So, you're sending your kid to college?

[Scott J]

Stubbornkelly, If your last post is indicative of what you believe then I apologize for my misjudgment of your position... and add a hearty amen to what you said.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
What about the general welfare of society? Or is that being too responsible and imposing an ethic in your political philosophy?

Environmental protection is a "general welfare" type issue that I think needs even more attention. I don't think that wealth re-distribution is in the "general welfare" however.

As Kelly stated, individuals and private groups should be doing this. At best, the government is around 30% effective with money ear marked for entitlement programs. These programs are not much more than buying votes with taxpayer money.

If we, as a people, are not "good" enough to take care of the needy among us, big government will never be a solution for our ungodly immorality.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by InHim2002:
I am confused - are you arguing that universities should only teach what the majority believe to be true?

No, InHim. But suppose this was about Evangelical Christians, hardly the majority, either. Would you still be asking that question?

I call it "legally brainwashing or spoon-feeding a certain biased agenda (which I oppose), with my tax dollars." Nothing new, of course, just spreading like a cancer, while they accuse the right of being intolerant!

From the web site:

The site campus-watch.org monitors how academics teach Middle East studies at US universities. It collects their writings and exposes factual errors, biases, the intolerance of different views and the abuse of power over students.

It's been labelled a "hate website" according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Others say it's online "McCarthyism" and "racist". From Oklahoma University's history department, 19 of the 26 professors recently wrote to the Oklahoma Daily complaining that the website inhibits the "free and open exchange of ideas".

...those who teach Middle East studies not only follow a pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, pro-Islam path but want opposing views strangled at birth.

The Wall Street Journal reported that a study of 21 universities published a few months back in The American Enterprise found a disturbing uniformity of left-wing political beliefs within university faculties. Hardly groundbreaking research but it confirms the importance of Campus-Watch.

Running their game on Congress in the wake of Sept. 11, the academy's lobbyists were able to engineer a 26 percent increase in Title VI funding — the largest increase in history. This was a disaster for those concerned about the direction of the American academy, and about our national security. Now the problem may get worse still. The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations has just held hearing in which the American Council on Education's president, David Ward, called for a Title VI funding increase of $24 million. The Bush administration, in contrast, is calling for a fiscal 2003 Title VI funding increase of only $4 million dollars. Congress needs to stick to the Bush figure — and even that is too much. The truth is, Title VI funding needs to be severely trimmed, and, above all, transformed into something other than what it is now — an open-ended entitlement for those most antagonistic to American foreign policy.

The need to boost our knowledge of foreign languages is real, but what's required to insure that federal money is not abused is a carefully controlled program. So, for example, no university that continues to ban the NSEP from its campus should be permitted to take federal funding from Title VI. Congress needs to pass an amendment insuring this. Congress also needs to change the composition of the committees that dole out Title VI funding.

Instead of restricting the membership of these committees to scholars, policy makers and policy experts from think tanks need to be empowered to sit on such panels. Otherwise the money will continue to be controlled by Edward Said and his friends. And Congress needs to start enforcing the Soloman Amendment, which denies government funding to colleges that ban the ROTC. There is no "right" to a government subsidy, and it's high time that the American academy learned that fact.

The difficulty is that Congress has no inkling of the problem here. They hear only from education lobbyists, and are kept in the dark about the real ends to which their generous subsidies to the American academy are put. To bring this scam to a halt, readers may want to get in touch with the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations.

Even better, readers may also wish to contact their own congressman, senator, or the White House and urge that funding for area studies under Title VI be scaled back and controlled.

It's OUR American tax dollars, after all. Imagine the uproar if this was about Evangelical Christians!

PS: There's more about Edward Said on the web site.

 

[Loren B]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
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

Every ideology begets soldiers and patriots. What we would like to see is soldiers and patriots that uphold the ideology of the founders of our country and not some "Brave New World".

 

[stubbornkelly]

So, Scott, did we just go the rounds for nothing?

 

[blackbird]

I'm not saying that Christianity was barred from the university I attended--lots of good saved folks, both professors and students.--what was a fact was--if you were an "American Hater" and you wanted to find another of "the same kind"--it wouldn't take long to find one--as the lawyer lingo would say, "One call! That's all!!"

Some professors and students will be openly anti-american in class in any university--some were the opposite--you'd think they typified Roy Rogers and Dale Evans in class--but after class . . .! I would say--if you ain't lookin' for the anti-american crowd--you probably won't ever find 'um!! The spooky part is--there are many who practice the art of anti-america---but they practice by "stealth!!" And by the time one detects its presence around them--its too late--the bomb is "on its way!!"

YOur friend,
Blackbird

 

[InHim2002]

Even if my exercising my rights offended you?

the one right no one has in a democratic society is the right to not be offended.

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?

your right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose - if your opinions lead to actions that harm others then your actions need to be dealt with through the justice system that society has created.

Your opinions are your own and you may hold whatever ones you so wish - you are accountable to society for your actions.

No, InHim. But suppose this was about Evangelical Christians, hardly the majority, either. Would you still be asking that question?

I am not sure I understand you - could you clarify what you mean?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by InHim2002:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Even if my exercising my rights offended you?

the one right no one has in a democratic society is the right to not be offended.

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

your right to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose - if your opinions lead to actions that harm others then your actions need to be dealt with through the justice system that society has created.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't answer the question. Do I have a right to use MY property and capital to promote MY beliefs to the exclusion of others? If I refuse to hire someone, how am I doing them harm? I didn't make them any worse off than they were. They simply didn't receive the privilege of employment.

[ November 15, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by stubbornkelly:
So, Scott, did we just go the rounds for nothing?

I don't know... I wonder if I blended your views with someone elses and made some false assumptions.

If you vote for political liberals, I would wonder how two people can agree so much idealistically, yet disagree in the practical.

Maybe I am too pragmatic but I don't vote Republican because I think they are where the country needs to be politically. I vote for them because I think they will slow the trend in the wrong direction and in a few cases reverse it.

I think the debate needs to be between conservatives and libertarians instead of between liberals and conservatives.... I would like the focus to be on how to shrink gov't and how fast, instead of how to grow gov't and how fast.

 

[InHim2002]

sorry - I thought I did answer your question - to make my position clearer:

- the right to own property is enshrined in law that is defined and enforced by society at large. As a result of the protection that society affords to property owners property owners, in turn, have a duty to society to use their right to own property responsibly and within the framework that society defines. (i.e. you couldn't put a nuclear power plant on your land without the consent of those owning land around it and the wider community)

- If you are a racist and refuse to allow other members of society to access your property for no other reason than their race then society has the right to demand that you exercise your rights responsibly

- likewise the right to form and own a company is a right granted to you by society at large (i.e. the legal framework that your company could not exist without is enforced by society and the services that society, as a whole, pay for (police, transport infrastructure, fire service etc))

- Society, therefore has the right to expect and compel you to use your rights responsibly.

If society decides that you cannot discriminate against people then you must abide by those rules - because it is only by the consent of society that the framework for you acquire property, companies etc exists.

so to answer your questions:

Do I have a right to use MY property and capital to promote MY beliefs to the exclusion of others?

not in the society that you live in - other societies have and do allow this though - perhaps you would be happier there?

If I refuse to hire someone, how am I doing them harm?

to answer your own question:

I didn't make them any worse off than they were. They simply didn't receive the privilege of employment.

and what right do you have to deny another the rights that you, yourself, enjoy?

 

[Scott J]

First, I want to make it clear that I am dealing in hypotheticals here.

Second, we disagree on the source of rights. I don't believe rights come from society... if fact, our whole system of gov't is built on the premise that rights come from the creator. Therefore, as long as we don't infringe upon someone else, we are accountable to no other human. Gov'ts. can only do one of two things, protect people's God given rights or deny them.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by InHim2002:
and what right do you have to deny another the rights that you, yourself, enjoy?

It is a right to own property. It is not a right to be employed in the process of someone else exercising their property rights.

 

[mark]

I found Christ and deepened my love and appreciation for the US at Iowa State University.

 

[InHim2002]

I don't believe rights come from society... if fact, our whole system of gov't is built on the premise that rights come from the creator. Therefore, as long as we don't infringe upon someone else, we are accountable to no other human. Gov'ts. can only do one of two things, protect people's God given rights or deny them.

But are rights are enforced by society are they not? regardless of the origin of our rights it is only through society that they are realised. Further, you appear to be dodging the main thrust of my post - which was that with rights come responsibility - do you disagree?

It is a right to own property. It is not a right to be employed in the process of someone else exercising their property rights.

the right to own property can only exist in a society that recognises that right - it is society that allows you to own property, and it is, therefore, legitimate that society demands that you use the right that it gives responsibly - do you not agree?

[ November 15, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: InHim2002 ]

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by Loren B:
Every ideology begets soldiers and patriots. What we would like to see is soldiers and patriots that uphold the ideology of the founders of our country and not some "Brave New World".

Amen!

 

[RebelBaptist]

Thoughts from the Rebel Baptist, concerning secular univesities and whether christian parents should send their child(ren) to them:

I work at a university that is constantly on the Princeton Review's Top 20 Party Schools List (I don't want to mention Florida State University by name here, so I won't ). I do indeed see a lot of liberal, secular things going on here, from atheist professors who mock Christianity (though I've always noticed that they never mock any other religion) to more "sexual liberation" than I can stomach.

Yet I also see some good Christian things going on here, too. The campus' Christian student clubs are full and active, there is a strong abstention movement going on that has curbed alcohol, drugs, and STD's significantly, and yes, there are many, many Christian professors, staff, and support personnel.

Like all places, you are going to have your good as well as your bad at a secular university. I am sure that even in a christian university, you will find sex, alcohol, and "liberal" professors, though this is all more subtle, for sure. The one thing that sending your child(ren) to a secular university is that they will see one thing that I think is very, very important: diversity. And from this, they will be more able to handle themselves and their firm christian identity in this diverse setting, despite the challenges to them that they may have to face. And also, with this diversity they will be able to handle others who are not quite like them in the religion, culture, and background department. This makes for mature Christians, I believe, and so I would have no problem sending my daughters to a secular university. I do not believe that they will abandon Christianity if they attend such an institution; rather, they will have it challenged, refined, and enhanced. If you set a firm foundation at home before they go off on their own, then chances are they will do just fine when they spread their wings for the first time.

From the Southland,
Rebel [&gt;&lt;]