtful faith that can coexist with other views? That’s what America’s about, folks… and the fundies really can’t be comfortable with that. Thus the constant friction.
By the way: you’ve also ASSUMED that I’m an agnostic. Where did I say that? It’s your constant confusion of “blind faith” with “any faith at all” that’s causing the problem… but that’s your error, not mine.
By Copyleft
May 6, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Truth also errs by putting “liberals” and “religious people” in different categories… when, of course, most Christian Americans ARE liberals.
By Copyleft
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Whoops, got that switched around: “When, of course, most liberal Americans ARE Christians.”
By lozen
May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Copyleft, loved your 8:10. USinUK, I was going to say the same thing about Johnny Carson but you beat me to it. Mara, good points; glad you’re here.
This is a test to see if the censors block me when I copy one of the spammers .. By hermelinda
May 6, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
Lindsay Lohan having sex Close up Dripping P* Free Gallery Yu-gi-oh Porno blondes sucking dick Jessica Simpson a*
By lozen
May 6, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
By hermelinda May 6, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this Lindsay Lohan having sex Close up Dripping P* Free Gallery Yu-gi-oh Porno blondes sucking dick Jessica Simpson a*
Inappropriate and profane comments will be edited at the discretion of the editors.
So why don’t you block the above spam? I’ll see if you block it now when I copy it and send it!
By USinUK
May 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Truth -
my point was that conservatives are subjected to anti-conservative propaganda on a daily basis and have been for 40 years. (As you apparently agree) Because of that, we have learned to look past that and enjoy the entertainment.
oh, fercryingoutloud - you’re calling Johnny Carson et al “anti-conservative propaganda”??? Talk show hosts make fun of whoever is in the WH, be they GOP or Dem. Or, maybe you were asleep during the Clinton years when the Bubba/barbecue/blue dress jokes were making the rounds.
Liberals have never had to do that. If a show is anti-liberal, you don’t watch it, you throw rocks at the studios. (See RNC Convention, NYC, 2004)
so, you’re conflating real life (RNC convention demonstrations) with talk show monologues?
This fact explains why so many liberals are so hard core about not accepting or respecting the beliefs of others. Look at what Copyleft has written these past two days. He is convinced that everyone but agnostics are zealots and bigots, (of course making him the bigot)
Truth - please learn the difference between accepting and respecting someone else’s beliefs and allowing those people to turn their beliefs into legislation. I have no problem that there are religious people out there who believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. I DO have a problem with them using that as a reason to enable discrimination against gays. I have a number of friends who are anti-choice and I respect their beliefs. However, I DO have a problem when they want to impose their beliefs on me, my doctor and my access to legal medication (e.g., the Pill).
It’s not the beliefs that are the problem, it’s the ACTIONS that we don’t tolerate.
By USinUK
May 6, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
Mara -
USinUK - you mean you don’t find Ann Coulter hysterically funny!? I’m SHOCKED….LOL!
well, unintentionally funny, yes … much in the same way I think J “doughy pantload” Goldberg is … and don’t get me started on David “the heartland is Jerusalem!” Brooks
By Dave
May 6, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
UsinUK, what you said… here:
“Truth - please learn the difference between accepting and respecting someone else’s beliefs and allowing those people to turn their beliefs into legislation.”
perfect… just simply perfect… -dave
By Mara
May 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
Copyleft - *By the way: you’ve also ASSUMED that I’m an agnostic. Where did I say that?”
When did I make any comment about your religious beliefs or lack thereof? IMHO your beliefs are your own business and I apologize if it seemed like I was speaking for you when I commented on Jake’s post.
For the record, I was voicing my own rebuttal of his statement denying the pervasivness of Christianism in the US.
Hey, lozen. (wave) Business is down so I’ve some extra time to surf.
USinUK - It’s not the beliefs that are the problem, it’s the ACTIONS that we don’t tolerate.
(applause) well said.
By Dorothy Baldwin
May 6, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Why wasn’t Condoleeaz Rice’s statement on Racism a part of the AJC news today? As a female, I guess our comments still don’t count.
By Copyleft
May 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Mara; I was talking to “Truth” in that part of the comment.
By lozen
May 6, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Chris Rock says George Bush has done such a bad job it’s gonna make it hard to ever elect another f—king white man.
By Dave
May 6, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
No Dorothy….women’s words count…it’s only when a “women’s right to choose how she deals with her own body”….when her words don’t count…. Condi? Well… she’s a pawn in a neo-cons world. She’s been part of ALL evil that we have done around the world. Trust me…she’s NOT on YOUR side. She’ll gone on to make multi-millions now…cash in on speaking to the oil companies…the “think tanks”…or perhaps…go work for one of them. If she was TRULY a woman who had “good” inside of her….she would have walked away long ago. She is the same as they…bad to the core…and it had NOTHING to to with religion…it’s a moral sense of what is “right and wrong”….for as smart as she may be…as gifted….she obviously lacks her “own” sense of what is good, what ir right…and what is wrong….
By JokesOn
May 6, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Good post USinUK
Truth - please learn the difference between accepting and respecting someone else’s beliefs and allowing those people to turn their beliefs into legislation. I have no problem that there are religious people out there who believe that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. I DO have a problem with them using that as a reason to enable discrimination against gays. I have a number of friends who are anti-choice and I respect their beliefs. However, I DO have a problem when they want to impose their beliefs on me, my doctor and my access to legal medication (e.g., the Pill).
I was going to try to spell it out for them, but you did a better job than I would have.
A matter of being inclusive or exclusive. I do not mind hearing anyones beliefs, but when it is something that people want to push onto others it is unacceptable.
We actually had this debate and it stopped when that was clarified.
What confuses me is since this was covered clearly, why does it keep coming up?
The reluctance to learn, coupled by the insistence of claiming out point is the same but inverse of theirs, is annoying. Only reason I can come up with is they need to justify their positions by making ours equal to them, which is not the case.
Last time we pointed out they are always trying to pass legislation to limit people to their personal beliefs and their reply was “but none of has passed, has it?” Geeze.
BTW Gandalf (i think), we do stand for something: We the people have the right to freedom except when it stomps on other peoples freedoms!
By thoughtless columns like these are an easy mark for criticism and ridicule when the obvious is state
May 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this
“Should commencement speeches reflect the values of a university?”
Are these two so-called journalists really serious? The AJC Editorial board must be experiencing a slow news day or something to have to start a forum to ask questions to something that is so obvious. What a dumb question and a waste of print and on-line space because COMMENCEMENT SPEECHES ARE A REFLECTION of the VALUES of a university, no matter how far-out right-wing, left-wing or sensible the speaker and his/her speech may be! That commencement speech is pretty much a telling sign of the ideology and the way it colors how the administration, faculty and community of educators on that particular campus view the world.
In addition to “Woman-to-Woman” running out of any issues of significant interest to anyone other than kool-aid drinking wingnuts and moonbats, I thought that ((((“Inappriopriate and profane comments will be edited at the discretion of the editors”)))). I guess that warning doesn’t apply anymore since this forum (and many others like it in the editorial section of the AJC)long ago ran into the journalistic ditch and has obviously become useful for little more than a breeding ground for aspiring spammers to test their repulsive links to perverted wares before invasively using them to terrorize the general public on their personal computer, something the AJC aspires to do with its “journalistic” garbage. The reason the spam probably hasn’t been edited is because in the midst of their boredom-induced diabetic shock, AJC editors discovered that the spam and lewd comments actually makes this column a more readable and entertaining waste of print and type than it would be.
By Gandalf, the Grey
May 6, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Jokes on:
You wrote:BTW Gandalf (i think), we do stand for something: We the people have the right to freedom except when it stomps on other peoples freedoms!