So, you're sending your kid to college?

I attended LTU in Louisiana--Ruston is a predominated Southern Baptist city--but there is a line of demarkation between the city proper and the campus--cross the line onto the campus and you are no longer in Southern Baptist territory!! I mean--it ain't the teachers or nothin'--its the atmosphere!! A worldly atmosphere--cross back over from campus to the city proper--and you're back on Southern Baptist turf--God Almighty is seen throught the Lord Jesus Christ dominates--I find that a bizarre happening--and just in case you think--"Well, that ain't happening on campuses in my city!"--you better think twice and again after that!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

I am confused - are you arguing that universities should only teach what the majority believe to be true?

 

That's why I thank God my sons have/are attending a Christian university:

http://www.cedarville.edu

BTW,Cedarville recently had its annual missions emphasis week. Warren Wiersbe was the featured speaker.

 

Went to 9 years of a secular university and still love America. Go figure.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Hating America. Yeh. Mm-hmm. Critical of American government and politics? Critical of some Americans? Certainly. But I'd hate to think we send kids to college to nod their heads and blindly accept what's spoon fed them. Being critical (constructively) is actually a sign of love. Why get upset about it if you don't care? A lot of my peers seriously considered emigrating after the 200 election. But a bunch of us got together and talked about it. It was decided that emigrating solves nothing, other than to remove us from a situation we don't like. It was further decided that if we wanted to have a snowball's chance of leaving our kids a country they could be proud of, we'd have to stay and work. That's not hating America. That's loving America.

I loved my college. Guilford College in Greensboro, NC. Community based learning was a major emphasis, as was independent thinking and socio-political action. While the school isn't officially pro-Palestine, many of the professors are, as well as a good chunk of the students (those that pay attention to such things). We had an active GLBTA and all sorts of other liberal organizations. Liberals made up the majority of full time students, but there was a good showing of conservatives for such a progressive school.

Were there problems? Of course. But everyone's opinion and experience was valued.

And that's what's missing in America today. We poo-poo people's opinions if they're different from ours, without taking any time to examine them and find the similarities. So much emphasis on division and little to none on unity. I'm not saying that we all have to agree, or sit around and play "I'm okay, you're okay" touchy-feely nonsense, but if we want to make any progress, we need to work toward consensus.

I guess I missed your point, too, SheEagle. Who's surprised?

 

I did all my undergraduate work at a secular college, and managed to still be a soldier and a patriot. I know its fun to spout all of this invective and hyperbolic rhetoric, but is not even vaguely grounded in reality.

Joshua

 

But that's the problem... from what you've posted here, I am not sure I want an America that you would be proud of and I doubt I want to "progress" in the direction you have in mind. If we disagree with the ultimate goal, why in the world would I want to work towards building a consensus for getting there?

If you want to adopt the libertarian ideal as the ultimate goal then we can talk about building a consensus.

 

Of course,just because you attend a secular university doesn't mean you're going to end up hating your country. My oldest son will be pursuing his MBA at a secular institution,btw,and I don't have a problem with that. I'm sure the Lord will direct him.

I've also seen that Cedarville, despite being a Christian institution,is one that does encourage its students to think for themselves and ask questions. I'm sure this wouldn't set well with some of the stricter Christian colleges,but ultimately I believe it's healthy.

Frankly,though,I do disagree with the extreme liberal agenda of much of secular academia today,and I stick with my earlier statement that I'm thankful for the Christian education my children have received/are receiving at Cedarville.

 

Building consensus isn't about going where "I" want to go. It's about arriving at a decision agreeable to all parties involved. Often, the decision reached through consensus doesn't resemble the original ideas of the individuals or sides involved.

But please note that my politics and those of my college peers do not always mirror each other. But that's just it - in matters of conflict, our goal was not to pick one over the other, but to reach an agreeable outcome that may not necessarily have been the original ideal outcome for either side.

Well, no. We'd just be agreeing. There wouldn't be any consensus to build. Building consensus is largely about two (or more) seemingly opposed sides coming to a workable solution - a mutually agreeable decision. It's certainly not easy. It's time consuming and can, at times, seem futile. But the spirit with which the parties go forward is very different from the spirit too often found in the sort of politicking we do today. Today it's about getting the other side to do what you want, and only about figuring out how to get the other side to see it your way rather than knowing that for any real progress to be made (as opposed to the political impasse at which we find ourselves now), the parties must work together and find some sort of common goal toward which to work.

Personally, I'm all for the libertarian ideal. Perhaps, though, we have different understandings of what that is?

 

As far as I am concerned being exposed to differing opinions can only be a good thing for intellectual development - really don't see what the objection is that you have sheeagle

I think the consensus that we should move toward is the mutual toleration of each others different opinions - surely that is the point of a pluralist democracy?

 

Yes but often it is a matter of whose ox gets gored. If I own a mfg. company and oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, do I get to say "hey, I don't want to reward their lifestyle by sharing my company with them" or do they have a "right" to be employed by me? Both of us are arguably attempting to exercise our rights.

As a libertarian, I do not believe in the "right" to employment. I am perfectly willing to not forcefully impose my moral view on a homosexuals as long as they are willing to respect my desire to separate from them as I see fit.

This is not consensus but rather toleration. Our liberal friends in the US probably won't agree with me though... By their definition, tolerance is equivalent to the denial of moral standards.

 

Maximum freedom and liberty limited only by the borders of someone else's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness.

 

Sounds like we're in sync on that one.

 

What if conclusions that are agreeable to one party and the conclusions that are agreeable to another party are mutually exclusive? Why should the two groups be forced into reaching a consensus?

Which may or may not work. Our nation is becoming more and more divided. The distance between a "mainstream" conservative and a "mainstream" liberal is increasing... and I don't think it is because conservatives are becoming more conservative.

Liberals keep moving further toward the radical left and demanding that the rest of us reach "consensus" with them.

... and how is that different from you believing that the Feds should provide universal health care (or something of the sort) and me believing that people should be responsible for their own health care (I am being hypothetical). My belief is premised on the notion that gov't should do protect rights and little more. Yours is that gov't should do good. These are two opposite directions. I have no interest in building a consensus that empowers gov't for good, bad, or indifferent.

What if we don't agree that there is a problem needing a solution?

Yes. If everyone agreed that gov't is ultimately good and should attempt to solve as many problems as possible, I am sure that a very cooperative spirit would prevail... until it ended in some form of totalitarianism.

I probably prefer the impasse to the kind of progress liberals desire.

No. We should all be seeking truth and not be afraid to oppose those we think are wrong. Reaching consensus on a design for societal, economic, and moral failure is not good.

 

Even if my exercising my rights offended you?

What if it was my religious conviction that women should never work outside the home and on that basis refused to employ women?

What if I took Reggie White's views on race and practiced them in my methods for hiring and promoting?

 

Practically, there are some issues with libertarian theory. I don't deny that. Because who should have to "give" when I want a job and you don't want to hire me because I'm a woman? In the first case, because I have more options than just your company, your liberty would be more significantly infringed upon by hiring me than mine would be by not being offered a job at your company.

Perhaps they shouldn't be. However, if both groups are working in the same system, their options are to either find a way to come to consensus or split. In this country, that's part of the whole issue of secession.

Well, I won't argue with you there. Many, if not most, liberals are impractical and stubborn, and insist that the rest of the country follow their path. But, I'm not seeing much difference between their stubbornness and that of conservatives, to be honest.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question. What I meant when I spoke of just agreeing was that the way you phrased your ultimatum (truly for lack of a better word) was "come to my way of thinking, then we'll work on consensus." If we're already thinking on the same lines, there's no consensus to be had. I'm not sure how your example was an example of two people of like minds. But anyway, that wouldn't be anything like what consensus is about, and it's exactly the kind of thinking that impedes progress (understand that when I use the word "progress" I'm using it solely to mean "to move forward," not as a buzzword for what has come to mean radical liberalism).

This is often tough. In my experience, if one member of a group has a problem, there's a problem. That's a hard one to get, but I really think it's true. Now, we may not agree on what the problem is, sure, but determining that is part of the process.

But I'm not talking about the government being inherently good. I'm not even talking about starting from one perspective on that. There are clearly ideological differences between the two major parties. And the spirit with which they go forward is "I want to win," not, "we need to find a solution that is best for this country." Cooperative spirit is useful even in working through ideological differences. We spend so much time over specific issues, and we gloss over the big picture.

Are we on two different planes here? Because I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean by that. Can you help me out? - cos I'd really like to understand.

 

Maximum freedom and liberty limited only by the borders of someone else's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness.</font>[/QUOTE]What about the general welfare of society? Or is that being too responsible and imposing an ethic in your political philosophy?

I do not care for the "Do what thou wilst" political ethic. It ignores the needs of your neighbor and an ethical government of the people cannot afford to embrace such an ethic.

I realize I am probably mischaracterizing your position, but check and see if the shoe fits.

 

No, this has oft been a criticism of the libertarian position.

Caring for your neighbor is the responsibility of the people, not the government, IMO. The government likes to play clearinghouse for programs that are at least intended to care for the general welfare of the people, but it's really not its job to do even that.

The federal government should be extremely focused, and outside of a few responsibilities, further authority should be given to the people (perhaps the state, but in my view, the state should be just as limited as the feds). Certainly, ethics would still play a part in government, but more responsibility goes to the people, who would bear the burden of personal and social ethics.

I don't think the shoe fits. I think people should want to help (and should help) their neighbors, but I certainly don't think it should be legally required for them to do so.

[ November 14, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]