Bachmann or Romney?

It looks like the GOP presidential nomination may be a contest between Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney.   So far Romney seems to be leading, but Bachmann so far is outdistancing the alternative candidates.

On Bachmann’s Lutheranism, which we talked about earlier, she has been a long-time member of the Wisconsin Synod, though when reporters and her opponents in her last Congressional election found out that the Book of Concord calls the Pope the anti-Christ, that was sure to cost her the Roman Catholic vote.  She disavowed that particular confession and reportedly is no longer a member of that denomination.    I suppose that particular teaching would prevent any confessional Lutheran from winning a big election.  Still, no one should leave a church out of political considerations.

So, we may have to choose between a  Mormon or an ex-Lutheran.  Or, from another perspective, a moderate who might beat Obama or a conservative who wouldn’t have a chance.  Or would she?

Which one would you vote for?  Or would you just as soon vote for the incumbent?

 

GOP 2012 race: Does it boil down to ‘purity’ vs. electability? – CSMonitor.com.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Hate to say it, but the prospects for quality leadership (post-election) are higher in Canada right now.

    As to the papal anti-christ charge, wouldn’t the simple answer be akin to saying that Lutherans recognize Christians and the Church are found in every denomination including the Roman, but that the Roman Church is not the Church? And, insofar as the Roman Church had or has acted contrary to this, it has acted anti-Christ and His Church.

    Any politician worth their salt and in knowledge of the basics of the faith should have been able to dance around that one – or at least asked the reporter if the the RC was denying Trent and put the onus back on them.

  • SKPeterson

    Hate to say it, but the prospects for quality leadership (post-election) are higher in Canada right now.

    As to the papal anti-christ charge, wouldn’t the simple answer be akin to saying that Lutherans recognize Christians and the Church are found in every denomination including the Roman, but that the Roman Church is not the Church? And, insofar as the Roman Church had or has acted contrary to this, it has acted anti-Christ and His Church.

    Any politician worth their salt and in knowledge of the basics of the faith should have been able to dance around that one – or at least asked the reporter if the the RC was denying Trent and put the onus back on them.

  • Carl Vehse

    A link to an article by CS staff writer Linda Feldmann on the “GOP 2012 race” that contains no mention Sarah Palin?!? Especially after Feldman’s second and third sentence:

    It is, of course, way too early to predict that with any certainty. The field is still forming.

    What a waste of electrons!

  • Carl Vehse

    A link to an article by CS staff writer Linda Feldmann on the “GOP 2012 race” that contains no mention Sarah Palin?!? Especially after Feldman’s second and third sentence:

    It is, of course, way too early to predict that with any certainty. The field is still forming.

    What a waste of electrons!

  • http://www.roundunvarnishedtale.blogspot.com Cheryl

    I think it’s way too early to make this call (of who will be in the final 2-way battle). But if it does come down to the two of them, I will suppport Bachmann hands down over Romney and do so enthusiastically.

  • http://www.roundunvarnishedtale.blogspot.com Cheryl

    I think it’s way too early to make this call (of who will be in the final 2-way battle). But if it does come down to the two of them, I will suppport Bachmann hands down over Romney and do so enthusiastically.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’m one of those 22 percent, that just won’t vote for a mormo in a presedential election. I’d give my vote to a lost cause before that happened. Or wait, I supposew these days any vote for president is throwing a vote away on a lost cause.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I’m one of those 22 percent, that just won’t vote for a mormo in a presedential election. I’d give my vote to a lost cause before that happened. Or wait, I supposew these days any vote for president is throwing a vote away on a lost cause.

  • Jen

    I agree with Bror. A candidate’s particular faith is not generally a decisive matter for me, but I won’t vote for someone of a religious belief that advocates theocracy and has shown that to be their goal historically.

  • Jen

    I agree with Bror. A candidate’s particular faith is not generally a decisive matter for me, but I won’t vote for someone of a religious belief that advocates theocracy and has shown that to be their goal historically.

  • Joe

    I think it is way to early to say its a two horse race. At this point in the run up to the 1992 election Clinton was polling around 2%.

  • Joe

    I think it is way to early to say its a two horse race. At this point in the run up to the 1992 election Clinton was polling around 2%.

  • Norman Teigen

    As a Minnesotan I offer my sincere apologies to the rest of the country for Michelle O’Bachmann. She wasn’t born here, but she is an elected member of Congress and so we cannot completely disown her. She has no substance and will go absolutely nowhere.

  • Norman Teigen

    As a Minnesotan I offer my sincere apologies to the rest of the country for Michelle O’Bachmann. She wasn’t born here, but she is an elected member of Congress and so we cannot completely disown her. She has no substance and will go absolutely nowhere.

  • Cincinnatus

    Speaking of Mormons and compelling candidates, what happened to Jon Huntsman? Impressive guy.

    Norman@7: Apology not accepted. I also expect recompense for Al Franken. I mean, what the heck Minnesota?

  • Cincinnatus

    Speaking of Mormons and compelling candidates, what happened to Jon Huntsman? Impressive guy.

    Norman@7: Apology not accepted. I also expect recompense for Al Franken. I mean, what the heck Minnesota?

  • Cincinnatus

    Joe@6: And this bears repeating as well. Primaries are many, many months away! Why are we speculating as to the final front-runners?

  • Cincinnatus

    Joe@6: And this bears repeating as well. Primaries are many, many months away! Why are we speculating as to the final front-runners?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I’ve been looking for information that says decisively that Bachmann did or didn’t leave her congregation over the Pope issue.

    Can anyone here help?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I’ve been looking for information that says decisively that Bachmann did or didn’t leave her congregation over the Pope issue.

    Can anyone here help?

  • SKPeterson

    Pr. Lehmann,

    Contact Pr. Esget. He may be able to confirm, but also has parishioner confidentiality that he must keep intact, so it may not be at a level you are looking for.

    That being said – it does appear that she is no longer WELS. I’ve also heard rumors (danger, danger) that she may be influenced by the New Apostolic Reformation folks. Whether this is true and at what extent her involvement may be, I do not know and I’m perfectly willing to drop the issue. As I’ve said, rumors only, but the NAR folks seem to be fellow-travelers with the Nation of Israel = God’s Chosen People fringe evangelicalistic types, and Ms. Bachmann has made noises in that direction. Then again, any politician who wants to be taken seriously has to:

    1. Claim an unreserved and unconditional support of the nation of Israel.

    and

    2. Speak regularly at evangelical conferences about one’s love of Israel and how much it means to them as a Christian to support all things Israeli because that’s the Holy Spirit or something.

  • SKPeterson

    Pr. Lehmann,

    Contact Pr. Esget. He may be able to confirm, but also has parishioner confidentiality that he must keep intact, so it may not be at a level you are looking for.

    That being said – it does appear that she is no longer WELS. I’ve also heard rumors (danger, danger) that she may be influenced by the New Apostolic Reformation folks. Whether this is true and at what extent her involvement may be, I do not know and I’m perfectly willing to drop the issue. As I’ve said, rumors only, but the NAR folks seem to be fellow-travelers with the Nation of Israel = God’s Chosen People fringe evangelicalistic types, and Ms. Bachmann has made noises in that direction. Then again, any politician who wants to be taken seriously has to:

    1. Claim an unreserved and unconditional support of the nation of Israel.

    and

    2. Speak regularly at evangelical conferences about one’s love of Israel and how much it means to them as a Christian to support all things Israeli because that’s the Holy Spirit or something.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Way too early to have this discussion..at this time in 2007, Barack Obama trailed both John Edwards (!!!) and Hilary Clinton in Iowa and ended up winning Iowa by 8 points. Clinton had a 20 point (later 30 point) lead in national polls over Obama at this point in 2007. As for the Republicans, Mitt Romney had the lead in polls in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani was in second and Mike Huckabee was pulling less than 5 percent. Giuliani led all national polls for the Republican nomination and because of finance and staffing issues, the McCain campaign was on life support. Huckabee won Iowa, McCain didn’t really break into the lead until after Florida and after Florida Giuliani’s campaign was done.

    We have no idea who is going to get the nomination and won’t for quite some time. As for me, I am leaning toward Pawlenty for now, but really would like to just see the process play out for awhile.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Way too early to have this discussion..at this time in 2007, Barack Obama trailed both John Edwards (!!!) and Hilary Clinton in Iowa and ended up winning Iowa by 8 points. Clinton had a 20 point (later 30 point) lead in national polls over Obama at this point in 2007. As for the Republicans, Mitt Romney had the lead in polls in Iowa, Rudy Giuliani was in second and Mike Huckabee was pulling less than 5 percent. Giuliani led all national polls for the Republican nomination and because of finance and staffing issues, the McCain campaign was on life support. Huckabee won Iowa, McCain didn’t really break into the lead until after Florida and after Florida Giuliani’s campaign was done.

    We have no idea who is going to get the nomination and won’t for quite some time. As for me, I am leaning toward Pawlenty for now, but really would like to just see the process play out for awhile.

  • Booklover

    It is my opinion that it is WAAAY to early to make a conjecture on this topic, and I wish the politicians would DO their job, rather than think about their possible NEXT job. . .

  • Booklover

    It is my opinion that it is WAAAY to early to make a conjecture on this topic, and I wish the politicians would DO their job, rather than think about their possible NEXT job. . .

  • Kimberly

    @Cincinatus, #8

    Have mercy on Minnesota! Remember that the Franken fiasco was a VERY close vote (recount, state Supreme Court, etc.) and that the other candidate had squandered trust. Not every Minnesotan was fooled by the former funny man, and those of us that weren’t apologize for him, too. (On the other hand, at least he’s keeping his mouth shut most of the time!)

  • Kimberly

    @Cincinatus, #8

    Have mercy on Minnesota! Remember that the Franken fiasco was a VERY close vote (recount, state Supreme Court, etc.) and that the other candidate had squandered trust. Not every Minnesotan was fooled by the former funny man, and those of us that weren’t apologize for him, too. (On the other hand, at least he’s keeping his mouth shut most of the time!)

  • jgernander

    I’ve been disconcerted by the mud slung at Rep. Bachmann in recent months especially by fellow Christians and Lutherans. It is unseemly to speak of “rumors” about her church affiliation, and it is highly unnecessary for a Minnesotan to “apologize” for her. My mother got to know her at a Worldview Conference in Trego, Wis., perhaps the same one at which Dr. Veith spoke, and I recall my mom saying that Bachmann was moved, especially after discussion with Pastor David Jay Webber, to purchase her own copy of the Book of Concord. Our children’s teacher at our Lutheran School has children who have graduated with Bachmann’s children at St. Croix Lutheran High School near Stillwater, Minn., just this year; so she and her husband have continued to support Lutheran education through the high school level, at the very least.

    She may indeed have changed confessions, and I cannot defend her for doing so if that is the case. But I think we should let her speak for herself on the subject. Sometimes people leave the Lutheran church against their better judgment, and we pray for them to return.

    For those who serve their country and their state’s citizens in government, when our mouths open (or fingers type) concerning them, we need most of all to pray for them, because it is a minefield into which they have stepped and as St. John Chrysostom said of governmental rulers, they are beset by dangers and are in need of prayers more than most, rather than (God forbid) scorn or bitter envy. This is of course equally applicable to those who are of all political parties.

    Pastor Jerry Gernander
    Princeton, Minnesota

  • jgernander

    I’ve been disconcerted by the mud slung at Rep. Bachmann in recent months especially by fellow Christians and Lutherans. It is unseemly to speak of “rumors” about her church affiliation, and it is highly unnecessary for a Minnesotan to “apologize” for her. My mother got to know her at a Worldview Conference in Trego, Wis., perhaps the same one at which Dr. Veith spoke, and I recall my mom saying that Bachmann was moved, especially after discussion with Pastor David Jay Webber, to purchase her own copy of the Book of Concord. Our children’s teacher at our Lutheran School has children who have graduated with Bachmann’s children at St. Croix Lutheran High School near Stillwater, Minn., just this year; so she and her husband have continued to support Lutheran education through the high school level, at the very least.

    She may indeed have changed confessions, and I cannot defend her for doing so if that is the case. But I think we should let her speak for herself on the subject. Sometimes people leave the Lutheran church against their better judgment, and we pray for them to return.

    For those who serve their country and their state’s citizens in government, when our mouths open (or fingers type) concerning them, we need most of all to pray for them, because it is a minefield into which they have stepped and as St. John Chrysostom said of governmental rulers, they are beset by dangers and are in need of prayers more than most, rather than (God forbid) scorn or bitter envy. This is of course equally applicable to those who are of all political parties.

    Pastor Jerry Gernander
    Princeton, Minnesota

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Does anybody know the name of the WELS congregation at which she was last listed as a member? The pastor could probably confirm or deny her membership there. I just want to know if she’s still a Lutheran.

    If she’s not, I wouldn’t be surprised. She has a law degree from what once was Oral Roberts University. A Lutheran going to an institution like that is like the son of an Episcopalian President accepting an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University (oh, wait… that actually happened. Thanks, G.W. Bush.).

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Does anybody know the name of the WELS congregation at which she was last listed as a member? The pastor could probably confirm or deny her membership there. I just want to know if she’s still a Lutheran.

    If she’s not, I wouldn’t be surprised. She has a law degree from what once was Oral Roberts University. A Lutheran going to an institution like that is like the son of an Episcopalian President accepting an honorary doctorate from Bob Jones University (oh, wait… that actually happened. Thanks, G.W. Bush.).

  • Louis

    Oral Roberts “University”? Bob Jones “University”?

    Man, the misuse of terminology is a sad thing.

  • Louis

    Oral Roberts “University”? Bob Jones “University”?

    Man, the misuse of terminology is a sad thing.

  • Louis

    Missing from #17:

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said…

  • Louis

    Missing from #17:

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said…

  • SKPeterson

    Pr. Gernander,

    Here’s one take on the association of Bachmann with the NAR fringe: http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1115

    Nor the site has a definite axe or two to grind, and talks more about Palin than Bachmann, but it is interesting that Bachmann has participated in some of these activities, especially given the WELS attitude towards fellowship. Todd if you could comment I think it might be valuable to get your take here.

    Also, from the WELS and LCMS confessional Lutheran standpoint, her association with this movement is highly suspicious due to the presence of women pastors and the appropriation of the title “Apostle” by many of the movement leaders. Maybe she was part of a charismatic WELS congregation. I’ve heard some exist, as have some in other Lutheran denominations, but definitely rare birds.

  • SKPeterson

    Pr. Gernander,

    Here’s one take on the association of Bachmann with the NAR fringe: http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1115

    Nor the site has a definite axe or two to grind, and talks more about Palin than Bachmann, but it is interesting that Bachmann has participated in some of these activities, especially given the WELS attitude towards fellowship. Todd if you could comment I think it might be valuable to get your take here.

    Also, from the WELS and LCMS confessional Lutheran standpoint, her association with this movement is highly suspicious due to the presence of women pastors and the appropriation of the title “Apostle” by many of the movement leaders. Maybe she was part of a charismatic WELS congregation. I’ve heard some exist, as have some in other Lutheran denominations, but definitely rare birds.

  • Cincinnatus

    You know, maybe I’m engaging in a bit of moral equivocation here, but weren’t Christian conservatives (maybe even some among this very company of conversants!) the ones demanding that Barack Obama sever his connections with his church in Chicago?

    And now here we are appalled by the very thought that Bachmann may have left a Lutheran congregation due to political pressures.

  • Cincinnatus

    You know, maybe I’m engaging in a bit of moral equivocation here, but weren’t Christian conservatives (maybe even some among this very company of conversants!) the ones demanding that Barack Obama sever his connections with his church in Chicago?

    And now here we are appalled by the very thought that Bachmann may have left a Lutheran congregation due to political pressures.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Cincinnatus,

    Leaving a church under political pressure when the church teaches something truly objectionable is a bit different from leaving a church under political pressure when the teaching in question is true.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Cincinnatus,

    Leaving a church under political pressure when the church teaches something truly objectionable is a bit different from leaving a church under political pressure when the teaching in question is true.

  • Cincinnatus

    Rev. Lehmann@21: But that sectarian approach doesn’t wash with the voting public or with any participant in a political debate. I do not believe the pope is anti-christ, SKPeterson’s explanation of that confession notwithstanding.

    Who says Obama’s church was truly objectionable? Who says Bachmann’s isn’t? I think both teachings are a tad objectionable.

    Which leads to another question: Obama was overwhelmingly elected despite his questionable religious background.

  • Cincinnatus

    Rev. Lehmann@21: But that sectarian approach doesn’t wash with the voting public or with any participant in a political debate. I do not believe the pope is anti-christ, SKPeterson’s explanation of that confession notwithstanding.

    Who says Obama’s church was truly objectionable? Who says Bachmann’s isn’t? I think both teachings are a tad objectionable.

    Which leads to another question: Obama was overwhelmingly elected despite his questionable religious background.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    “She has no substance and will go absolutely nowhere.”
    Dear Mr. Teigen, who does have substance in all of American public life? This brings to mind my July Newsletter article, which I am vein enough to post-

    Every country has to be jealous of its strategic resources. The people we hire to run America keep track, I hope, of our supply of tin, rubber, oil and the like, because if we run out of these things, or can no longer buy them, then everything will stop working. If that were to happen, we’d all have to stand in long lines for cans of Spam, or worse scavenge for cans of Spam.

    The more essential a resource, the more closely it needs to be watched. Type “O” blood? Watch close. Those little subscription cards that fall out of magazines? You see.

    But there’s a dangerous exception to the above mentioned rule. There is a resource that is indispensable to the life of the United States, but our leaders either hold it cheaply, or hold it in contempt. When it is put to use by people in power, its done cynically. This resource is managed by you and your family.
    I’m writing about the wisdom of the Church. Her knowledge of right and wrong, and Her message of hope for mankind.

    This resource is dwindling in its influence, and our nation is suffering for it. As the poet wrote in times even less lean, “The best lack all conviction. The worst are full of passionate intensity.”

    Things like, fidelity, dignity, paternity, restraint, foresight, integrity and the other virtues that protect our lives from our appetites, are seen so rarely in public discourse, that they’ve become unknown to an entire generation.

    Need proof? Who was the last American public figure whom you would want you child to imitate?

    So, to commemorate this Independence Day, gather together the resources that our nation needs most dearly and distribute them to your family. I suggest taking a moment after supper and read to them the 12th chapter of the Book of Romans. In it, God tells us how to live as people whom He has made citizens of both earth and Heaven-

    Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
    3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
    9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
    14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
    17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
    In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
    21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
    God bless America,
    Pastor Spomer

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    “She has no substance and will go absolutely nowhere.”
    Dear Mr. Teigen, who does have substance in all of American public life? This brings to mind my July Newsletter article, which I am vein enough to post-

    Every country has to be jealous of its strategic resources. The people we hire to run America keep track, I hope, of our supply of tin, rubber, oil and the like, because if we run out of these things, or can no longer buy them, then everything will stop working. If that were to happen, we’d all have to stand in long lines for cans of Spam, or worse scavenge for cans of Spam.

    The more essential a resource, the more closely it needs to be watched. Type “O” blood? Watch close. Those little subscription cards that fall out of magazines? You see.

    But there’s a dangerous exception to the above mentioned rule. There is a resource that is indispensable to the life of the United States, but our leaders either hold it cheaply, or hold it in contempt. When it is put to use by people in power, its done cynically. This resource is managed by you and your family.
    I’m writing about the wisdom of the Church. Her knowledge of right and wrong, and Her message of hope for mankind.

    This resource is dwindling in its influence, and our nation is suffering for it. As the poet wrote in times even less lean, “The best lack all conviction. The worst are full of passionate intensity.”

    Things like, fidelity, dignity, paternity, restraint, foresight, integrity and the other virtues that protect our lives from our appetites, are seen so rarely in public discourse, that they’ve become unknown to an entire generation.

    Need proof? Who was the last American public figure whom you would want you child to imitate?

    So, to commemorate this Independence Day, gather together the resources that our nation needs most dearly and distribute them to your family. I suggest taking a moment after supper and read to them the 12th chapter of the Book of Romans. In it, God tells us how to live as people whom He has made citizens of both earth and Heaven-

    Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
    3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
    9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
    14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
    17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
    “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
    In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
    21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
    God bless America,
    Pastor Spomer

  • SAL

    1) No.
    2) No.
    3) No.

  • SAL

    1) No.
    2) No.
    3) No.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 17

    That was uncalled for.

    Oral Roberts is accredited by the same agency as the Concordia Universities of that region. Bob Jones is too independent for that, but is accredited by an agency recognized by the Dept. of Ed. so it’s no worse than the public schools.

    Don’t be so bigoted against fellow Christians even if they aren’t as cool or sophisticated as some others.

    I would take BJU over an ELCA school. At least BJU is trying to be faithful. ELCA rejected truth with their fancy rationalizations and inventions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 17

    That was uncalled for.

    Oral Roberts is accredited by the same agency as the Concordia Universities of that region. Bob Jones is too independent for that, but is accredited by an agency recognized by the Dept. of Ed. so it’s no worse than the public schools.

    Don’t be so bigoted against fellow Christians even if they aren’t as cool or sophisticated as some others.

    I would take BJU over an ELCA school. At least BJU is trying to be faithful. ELCA rejected truth with their fancy rationalizations and inventions.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    As a graduate of a Concordia, I’d say that being accredited by the same agency that accredits Concordia is not really a claim to academic credibility.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    As a graduate of a Concordia, I’d say that being accredited by the same agency that accredits Concordia is not really a claim to academic credibility.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Also, Bob Jones U offers actuarial science which is not squishy and you can’t fake it because you have to pass the standardized exams.

    Also, Bob Jones ranks 3240th for student loan debt.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Also, Bob Jones U offers actuarial science which is not squishy and you can’t fake it because you have to pass the standardized exams.

    Also, Bob Jones ranks 3240th for student loan debt.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “As a graduate of a Concordia, I’d say that being accredited by the same agency that accredits Concordia is not really a claim to academic credibility.”

    That’s fine.

    Perhaps more accurately it should be said:

    Concordia “University”? Oral Roberts “University”? Bob Jones “University”?

    Man, the misuse of terminology is a sad thing.

    That’s not gratuitously pejorative, is it?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “As a graduate of a Concordia, I’d say that being accredited by the same agency that accredits Concordia is not really a claim to academic credibility.”

    That’s fine.

    Perhaps more accurately it should be said:

    Concordia “University”? Oral Roberts “University”? Bob Jones “University”?

    Man, the misuse of terminology is a sad thing.

    That’s not gratuitously pejorative, is it?

  • Louis

    Ok, my knowledge of ORU is minimal, so I’ll concede. But BJU??????

    I’m also a regular reader of “Stuff Fundies like”. BJU is a farce.

  • Louis

    Ok, my knowledge of ORU is minimal, so I’ll concede. But BJU??????

    I’m also a regular reader of “Stuff Fundies like”. BJU is a farce.

  • Louis

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said, before I forget. That doesn’t refer to you, sg.

  • Louis

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said, before I forget. That doesn’t refer to you, sg.

  • WebMonk

    sg, maybe you’ve never had any exposure to BJU? [shudder] That place gives me the heebie-jeebies from what graduates have described. They make Pensacola look like a free-love orgy.

  • WebMonk

    sg, maybe you’ve never had any exposure to BJU? [shudder] That place gives me the heebie-jeebies from what graduates have described. They make Pensacola look like a free-love orgy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m also a regular reader of “Stuff Fundies like”. BJU is a farce.”

    Yes, unfortunately we haven’t gotten past the thank-God-I’m-not-like-him foible.

    Yes, they are fundies.

    Can we say the BJU is ashamed of the Gospel?

    Are they willing to endure derision and persecution for it?

    “sg, maybe you’ve never had any exposure to BJU? [shudder] That place gives me the heebie-jeebies from what graduates have described.”

    Are you deriding them for having about the same standards that any ordinary land grant college had 100 years ago? I don’t know, and I’m not assuming just asking. Still should we despise them for their attempt at faithfulness even if it seems a bit out dated to our contemporary worldly sensibilities?

    Anyway, very interesting stat on BJU, their male-female ratio is about 50-50. This is a stat shared only by the very highest calibre schools. If a school is more that 55% female, you can be pretty sure it’s not all that serious a school. A significant portion of it must be a diploma mill to get that ratio.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m also a regular reader of “Stuff Fundies like”. BJU is a farce.”

    Yes, unfortunately we haven’t gotten past the thank-God-I’m-not-like-him foible.

    Yes, they are fundies.

    Can we say the BJU is ashamed of the Gospel?

    Are they willing to endure derision and persecution for it?

    “sg, maybe you’ve never had any exposure to BJU? [shudder] That place gives me the heebie-jeebies from what graduates have described.”

    Are you deriding them for having about the same standards that any ordinary land grant college had 100 years ago? I don’t know, and I’m not assuming just asking. Still should we despise them for their attempt at faithfulness even if it seems a bit out dated to our contemporary worldly sensibilities?

    Anyway, very interesting stat on BJU, their male-female ratio is about 50-50. This is a stat shared only by the very highest calibre schools. If a school is more that 55% female, you can be pretty sure it’s not all that serious a school. A significant portion of it must be a diploma mill to get that ratio.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Just an anecdote, but funny. While Bob Jones was adding Actuarial Science programs and Pensacola Christian ascended to the 7th ranked nursing school in the US, the University of Cincinnati is dropping Computer Science.

    Why not use rational criteria to judge these schools instead of prejudice against them for their religious convictions?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Just an anecdote, but funny. While Bob Jones was adding Actuarial Science programs and Pensacola Christian ascended to the 7th ranked nursing school in the US, the University of Cincinnati is dropping Computer Science.

    Why not use rational criteria to judge these schools instead of prejudice against them for their religious convictions?

  • Louis

    sg – go spend some time on SFL, read relevant posts on BJU.

    Read/listen here – http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/06/blaming-the-victim-bju-style/ – on how they preach at BJU that it is the woman’s fault if she gets raped, and she has to apologise.

    You can also read here http://bjuaccreditation.org/blog on the difficulty faced by the students who were told that their BJU degrees are acreddited, just to realise afterwards, and many $1000′s later, that they were lied to.

  • Louis

    sg – go spend some time on SFL, read relevant posts on BJU.

    Read/listen here – http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/06/blaming-the-victim-bju-style/ – on how they preach at BJU that it is the woman’s fault if she gets raped, and she has to apologise.

    You can also read here http://bjuaccreditation.org/blog on the difficulty faced by the students who were told that their BJU degrees are acreddited, just to realise afterwards, and many $1000′s later, that they were lied to.

  • Louis

    Also, sg, BJU won’t know the Gospel if it struck them over the head. They are a legalistic outfit with no use for Grace and mercy. This is from the testimony of many former students who have since left fundy’ism. Go spend a day or two in the archives of SFL.

  • Louis

    Also, sg, BJU won’t know the Gospel if it struck them over the head. They are a legalistic outfit with no use for Grace and mercy. This is from the testimony of many former students who have since left fundy’ism. Go spend a day or two in the archives of SFL.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Go spend a day or two in the archives of SFL.”

    Would you call that an unbiased source? Rigorous? Objective? Quantitative?

    Or is it more like looking for articles on pro life advocates in the archives of NARAL?

    Just asking.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Go spend a day or two in the archives of SFL.”

    Would you call that an unbiased source? Rigorous? Objective? Quantitative?

    Or is it more like looking for articles on pro life advocates in the archives of NARAL?

    Just asking.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Also, I’m not defending the religious beliefs of fundies, just saying that the quality of the education should be based on objective criteria. Plenty of schools would qualify as wretched hives of immoral hookup culture, does that mean the Math Dept. is suspect?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Also, I’m not defending the religious beliefs of fundies, just saying that the quality of the education should be based on objective criteria. Plenty of schools would qualify as wretched hives of immoral hookup culture, does that mean the Math Dept. is suspect?

  • WebMonk

    sg, it’s not their standards, it’s their methods and attitudes of enforcement.

    I have heard stories from its graduates that qualify as abuse. If a spouse did the same sort of manipulation and oppression that the college does to the students, I would have no qualms whatsoever about labeling the marriage relationship as abusive.

    It goes WAY beyond having strict rules and standards.

    The school very strongly encouraging all the students to not only keep an eye on each other and report any rules infractions, but also encourages students to actively snoop/spy on other students to try to discover if there are any rules infractions.

    One guy who was an RA was told that he was expected to go into each of the rooms in his wing when their residents weren’t in and search through all the CDs for non-approved artists, and then report the students.

    One of the students who had gotten in trouble in a previous semester had come back and was assigned to his wing; the RA was explicitly told to keep any of the other students from interacting with the ‘troublemaker’ and that if the RA should try to find any sort of anything that would give the college an excuse to expel the student.

    He was frequently asked to get into discussions to get into various students’ trust to find out if they’ve done anything that broke the college’s rules, and then pass the info on to administrators.

    A woman who went there mentioned that her RA had asked her to search through her roomate’s underwear and report if there was anything ‘sexy’.

    That woman was also reported and given demerits for staying up in her room with a flashlight after lights-out time to study for a test the next day. (and no, her roommate didn’t mind – the RA had noticed the light moving under the door) That horrible crime against the college removed her permission to leave the campus for the rest of the semester.

    I could pass along many, many more stories. Please don’t send your kids there.

  • WebMonk

    sg, it’s not their standards, it’s their methods and attitudes of enforcement.

    I have heard stories from its graduates that qualify as abuse. If a spouse did the same sort of manipulation and oppression that the college does to the students, I would have no qualms whatsoever about labeling the marriage relationship as abusive.

    It goes WAY beyond having strict rules and standards.

    The school very strongly encouraging all the students to not only keep an eye on each other and report any rules infractions, but also encourages students to actively snoop/spy on other students to try to discover if there are any rules infractions.

    One guy who was an RA was told that he was expected to go into each of the rooms in his wing when their residents weren’t in and search through all the CDs for non-approved artists, and then report the students.

    One of the students who had gotten in trouble in a previous semester had come back and was assigned to his wing; the RA was explicitly told to keep any of the other students from interacting with the ‘troublemaker’ and that if the RA should try to find any sort of anything that would give the college an excuse to expel the student.

    He was frequently asked to get into discussions to get into various students’ trust to find out if they’ve done anything that broke the college’s rules, and then pass the info on to administrators.

    A woman who went there mentioned that her RA had asked her to search through her roomate’s underwear and report if there was anything ‘sexy’.

    That woman was also reported and given demerits for staying up in her room with a flashlight after lights-out time to study for a test the next day. (and no, her roommate didn’t mind – the RA had noticed the light moving under the door) That horrible crime against the college removed her permission to leave the campus for the rest of the semester.

    I could pass along many, many more stories. Please don’t send your kids there.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You can also read here http://bjuaccreditation.org/blog on the difficulty faced by the students who were told that their BJU degrees are acreddited, just to realise afterwards, and many $1000′s later, that they were lied to.”

    I agree graduates face bigotry, no doubt. Pensacola is likewise not regionally accredited. Still plenty of honest people will give them a chance. They get jobs etc. So, yes, caveat emptor. Also, plenty of students graduate with worthless degrees from regionally accredited programs. Women’s studies, anyone? LOL

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You can also read here http://bjuaccreditation.org/blog on the difficulty faced by the students who were told that their BJU degrees are acreddited, just to realise afterwards, and many $1000′s later, that they were lied to.”

    I agree graduates face bigotry, no doubt. Pensacola is likewise not regionally accredited. Still plenty of honest people will give them a chance. They get jobs etc. So, yes, caveat emptor. Also, plenty of students graduate with worthless degrees from regionally accredited programs. Women’s studies, anyone? LOL

  • WebMonk

    sg 39 – it’s not the difficulty or ease of getting a job after going to BJU that is the immediate issue. It’s that BJU lied to the students.

    Though, in BJU’s defense, (sort of) that sort of lying is common to many colleges.

  • WebMonk

    sg 39 – it’s not the difficulty or ease of getting a job after going to BJU that is the immediate issue. It’s that BJU lied to the students.

    Though, in BJU’s defense, (sort of) that sort of lying is common to many colleges.

  • Louis

    sg – Rigorous? Objective?

    My giddy aunt woman, don’t you know anything about Fundyism? It is a blight and a curse. People who escape are like ex-prisoners. I know very well what I’m speaking about. Of course their emotions are going to run high etc etc.

    And btw, my first link is to a recording done at BJU. That is the insidious crap that passes for “biblical” at that place.

    Here’s a gem from a Fourth Grade science textbook published by BJ University press:

    Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and hear and feel only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

    We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists think that the sun may be the cause of most electricity. Others think that the movement of the earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many way to bring it forth.

    How would you have to change the way you get ready for school if you did not use electricity?

    “The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.” Psalms 77:18

    Ah, the rigour, the good education! But it sees that you have made up your mind before even looking at any links, incluing the accreditation one.

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said…

  • Louis

    sg – Rigorous? Objective?

    My giddy aunt woman, don’t you know anything about Fundyism? It is a blight and a curse. People who escape are like ex-prisoners. I know very well what I’m speaking about. Of course their emotions are going to run high etc etc.

    And btw, my first link is to a recording done at BJU. That is the insidious crap that passes for “biblical” at that place.

    Here’s a gem from a Fourth Grade science textbook published by BJ University press:

    Electricity is a mystery. No one has ever observed it or heard it or felt it. We can see and hear and feel only what electricity does. We know that it makes light bulbs shine and irons heat up and telephones ring. But we cannot say what electricity itself is like.

    We cannot even say where electricity comes from. Some scientists think that the sun may be the cause of most electricity. Others think that the movement of the earth produces some of it. All anyone knows is that electricity seems to be everywhere and that there are many way to bring it forth.

    How would you have to change the way you get ready for school if you did not use electricity?

    “The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.” Psalms 77:18

    Ah, the rigour, the good education! But it sees that you have made up your mind before even looking at any links, incluing the accreditation one.

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I could pass along many, many more stories. Please don’t send your kids there.”

    And that is worse than hookup culture? Aren’t students pressured to get drunk and have sex at plenty of other schools? Don’t schools fund and promote sexual deviancy to students at other institutions that are nonetheless well regarded based on their academic programs?

    The stuff you cite about BJU is positively silly compared to hook up culture and its promotion by the institutions.

    It just seems like an egregious double standard.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I could pass along many, many more stories. Please don’t send your kids there.”

    And that is worse than hookup culture? Aren’t students pressured to get drunk and have sex at plenty of other schools? Don’t schools fund and promote sexual deviancy to students at other institutions that are nonetheless well regarded based on their academic programs?

    The stuff you cite about BJU is positively silly compared to hook up culture and its promotion by the institutions.

    It just seems like an egregious double standard.

  • Louis

    SG: PCC is in the same boat. Won’t touch them with a barge pole… (also Hyles-Anderson and a gamut of other “colleges”).

  • Louis

    SG: PCC is in the same boat. Won’t touch them with a barge pole… (also Hyles-Anderson and a gamut of other “colleges”).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “My giddy aunt woman, don’t you know anything about Fundyism?”

    So what? Should Brigham Young U. be judged on the basis of its LDS affiliation and student conduct standards, or on its academic programs?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “My giddy aunt woman, don’t you know anything about Fundyism?”

    So what? Should Brigham Young U. be judged on the basis of its LDS affiliation and student conduct standards, or on its academic programs?

  • Louis

    sg – many of us here have gone to secular universities, in different states and countries – and survived quite well. Students pressurised to get drunk and have sex? There is a big difference between what a university administration does, and what happens if you run with the wrong crowd.

  • Louis

    sg – many of us here have gone to secular universities, in different states and countries – and survived quite well. Students pressurised to get drunk and have sex? There is a big difference between what a university administration does, and what happens if you run with the wrong crowd.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It’s that BJU lied to the students.”

    Silly. They are accredited. The accrediting agency is recognized by the US Dept of Ed. just like the public schools in the US.

    The fact that bigots discriminate against them is a mark against bigots, not BJU.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It’s that BJU lied to the students.”

    Silly. They are accredited. The accrediting agency is recognized by the US Dept of Ed. just like the public schools in the US.

    The fact that bigots discriminate against them is a mark against bigots, not BJU.

  • Louis

    sg, by all accounts, with some possible exceptions (like the properly accredited nursing program at PCC), the academic standards are seriously wanting too.

    Loyola University, which is Catholic, gives a decent education, btw. It is not about religious affiliation, don’t change the argument. It is about chicanery, abuse, lies, low standards and all that.

  • Louis

    sg, by all accounts, with some possible exceptions (like the properly accredited nursing program at PCC), the academic standards are seriously wanting too.

    Loyola University, which is Catholic, gives a decent education, btw. It is not about religious affiliation, don’t change the argument. It is about chicanery, abuse, lies, low standards and all that.

  • Louis

    Oh yes, anybody that insists on academic standards for their students are bigots. I forgot. How silly of me.

  • Louis

    Oh yes, anybody that insists on academic standards for their students are bigots. I forgot. How silly of me.

  • WebMonk

    sg – you’re excusing abuse in BJU by saying it’s not as bad as something else?!?!? Do you hear yourself?

    Should we use that same reasoning to excuse a husband from beating his wife because some other husbands kill their wives? Of course not! So how do you excuse abuse at BJU because other colleges have hookup colleges?

  • WebMonk

    sg – you’re excusing abuse in BJU by saying it’s not as bad as something else?!?!? Do you hear yourself?

    Should we use that same reasoning to excuse a husband from beating his wife because some other husbands kill their wives? Of course not! So how do you excuse abuse at BJU because other colleges have hookup colleges?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Define irony:

    Arguing that someone who questions the academic credibility of a school that banned interracial dating among its students until the year 2000 is a bigot for doing so.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Define irony:

    Arguing that someone who questions the academic credibility of a school that banned interracial dating among its students until the year 2000 is a bigot for doing so.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg – you’re excusing abuse in BJU by saying it’s not as bad as something else?!?!? Do you hear yourself?”

    What abuse? The students agree to abide by standards of conduct when they enroll. Then they complain when they actually have to do it? How is that like wife beating? Absurd.

    I would love to hear why the University of Chicago is a terrible school because it now has a hookup website. I’ll just listen to the crickets.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg – you’re excusing abuse in BJU by saying it’s not as bad as something else?!?!? Do you hear yourself?”

    What abuse? The students agree to abide by standards of conduct when they enroll. Then they complain when they actually have to do it? How is that like wife beating? Absurd.

    I would love to hear why the University of Chicago is a terrible school because it now has a hookup website. I’ll just listen to the crickets.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “banned interracial dating”

    Ah, yes the secular mortal sin, racism.

    Those 10 commandments can be taken with a grain of salt, but not the super duper sin of the late 20th century.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “banned interracial dating”

    Ah, yes the secular mortal sin, racism.

    Those 10 commandments can be taken with a grain of salt, but not the super duper sin of the late 20th century.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Oh yes, anybody that insists on academic standards for their students are bigots. I forgot. How silly of me.”

    I’m skeptical of the academic standards argument in this case. There are plenty of colleges with appalling performance records, but they are accredited. Many colleges have demonstrably poor programs yet the gov’t keeps right on funding and the agencies keep accrediting. Definitely doesn’t pass a criteria test.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Oh yes, anybody that insists on academic standards for their students are bigots. I forgot. How silly of me.”

    I’m skeptical of the academic standards argument in this case. There are plenty of colleges with appalling performance records, but they are accredited. Many colleges have demonstrably poor programs yet the gov’t keeps right on funding and the agencies keep accrediting. Definitely doesn’t pass a criteria test.

  • WebMonk

    sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave? Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?

    Please answer those two questions.

    As for the University of Chicago’s hookup site – wow. You swallow just any sort of nonsense, don’t you.

    Hey, if you go look up the word ‘gullible’ in the dictionary, you’ll find it’s not a real word.

    That site is a commercial site, not one created or in any way supported by the University of Chicago.

  • WebMonk

    sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave? Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?

    Please answer those two questions.

    As for the University of Chicago’s hookup site – wow. You swallow just any sort of nonsense, don’t you.

    Hey, if you go look up the word ‘gullible’ in the dictionary, you’ll find it’s not a real word.

    That site is a commercial site, not one created or in any way supported by the University of Chicago.

  • Louis

    Webmonk – arguments and facts are lost on sg. Of course, that kind of proofs the point, but it doesn’t help.

    Rev Lehman – of course, they only dropped it because Larry King shamed them into it. I remember that interview.

  • Louis

    Webmonk – arguments and facts are lost on sg. Of course, that kind of proofs the point, but it doesn’t help.

    Rev Lehman – of course, they only dropped it because Larry King shamed them into it. I remember that interview.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, both Bachmann and Romney are unelectable.

    Democratic factions can unite because their only issue is influence peddling. In the immortal words of the Nigerian customs official who asked my uncle, “What do you have for me today.”

    Republican factions could possibly unite around the public good of reducing federal government spending, but it is unlikely the actual politicians running for office would actually champion that cause. Well, Ron Paul, but he isn’t sexy enough to get elected.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, both Bachmann and Romney are unelectable.

    Democratic factions can unite because their only issue is influence peddling. In the immortal words of the Nigerian customs official who asked my uncle, “What do you have for me today.”

    Republican factions could possibly unite around the public good of reducing federal government spending, but it is unlikely the actual politicians running for office would actually champion that cause. Well, Ron Paul, but he isn’t sexy enough to get elected.

  • P.C.

    Getting back to the original topic I’ll take Backman over Obama any day. Every new day we see evidence that the current president, even though he is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, never had the experience and qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States.

  • P.C.

    Getting back to the original topic I’ll take Backman over Obama any day. Every new day we see evidence that the current president, even though he is a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, never had the experience and qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States.

  • DonS

    Hmm. Well, back to the original post, I concur with those above that it is far too early to anoint Romney and Bachmann as the frontrunners in the Republican primary. As I believe Steve Billingsley stated, and perhaps others, Obama was nowhere in sight at this time in 2007 — most everyone believed the race was between Clinton and Edwards, and was probably Hilary Clint0n’s to lose.

    The establishment is attacking Bachmann the way it did Palin, though it conveniently minimizes the gaffes of Democratic men such as Obama (57 states) and Biden (stand up, Chuck!). Why the apparent misogyny? I don’t know, you tell me.

    If one of Romney or Bachmann end up being the Republican candidate against Obama, they will be far more qualified than him, especially at the time of his election in 2008, and will enthusiastically receive my vote.

    Now, as for the ORU/BJU/PCC issue, I’m 100% with SG. A hater site run by disaffected former students is hardly reliable evidence as to the character and quality of a university. All substantive institutions have these opposition sites. BJU has repented for its past racial issues, and its policies no longer reflect those prejudices. It still has strict rules, but students that don’t like that environment don’t have to attend there. There are plenty of universities that have no such rules if you want that. I know for a fact that BJU curriculum is rigorous. I teach high school physics out of it, and we have used it, for the most part, in our home schooling. Yes, it incorporates Christianity into its teaching — and I like that. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But gratuitous disparagement of people and institutions, through ridicule, just because you don’t agree with them, is childish and doesn’t reflect Christian values.

  • DonS

    Hmm. Well, back to the original post, I concur with those above that it is far too early to anoint Romney and Bachmann as the frontrunners in the Republican primary. As I believe Steve Billingsley stated, and perhaps others, Obama was nowhere in sight at this time in 2007 — most everyone believed the race was between Clinton and Edwards, and was probably Hilary Clint0n’s to lose.

    The establishment is attacking Bachmann the way it did Palin, though it conveniently minimizes the gaffes of Democratic men such as Obama (57 states) and Biden (stand up, Chuck!). Why the apparent misogyny? I don’t know, you tell me.

    If one of Romney or Bachmann end up being the Republican candidate against Obama, they will be far more qualified than him, especially at the time of his election in 2008, and will enthusiastically receive my vote.

    Now, as for the ORU/BJU/PCC issue, I’m 100% with SG. A hater site run by disaffected former students is hardly reliable evidence as to the character and quality of a university. All substantive institutions have these opposition sites. BJU has repented for its past racial issues, and its policies no longer reflect those prejudices. It still has strict rules, but students that don’t like that environment don’t have to attend there. There are plenty of universities that have no such rules if you want that. I know for a fact that BJU curriculum is rigorous. I teach high school physics out of it, and we have used it, for the most part, in our home schooling. Yes, it incorporates Christianity into its teaching — and I like that. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But gratuitous disparagement of people and institutions, through ridicule, just because you don’t agree with them, is childish and doesn’t reflect Christian values.

  • Louis

    DonS – go spend time at SFL. and the other one. Before you judge it as simply a “hater site”. IOW, practice what you preach.

  • Louis

    DonS – go spend time at SFL. and the other one. Before you judge it as simply a “hater site”. IOW, practice what you preach.

  • Grace

    I will not vote for Romney or Bachmann.

    Romney is a Mormon, … for that reason alone, I would never vote for him. If one can believe the Mormon doctrine, they could believe anything. He reminds me of the Mattel ‘Ken doll, all slicked up.

    As for Bachmann, she doesn’t have the ability to run this country. She’s just another form of Palin.

  • Grace

    I will not vote for Romney or Bachmann.

    Romney is a Mormon, … for that reason alone, I would never vote for him. If one can believe the Mormon doctrine, they could believe anything. He reminds me of the Mattel ‘Ken doll, all slicked up.

    As for Bachmann, she doesn’t have the ability to run this country. She’s just another form of Palin.

  • Louis

    BTW, DonS, I’ve seen some beautiful Bachman gaffes. Everybody makes them.

  • Louis

    BTW, DonS, I’ve seen some beautiful Bachman gaffes. Everybody makes them.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That site is a commercial site, not one created or in any way supported by the University of Chicago.”

    Yes, I got that. U of C has nothing to say about it. It is marketed to Uof C students. Were it a racist site marketed to Uof C students, would they be silent?

    “Webmonk – arguments and facts are lost on sg. Of course, that kind of proofs the point, but it doesn’t help.”

    What facts? The school has bad academic programs because a guy told me that someone said that RA’s go through people’s stuff?

    That is the worst they could come up with?

    Sure, send daughters off to hook up havens before ever risking that an RA might snoop into her CD’s. Hilarious.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “That site is a commercial site, not one created or in any way supported by the University of Chicago.”

    Yes, I got that. U of C has nothing to say about it. It is marketed to Uof C students. Were it a racist site marketed to Uof C students, would they be silent?

    “Webmonk – arguments and facts are lost on sg. Of course, that kind of proofs the point, but it doesn’t help.”

    What facts? The school has bad academic programs because a guy told me that someone said that RA’s go through people’s stuff?

    That is the worst they could come up with?

    Sure, send daughters off to hook up havens before ever risking that an RA might snoop into her CD’s. Hilarious.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How is “won’t vote for LDS” unlike “won’t vote for Muslim” or “won’t for atheist” or “won’t vote for fundie”

    Is this religious bigotry? Why or why not?

    The original citizens of the US specifically objected to religious tests for office so much so that they actually wrote it into the US constitution. Has the citizenry moved away from that sentiment or is there still just a certain percentage that feel that way?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How is “won’t vote for LDS” unlike “won’t vote for Muslim” or “won’t for atheist” or “won’t vote for fundie”

    Is this religious bigotry? Why or why not?

    The original citizens of the US specifically objected to religious tests for office so much so that they actually wrote it into the US constitution. Has the citizenry moved away from that sentiment or is there still just a certain percentage that feel that way?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    The question that keeps occurring to me is this:

    Why are the Republicrats allowed to run two candidates for each major office in each general election when the other parties are only allowed to run one?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    The question that keeps occurring to me is this:

    Why are the Republicrats allowed to run two candidates for each major office in each general election when the other parties are only allowed to run one?

  • Joe

    sg, Webmonk et al. Please take your BJU discussion somewhere else. You have ruined this thread enough with your irrelevant tangent. Thanks.

  • Joe

    sg, Webmonk et al. Please take your BJU discussion somewhere else. You have ruined this thread enough with your irrelevant tangent. Thanks.

  • Louis

    Joe – who died and made you king? Discussions here often stray. Tangents happen. Deal with it.

    Also, we often insult each other. We love keeping our freinds humble.. :)

  • Louis

    Joe – who died and made you king? Discussions here often stray. Tangents happen. Deal with it.

    Also, we often insult each other. We love keeping our freinds humble.. :)

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    sg,

    There’s a significant difference between not allowing a Mormon to run because they’re a Mormon and choosing not to vote for a Mormon because they’re a Mormon.

    The Constitution prohibits the first and says nothing about the second.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    sg,

    There’s a significant difference between not allowing a Mormon to run because they’re a Mormon and choosing not to vote for a Mormon because they’re a Mormon.

    The Constitution prohibits the first and says nothing about the second.

  • Joe

    “Joe – who died and made you king?”

    Thought that would get a rise out of someone. :)

  • Joe

    “Joe – who died and made you king?”

    Thought that would get a rise out of someone. :)

  • Louis

    sg, I hate to do this, bur Grace is within her rights to determine what her criteria for candidacy is. They might be good or bad, but those are standards of democracy. She did not say that Romney must be prohibited from running. Just that according to her criteria, she won’t vote for him.

    Oh, and before I forget,

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said.. :) :)

  • Louis

    sg, I hate to do this, bur Grace is within her rights to determine what her criteria for candidacy is. They might be good or bad, but those are standards of democracy. She did not say that Romney must be prohibited from running. Just that according to her criteria, she won’t vote for him.

    Oh, and before I forget,

    Trollus Delendus Est, as the great Cato said.. :) :)

  • Louis

    Joe – you got me, you, you …. (I’ll think of something)… ;)

  • Louis

    Joe – you got me, you, you …. (I’ll think of something)… ;)

  • Bob

    I sure hope Bachmann isn’t involved with the New Apostolic Reformation Crowd. They’re authoritarian theocrats and as nutty as a Snickers bar. I studied this group before I became a Lutheran. Yecch.
    I hope she’s still a Lutheran.

  • Bob

    I sure hope Bachmann isn’t involved with the New Apostolic Reformation Crowd. They’re authoritarian theocrats and as nutty as a Snickers bar. I studied this group before I became a Lutheran. Yecch.
    I hope she’s still a Lutheran.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave? Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?”

    I’ll answer in the context of student culture because it hasn’t been established that this is official University policy. Hey, and then maybe you can answer some of my questions.

    The first, “sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave?”

    No. Students who do not wish to comply with the conduct policy should leave on their own. The non compliant student is likely making the others uncomfortable and they are paying a premium to live in a dorm with an iron clad conduct policy. The offending student is encroaching on the others. However, I do think it is emotional abuse of students for the University to promote “safe sex” and distribute condoms etc. It is disgusting and promotes the normalization of adultery and marginalizes emotionally healthy behaviors like waiting for marriage and lifelong fidelity. Every University should exclusively promote abstinence till marriage and lifelong fidelity as normal and ideal and all others are regretable and unhealthy. Less advocacy than that is dereliction of duty to the emotional well being of students.

    “Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?”

    I find it funny. No, this isn’t really a healthy situation, so I wouldn’t endorse it. However, if students sign up for a system of accountability that waives some of our culturally assumed rights to privacy, etc., well they knew that going in and accepted that the benefit of having peers hold them accountable outweighs the embarrassment of being caught in out of compliance.

    So, now, back to the Math dept. Is it fair to say that BJU’s Actuarial Science program should be judged on criteria beyond the dorm conduct policy? Maybe it would be fair to judge them based on the rate at which students pass their first four exams and how long it takes them to pass them? Would you answer my two questions?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave? Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?”

    I’ll answer in the context of student culture because it hasn’t been established that this is official University policy. Hey, and then maybe you can answer some of my questions.

    The first, “sg, do you really not consider it emotional abuse for a college to require an RA to purposefully ostracize a student from other students with the express goal of getting the student to leave?”

    No. Students who do not wish to comply with the conduct policy should leave on their own. The non compliant student is likely making the others uncomfortable and they are paying a premium to live in a dorm with an iron clad conduct policy. The offending student is encroaching on the others. However, I do think it is emotional abuse of students for the University to promote “safe sex” and distribute condoms etc. It is disgusting and promotes the normalization of adultery and marginalizes emotionally healthy behaviors like waiting for marriage and lifelong fidelity. Every University should exclusively promote abstinence till marriage and lifelong fidelity as normal and ideal and all others are regretable and unhealthy. Less advocacy than that is dereliction of duty to the emotional well being of students.

    “Do you find it reprehensible to encourage students to actively spy and snoop in each other’s underwear drawers?”

    I find it funny. No, this isn’t really a healthy situation, so I wouldn’t endorse it. However, if students sign up for a system of accountability that waives some of our culturally assumed rights to privacy, etc., well they knew that going in and accepted that the benefit of having peers hold them accountable outweighs the embarrassment of being caught in out of compliance.

    So, now, back to the Math dept. Is it fair to say that BJU’s Actuarial Science program should be judged on criteria beyond the dorm conduct policy? Maybe it would be fair to judge them based on the rate at which students pass their first four exams and how long it takes them to pass them? Would you answer my two questions?

  • Randy

    Bachmann.

  • Randy

    Bachmann.

  • Grace

    What do you think of this?

    Dominionist Battle Cry “We are the Head and Not the Tail” Used by Bachmann in Debate

    Rachel Tabachnick

    Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 11:15:01 AM EST

    It’s not unusual for candidates to use “dog whistles” or language that has a unique interpretation to a specific voter base, and last night’s Republican debate was no exception. Michele Bachmann answered a question about U.S. involvement in Libya using the phrase, “We are the head and not the tail.” Deuteronomy 28:13, “The Lord will make you the head and not the tail,” has been adopted by the apostles and prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation as a theme for the Charismatic “dominionist” movement. The wording is often slightly altered to “We are the head and not the tail,” and used as the battle cry for the Reclaiming the Seven Mountains campaign to take dominion over seven areas – arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media, and religion. At Talk2action.org, contributors have documented the repeated use and meaning of this phrase as used by New Apostolic leaders, including my September 2010 article titled “The Head and Not the Tail” – Battle Cry for the Seven Mountains Campaign.

    http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/6/14/11151/3650

  • Grace

    What do you think of this?

    Dominionist Battle Cry “We are the Head and Not the Tail” Used by Bachmann in Debate

    Rachel Tabachnick

    Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 11:15:01 AM EST

    It’s not unusual for candidates to use “dog whistles” or language that has a unique interpretation to a specific voter base, and last night’s Republican debate was no exception. Michele Bachmann answered a question about U.S. involvement in Libya using the phrase, “We are the head and not the tail.” Deuteronomy 28:13, “The Lord will make you the head and not the tail,” has been adopted by the apostles and prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation as a theme for the Charismatic “dominionist” movement. The wording is often slightly altered to “We are the head and not the tail,” and used as the battle cry for the Reclaiming the Seven Mountains campaign to take dominion over seven areas – arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, media, and religion. At Talk2action.org, contributors have documented the repeated use and meaning of this phrase as used by New Apostolic leaders, including my September 2010 article titled “The Head and Not the Tail” – Battle Cry for the Seven Mountains Campaign.

    http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/6/14/11151/3650

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    FWIW, Bob Jones is accredited by the same agency as Patrick Henry where Dr. Veith works.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    FWIW, Bob Jones is accredited by the same agency as Patrick Henry where Dr. Veith works.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There’s a significant difference between not allowing a Mormon to run because they’re a Mormon and choosing not to vote for a Mormon because they’re a Mormon.”

    Yes, of course. But my question is whether much has changed since the citizenry went out of their way to prohibit religious tests. They were motivated enough to make sure it was written into the founding document and the highest law of the land. It must have been fairly important in order to be included especially since the US Constitution is noted for its brevity.

    The question is in regards to sentiment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “There’s a significant difference between not allowing a Mormon to run because they’re a Mormon and choosing not to vote for a Mormon because they’re a Mormon.”

    Yes, of course. But my question is whether much has changed since the citizenry went out of their way to prohibit religious tests. They were motivated enough to make sure it was written into the founding document and the highest law of the land. It must have been fairly important in order to be included especially since the US Constitution is noted for its brevity.

    The question is in regards to sentiment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why are the Republicrats allowed to run two candidates for each major office in each general election when the other parties are only allowed to run one?”

    comment of the day!!!

    Bravo!!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why are the Republicrats allowed to run two candidates for each major office in each general election when the other parties are only allowed to run one?”

    comment of the day!!!

    Bravo!!!

  • Louis

    sg – Understand this: Some of us have experienced emotional and spiritual abuse within fundamentalism. We also know the extreme dualism with which the fundies and their institutions present themselves – it is only once you are on the inside that you discover it all. Therefore I tend to be less sceptical of the accounts and testimonies of people that were once “inside”. Because often theirs are the only account of the truth available. And if you read discerninglu, you can easily separate the fictional from the real in these accounts, the justifiable complaint from the mindless natter.

    What webmonk relates is not unfamiliar to me – from other sources. And from similar institutions, even in other countries. It fits the pattern very well.

  • Louis

    sg – Understand this: Some of us have experienced emotional and spiritual abuse within fundamentalism. We also know the extreme dualism with which the fundies and their institutions present themselves – it is only once you are on the inside that you discover it all. Therefore I tend to be less sceptical of the accounts and testimonies of people that were once “inside”. Because often theirs are the only account of the truth available. And if you read discerninglu, you can easily separate the fictional from the real in these accounts, the justifiable complaint from the mindless natter.

    What webmonk relates is not unfamiliar to me – from other sources. And from similar institutions, even in other countries. It fits the pattern very well.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @78

    Assuming you are right, it has no bearing on the quality of the academics. Further, such emotional abuse, as some have called it, pressuring students to behave better than they otherwise would seems pretty tame compared to the outright evil of pressuring students into extremely destructive behaviors. Plenty have emotional scars from that kind of emotional, of course no one wants to hear that, no. They were just running with the wrong crowd. It is their own fault even though the university administration gave tacit approval. How is that not blame the victim?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @78

    Assuming you are right, it has no bearing on the quality of the academics. Further, such emotional abuse, as some have called it, pressuring students to behave better than they otherwise would seems pretty tame compared to the outright evil of pressuring students into extremely destructive behaviors. Plenty have emotional scars from that kind of emotional, of course no one wants to hear that, no. They were just running with the wrong crowd. It is their own fault even though the university administration gave tacit approval. How is that not blame the victim?

  • Louis

    sg – please show me where the administration of any secular university of any kind of standing pressurises/obliges its students to participate in “extremely destructive behaviours”.

    Remember – “administration”. Peer pressure from fellow students doesn’t count.

  • Louis

    sg – please show me where the administration of any secular university of any kind of standing pressurises/obliges its students to participate in “extremely destructive behaviours”.

    Remember – “administration”. Peer pressure from fellow students doesn’t count.

  • steve

    The Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV,VI:

    “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

    Presbyterian Presidents:

    Andrew Jackson
    James Polk
    James Buchanan
    Grover Cleveland
    Benjamin Harrison
    Woodrow Wilson
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Ronald Reagan

  • steve

    The Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV,VI:

    “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.”

    Presbyterian Presidents:

    Andrew Jackson
    James Polk
    James Buchanan
    Grover Cleveland
    Benjamin Harrison
    Woodrow Wilson
    Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Ronald Reagan

  • steve

    The point is as silly as saying, how can any Christian be President of the United States when they believe at least 20% of the population is going to hell?

    This is when you need someone with the fortitude of Christie to just laugh in face of anyone who asks such a question.

  • steve

    The point is as silly as saying, how can any Christian be President of the United States when they believe at least 20% of the population is going to hell?

    This is when you need someone with the fortitude of Christie to just laugh in face of anyone who asks such a question.

  • steve

    For clarification, the revised version of 1789 states: “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” The reference to the antichrist were removed.

  • steve

    For clarification, the revised version of 1789 states: “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.” The reference to the antichrist were removed.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg – please show me where the administration of any secular university of any kind of standing pressurises/obliges its students to participate in “extremely destructive behaviours”.”

    “Obliges” is absurd. However, virtually all set as the standard an immoral expectation:

    http://www.sexualityeducation.com/sex.php

    Those who object better keep it to themselves because the universities will take action against them.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Another-Lawsuit-Attacks/37669

    If you have a normal healthy view, the university has an explicit policy to censure you. If you have a deviant view, the university will fund you and require students listen to you. But hey, no pressure!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg – please show me where the administration of any secular university of any kind of standing pressurises/obliges its students to participate in “extremely destructive behaviours”.”

    “Obliges” is absurd. However, virtually all set as the standard an immoral expectation:

    http://www.sexualityeducation.com/sex.php

    Those who object better keep it to themselves because the universities will take action against them.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Another-Lawsuit-Attacks/37669

    If you have a normal healthy view, the university has an explicit policy to censure you. If you have a deviant view, the university will fund you and require students listen to you. But hey, no pressure!!

  • Louis

    sg, please. If you think any of those things are at the same level as mandated violations of privacy, minute management of your life on and off campus, demerit systems, spying, etc etc., then you are out to lunch.

  • Louis

    sg, please. If you think any of those things are at the same level as mandated violations of privacy, minute management of your life on and off campus, demerit systems, spying, etc etc., then you are out to lunch.

  • Cincinnatus

    Re. the BJU debate:

    I hate to admit it, but sg is, in principle, right about this one, though I think she overestimates the quality of BJU’s academic programs.

    Ultimately, it’s a free country–in the sense that private individuals retain the right to form teleocratic institutions with certain regulatory schemes to achieve its ends. The students at BJU are, in general, fully aware of what they’re getting into: everyone knows that BJU is a fundamentalist institution with an oppressive code of conduct and an even more oppressive method of enforcing it. Yeah, some of the kids who end up there (or whose parents send them there) hate the rules. So would I. I would never send my kids there, either. But it is what it is, and no laws are being broken. People who arrive and are “surprised” by what they see must have been living under a rock. I’ve had my own experiences with fundamentalism, and I’ll critique BJU all day, but, as I say, it is what it is, and it may, in fact, even be better than the rotten social environments at most public universities.

    Speaking of living under rocks, Louis, have you not stepped foot on a major university campus lately? Sure, the administration isn’t likely to compel students to participate in drunken orgies (peer pressure is another story, of course–and something parents should consider), but my current institution, for instance, owns and operates more than one affordable and accessible bar (!!!)–we call them “student unions” because it sounds legit–and annually sponsors several block parties for students in which the only activity is binge drinking (and the casual sex, hospital visits, etc., that follow). Not to mention the drunken Bacchanalia that we commonly call “home games” in college sports. It’s truly and totally debauched. The youth are not all right, and our college administrations are complicit–and not just passively complicit.

    So yeah, which is worse? BJU or State U.? I suspect that the academic programs are, at worst, a wash when compared. So let’s talk social environment.

    /I’m always a fan of happy mediums myself.

  • Cincinnatus

    Re. the BJU debate:

    I hate to admit it, but sg is, in principle, right about this one, though I think she overestimates the quality of BJU’s academic programs.

    Ultimately, it’s a free country–in the sense that private individuals retain the right to form teleocratic institutions with certain regulatory schemes to achieve its ends. The students at BJU are, in general, fully aware of what they’re getting into: everyone knows that BJU is a fundamentalist institution with an oppressive code of conduct and an even more oppressive method of enforcing it. Yeah, some of the kids who end up there (or whose parents send them there) hate the rules. So would I. I would never send my kids there, either. But it is what it is, and no laws are being broken. People who arrive and are “surprised” by what they see must have been living under a rock. I’ve had my own experiences with fundamentalism, and I’ll critique BJU all day, but, as I say, it is what it is, and it may, in fact, even be better than the rotten social environments at most public universities.

    Speaking of living under rocks, Louis, have you not stepped foot on a major university campus lately? Sure, the administration isn’t likely to compel students to participate in drunken orgies (peer pressure is another story, of course–and something parents should consider), but my current institution, for instance, owns and operates more than one affordable and accessible bar (!!!)–we call them “student unions” because it sounds legit–and annually sponsors several block parties for students in which the only activity is binge drinking (and the casual sex, hospital visits, etc., that follow). Not to mention the drunken Bacchanalia that we commonly call “home games” in college sports. It’s truly and totally debauched. The youth are not all right, and our college administrations are complicit–and not just passively complicit.

    So yeah, which is worse? BJU or State U.? I suspect that the academic programs are, at worst, a wash when compared. So let’s talk social environment.

    /I’m always a fan of happy mediums myself.

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus – again, the difference is between compelling and offering. I often set foot on the campus of the U of S.

    But hey, drinking, immoral students? I believe Chaucer was well acquianted with that…

  • Louis

    Cincinnatus – again, the difference is between compelling and offering. I often set foot on the campus of the U of S.

    But hey, drinking, immoral students? I believe Chaucer was well acquianted with that…

  • Louis

    BTW, several ex-students of BJU & associated institutions have commented that their time in the military etc was so much more free than that at BJU.

  • Louis

    BTW, several ex-students of BJU & associated institutions have commented that their time in the military etc was so much more free than that at BJU.

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis@87: Fine, but like sg and I note, students at BJU sign up for this. It’s no secret. It’s not a “violation” of privacy if you committed to the school’s policies.

    I would have never considered BJU when I was applying for college for precisely these reasons–because I do not prefer an oppressive schema of rules and RAs managing my life, and because I do not prefer to substitute for my parents someone even more intrusive, etc. In other words, everyone knows what goes on at BJU. Students who are surprised were obviously ignorant, and those who are angry–well, it’s understandable, but I have little sympathy. Shoulda’ read the fine print.

  • Cincinnatus

    Louis@87: Fine, but like sg and I note, students at BJU sign up for this. It’s no secret. It’s not a “violation” of privacy if you committed to the school’s policies.

    I would have never considered BJU when I was applying for college for precisely these reasons–because I do not prefer an oppressive schema of rules and RAs managing my life, and because I do not prefer to substitute for my parents someone even more intrusive, etc. In other words, everyone knows what goes on at BJU. Students who are surprised were obviously ignorant, and those who are angry–well, it’s understandable, but I have little sympathy. Shoulda’ read the fine print.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg, please. If you think any of those things are at the same level as mandated violations of privacy, minute management of your life on and off campus, demerit systems, spying, etc etc., then you are out to lunch.”

    Promoting adultery vs. treating students like children and punishing them for infractions.

    Hmm, let me think.

    Okay, promoting adultery is worse and leads to far worse problems for to the student in the long term than being forced to behave well. There are only mountains of evidence to support this opinion.

    Interesting that concern about privacy once again trumps concerns about serious moral hazards.

    Hey, how about that Math/Accounting/Act.Sci. dept? Anyone?

    Or are academics secondary considerations as long as students don’t have to be embarrassed about their bad behavior. After all that is what makes a great university, lack of personal accountability.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg, please. If you think any of those things are at the same level as mandated violations of privacy, minute management of your life on and off campus, demerit systems, spying, etc etc., then you are out to lunch.”

    Promoting adultery vs. treating students like children and punishing them for infractions.

    Hmm, let me think.

    Okay, promoting adultery is worse and leads to far worse problems for to the student in the long term than being forced to behave well. There are only mountains of evidence to support this opinion.

    Interesting that concern about privacy once again trumps concerns about serious moral hazards.

    Hey, how about that Math/Accounting/Act.Sci. dept? Anyone?

    Or are academics secondary considerations as long as students don’t have to be embarrassed about their bad behavior. After all that is what makes a great university, lack of personal accountability.

  • SKPeterson

    While the discussion of academia, accreditation, accountability and administration is interesting, when you get a moment please include Dave Westfall, a commenter here on occasion, and the people around Los Alamos, New Mexico who are threatened by 3 different wildfires.

    +Pax

    Apologies for the interruption. Being in academia (and the national lab system) myself I’ll note that accreditation is a mixed bag. It is not necessarily a perfect indicator of academic quality or the sufficiency of any program of study. I remember reading about studies that have shown that students attending Berkeley and Harvard graduated dumber in many respects than when they went in. I believe both schools are still accredited and generally thought highly of.

  • SKPeterson

    While the discussion of academia, accreditation, accountability and administration is interesting, when you get a moment please include Dave Westfall, a commenter here on occasion, and the people around Los Alamos, New Mexico who are threatened by 3 different wildfires.

    +Pax

    Apologies for the interruption. Being in academia (and the national lab system) myself I’ll note that accreditation is a mixed bag. It is not necessarily a perfect indicator of academic quality or the sufficiency of any program of study. I remember reading about studies that have shown that students attending Berkeley and Harvard graduated dumber in many respects than when they went in. I believe both schools are still accredited and generally thought highly of.

  • DonS

    SKP — good point. It’s actually Mike Westfall, and he and his family are currently evacuated from their home, I believe. I’m sure they would very much appreciate our prayers.

  • DonS

    SKP — good point. It’s actually Mike Westfall, and he and his family are currently evacuated from their home, I believe. I’m sure they would very much appreciate our prayers.

  • SKPeterson

    Sorry – know a Dave out there too. Getting people mixed up.

  • SKPeterson

    Sorry – know a Dave out there too. Getting people mixed up.

  • fws

    I am going to just say this…

    there are lots of young people who became Jehovahs witnesses because michael jackson was one back when he started out before he became sort of …well…

    and there are lots of young people who became mormon because of donny and marie. believe it or not.

    so having a mormon as president would give the mormon church a respectability i would not want it to have. I know that is probably not the right way to look at things but….

  • fws

    I am going to just say this…

    there are lots of young people who became Jehovahs witnesses because michael jackson was one back when he started out before he became sort of …well…

    and there are lots of young people who became mormon because of donny and marie. believe it or not.

    so having a mormon as president would give the mormon church a respectability i would not want it to have. I know that is probably not the right way to look at things but….

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “so having a mormon as president would give the mormon church a respectability i would not want it to have. I know that is probably not the right way to look at things but….”

    substitute any minority group for Mormon, and note that there are some groups that we want to have respect and some groups we don’t.

    Us vs. Them.

    Someone noted how clever the British were in creating Iraq primarily of three groups of enemies. That way they would not successfully unite against the British. This is the weakness of multi culti; the constant Us vs. Them. It is natural for humans to want their own group to ascend the status hierarchy and keep down or bring down the others. Probably won’t work in the case of Mormons. They are too dynamic and their productivity and social capital is too high. Nevertheless non-Mormons will continue to discriminate against them whenever they can.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “so having a mormon as president would give the mormon church a respectability i would not want it to have. I know that is probably not the right way to look at things but….”

    substitute any minority group for Mormon, and note that there are some groups that we want to have respect and some groups we don’t.

    Us vs. Them.

    Someone noted how clever the British were in creating Iraq primarily of three groups of enemies. That way they would not successfully unite against the British. This is the weakness of multi culti; the constant Us vs. Them. It is natural for humans to want their own group to ascend the status hierarchy and keep down or bring down the others. Probably won’t work in the case of Mormons. They are too dynamic and their productivity and social capital is too high. Nevertheless non-Mormons will continue to discriminate against them whenever they can.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Could we insert “homosexual” into what you just wrote instead of Mormon? I’m not mocking you. I think you are asking a very difficult question. How would that change shape the argument I wonder? Add to it a gay couple married in NY perhaps, the First Lady would be the First Gay Man.

    I think, if I read it right, the question is not so much whether we discriminate, it is “on what terms” we do that. Is a religion that one understands as false and deceptive a good criteria?

    What bothers me about Mormonism is that it masquerades as Christianity when it is nothing of the sort. It has not relationship to the central dogma of the Church that is confessed regardless of heterodoxy – the Trinity. I have a similar problem, among other things, with Sarah Palin. She’s Pentecostal. I don’t know if she is a “Oneness” Pentecostal, but I would at least like to know more. If she is, then her religion is a sham and a ruse for something it isn’t.

    To me that is different than a Muslim who is perhaps in a different sect. At least on the terms of that religion, allegiance to Allah and Mohammad his prophet is universal (at least I think so) among the sects. Which begs the question “Would you vote for someone of a religion you truly believed was not just heterodox, but evil on the face of it?” I guess it depends on the office, how much and what kind of power it has, and what the individuals record is. Are they a decorated war veteran who fought against the Taliban in the U.S. military?

    So it cannot rest on one set of criteria alone, but there are some criteria that carry more weight than others. Part of the reason JFK won by such a narrow margin was because of his Catholicism and the fear he would bow to Rome. I know this from what I learned about the controversy among otherwise fairly liberal folks of the time who were Christians, including Lutherans. It was big debate as I understand it, and a lot of people just could not vote for him even though they normally would vote Democratic.

    Certainly people choose one issue and vote on that. Abortion gleans a lot of votes for conservatives even though popular opinion on that issue is against them and they make little or no headway on it. I dare say GW Bush got very far on it, and yet many people hoped he would turn the tide as a born-again Christian.

    Just some thoughts.

  • Stephen

    sg -

    Could we insert “homosexual” into what you just wrote instead of Mormon? I’m not mocking you. I think you are asking a very difficult question. How would that change shape the argument I wonder? Add to it a gay couple married in NY perhaps, the First Lady would be the First Gay Man.

    I think, if I read it right, the question is not so much whether we discriminate, it is “on what terms” we do that. Is a religion that one understands as false and deceptive a good criteria?

    What bothers me about Mormonism is that it masquerades as Christianity when it is nothing of the sort. It has not relationship to the central dogma of the Church that is confessed regardless of heterodoxy – the Trinity. I have a similar problem, among other things, with Sarah Palin. She’s Pentecostal. I don’t know if she is a “Oneness” Pentecostal, but I would at least like to know more. If she is, then her religion is a sham and a ruse for something it isn’t.

    To me that is different than a Muslim who is perhaps in a different sect. At least on the terms of that religion, allegiance to Allah and Mohammad his prophet is universal (at least I think so) among the sects. Which begs the question “Would you vote for someone of a religion you truly believed was not just heterodox, but evil on the face of it?” I guess it depends on the office, how much and what kind of power it has, and what the individuals record is. Are they a decorated war veteran who fought against the Taliban in the U.S. military?

    So it cannot rest on one set of criteria alone, but there are some criteria that carry more weight than others. Part of the reason JFK won by such a narrow margin was because of his Catholicism and the fear he would bow to Rome. I know this from what I learned about the controversy among otherwise fairly liberal folks of the time who were Christians, including Lutherans. It was big debate as I understand it, and a lot of people just could not vote for him even though they normally would vote Democratic.

    Certainly people choose one issue and vote on that. Abortion gleans a lot of votes for conservatives even though popular opinion on that issue is against them and they make little or no headway on it. I dare say GW Bush got very far on it, and yet many people hoped he would turn the tide as a born-again Christian.

    Just some thoughts.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, it goes back to my question @63

    Why was it so important to the citizens and founders that there be no religious test for office?

    “I think, if I read it right, the question is not so much whether we discriminate, it is “on what terms” we do that. Is a religion that one understands as false and deceptive a good criteria?”

    No. The question is why do we discriminate?

    Calling people haters is simplistic. People do not hate for no reason.

    I would say based on history people discriminate against out groups because they are a threat to their survival. Nowadays the stakes don’t seem so high, so the water gets muddied with talk about what is right or how assimilating foreigners helps rather than hinders, yada, yada. Those are not inconsequential or trivial, but neither are they primal. Primal as in first. Our primal drives underlie much of our behavior. Okay, enough of that.

    I think that folks back in the 1780′s wanted no religious test for office because they didn’t want a legal impediment to electing folks from their own group into office. If Quakers became a majority in a county or state that was officially Anglican, they didn’t want to a majority that could never assert itself. And as long as one had to be Anglican to get elected in the first place, the requirement might never be repealed.

    It seems a situation of this sort really has nothing to do with whether or not one could or should vote for someone who is different to represent him, but I think it may.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Stephen, it goes back to my question @63

    Why was it so important to the citizens and founders that there be no religious test for office?

    “I think, if I read it right, the question is not so much whether we discriminate, it is “on what terms” we do that. Is a religion that one understands as false and deceptive a good criteria?”

    No. The question is why do we discriminate?

    Calling people haters is simplistic. People do not hate for no reason.

    I would say based on history people discriminate against out groups because they are a threat to their survival. Nowadays the stakes don’t seem so high, so the water gets muddied with talk about what is right or how assimilating foreigners helps rather than hinders, yada, yada. Those are not inconsequential or trivial, but neither are they primal. Primal as in first. Our primal drives underlie much of our behavior. Okay, enough of that.

    I think that folks back in the 1780′s wanted no religious test for office because they didn’t want a legal impediment to electing folks from their own group into office. If Quakers became a majority in a county or state that was officially Anglican, they didn’t want to a majority that could never assert itself. And as long as one had to be Anglican to get elected in the first place, the requirement might never be repealed.

    It seems a situation of this sort really has nothing to do with whether or not one could or should vote for someone who is different to represent him, but I think it may.

  • Stephen

    “Nowadays the stakes don’t seem so high, so the water gets muddied with talk about what is right or how assimilating foreigners helps rather than hinders, yada, yada. Those are not inconsequential or trivial, but neither are they primal. Primal as in first. Our primal drives underlie much of our behavior.”

    I don’t get that. How are those things not in some way connected to surviving? We cogitate over a number of things and weigh them as to their benefits. I don’t think I agree with there being some things that are “primal” as opposed to other things, but perhaps I don’t understand that term as it is being are used. If what is meant refers to what we value the most, then I guess I sort of understand. But when I hear the word “primal” I think about how I am going to feed my family. People who do not have that as a “primal” concern (top of their minds) because they are doing fine financially will vote in a presidential election based on a number of things. They will sometimes be one issue voters over taxes or a particular moral issue.

    Voting against an “out group” is about cultural dominance and yes, in some sense it gets down to survival perhaps. But few people believe their very lives are at stake unless, like now, they may really be in dire straits. People operate on a host of levels depending on their circumstances. Religion is an example of people who will do extraordinary things that fall way outside of self-interest and pure survival. So I don’t understand the point.

    I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon because their religion is of the worst kind. It is, I think, quite self-consciously based on a charade, and people within in it are deluded or in denial or willingly being deceptive or some combination of all three. So lying and self-delusion are a big deal for me. Is that related to my desire to survive? Yes, but that is not the only or even the best way to describe why I am opposed to it. It is a value that effects a number of things, and they may not all be rational self-interest. They may be about a larger sphere that includes others I don’t even know or never will.

    Beyond that, a lot of people operate on irrational terms that do not always have to do with self-interest. That’s why predictive economics is such a shell game it seems to me. People behave for a number of reasons, and often they have little to do with self-interest. People will do lots of things that are bad for them. No matter what you tell them, they’ll still blow money and smoke cigarettes. Our economy depends on stupidity and things antithetical to prudence and survival to a large degree.

    Maybe I miss your point, but if religion is a big deal and people take it seriously enough, they will use discrimination to decide things. But I don’t think it is merely about “people of my kind” though it may be about values that are shared that a particular candidate seems to have enough of for my vote, even if he’s a Baptist, atheist or a Muslim. Mormons though, not on my watch! That has to do with a set of values they don’t live up to for my needs that I believe are a core issue for their faith. I don’t see it being that much different than those who refuse to vote for a particular party no matter what. No one has to stay Mormon just as they don’t have to be Republican or Democrat. For some people (Reagan!), all it takes is a change of party to get elected. Now who’s discriminating?

    Maybe that approaches an answer to #63

  • Stephen

    “Nowadays the stakes don’t seem so high, so the water gets muddied with talk about what is right or how assimilating foreigners helps rather than hinders, yada, yada. Those are not inconsequential or trivial, but neither are they primal. Primal as in first. Our primal drives underlie much of our behavior.”

    I don’t get that. How are those things not in some way connected to surviving? We cogitate over a number of things and weigh them as to their benefits. I don’t think I agree with there being some things that are “primal” as opposed to other things, but perhaps I don’t understand that term as it is being are used. If what is meant refers to what we value the most, then I guess I sort of understand. But when I hear the word “primal” I think about how I am going to feed my family. People who do not have that as a “primal” concern (top of their minds) because they are doing fine financially will vote in a presidential election based on a number of things. They will sometimes be one issue voters over taxes or a particular moral issue.

    Voting against an “out group” is about cultural dominance and yes, in some sense it gets down to survival perhaps. But few people believe their very lives are at stake unless, like now, they may really be in dire straits. People operate on a host of levels depending on their circumstances. Religion is an example of people who will do extraordinary things that fall way outside of self-interest and pure survival. So I don’t understand the point.

    I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon because their religion is of the worst kind. It is, I think, quite self-consciously based on a charade, and people within in it are deluded or in denial or willingly being deceptive or some combination of all three. So lying and self-delusion are a big deal for me. Is that related to my desire to survive? Yes, but that is not the only or even the best way to describe why I am opposed to it. It is a value that effects a number of things, and they may not all be rational self-interest. They may be about a larger sphere that includes others I don’t even know or never will.

    Beyond that, a lot of people operate on irrational terms that do not always have to do with self-interest. That’s why predictive economics is such a shell game it seems to me. People behave for a number of reasons, and often they have little to do with self-interest. People will do lots of things that are bad for them. No matter what you tell them, they’ll still blow money and smoke cigarettes. Our economy depends on stupidity and things antithetical to prudence and survival to a large degree.

    Maybe I miss your point, but if religion is a big deal and people take it seriously enough, they will use discrimination to decide things. But I don’t think it is merely about “people of my kind” though it may be about values that are shared that a particular candidate seems to have enough of for my vote, even if he’s a Baptist, atheist or a Muslim. Mormons though, not on my watch! That has to do with a set of values they don’t live up to for my needs that I believe are a core issue for their faith. I don’t see it being that much different than those who refuse to vote for a particular party no matter what. No one has to stay Mormon just as they don’t have to be Republican or Democrat. For some people (Reagan!), all it takes is a change of party to get elected. Now who’s discriminating?

    Maybe that approaches an answer to #63

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Which arguments are truly rational, and which ones are primal simply employing the rationalization hamsters to come up with logical sounding bases?

    The rejection of out groups is universal. It figures more prominently in some places, but all that is needed is some genuine concern about putting food on the table for it to come to the surface. The fear of Mormons is not unlike the fear of foreigners. It seems to me to be even less rational. Fearing that foreigners may hate you or try to harm you makes sense when they come from a country with extreme intertribal warfare, etc. Where everything is based on affiliation, and out groups are routinely discriminated against even murdered. Mormons on the other hand are home grown fringe. They are descended from the quirky religious fanatics of New England that were and always have been intensely patriotic and civic minded. In short, there is no evidence that Mormons are a threat. So, we can say it is rational all day long, but it sure looks primal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Which arguments are truly rational, and which ones are primal simply employing the rationalization hamsters to come up with logical sounding bases?

    The rejection of out groups is universal. It figures more prominently in some places, but all that is needed is some genuine concern about putting food on the table for it to come to the surface. The fear of Mormons is not unlike the fear of foreigners. It seems to me to be even less rational. Fearing that foreigners may hate you or try to harm you makes sense when they come from a country with extreme intertribal warfare, etc. Where everything is based on affiliation, and out groups are routinely discriminated against even murdered. Mormons on the other hand are home grown fringe. They are descended from the quirky religious fanatics of New England that were and always have been intensely patriotic and civic minded. In short, there is no evidence that Mormons are a threat. So, we can say it is rational all day long, but it sure looks primal.

  • Stephen

    What do they say? The personal is the political. I’m still a little lost on the distinction being made regarding “primal” needs. For some addicts, it might feel primal to get fix, be it cigarettes to their favorite pass time (like Internet surfing :) ). If those things are threatened in some way it effects behavior and decision-making.

    Regardless, that’s a good point about home grown weirdness, but then we could probably say something similar about white supremacists. I think everyone discriminates. The terms on which we do it are fluid based on our values. Those too can shift depending on circumstances that play into it on a number of levels. For me, Mormons are just too bizarre. Maybe we need to hear from non-Mormons living in Mormon land. I have one friend who grew up in Idaho. She testifies that they are secretive and very clannish. The clannishness I think I can understand, but the secretiveness bothers me.

  • Stephen

    What do they say? The personal is the political. I’m still a little lost on the distinction being made regarding “primal” needs. For some addicts, it might feel primal to get fix, be it cigarettes to their favorite pass time (like Internet surfing :) ). If those things are threatened in some way it effects behavior and decision-making.

    Regardless, that’s a good point about home grown weirdness, but then we could probably say something similar about white supremacists. I think everyone discriminates. The terms on which we do it are fluid based on our values. Those too can shift depending on circumstances that play into it on a number of levels. For me, Mormons are just too bizarre. Maybe we need to hear from non-Mormons living in Mormon land. I have one friend who grew up in Idaho. She testifies that they are secretive and very clannish. The clannishness I think I can understand, but the secretiveness bothers me.

  • Stephen

    sg – If it helps . . . “we could say the same thing about the Nation of Islam.” I would not vote for a white supremacist OR anyone from that weird, racist cult either.

  • Stephen

    sg – If it helps . . . “we could say the same thing about the Nation of Islam.” I would not vote for a white supremacist OR anyone from that weird, racist cult either.

  • Stephen

    And the Nation of Islam is extremely civic minded.

  • Stephen

    And the Nation of Islam is extremely civic minded.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And the Nation of Islam is extremely civic minded.”

    I would challenge that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And the Nation of Islam is extremely civic minded.”

    I would challenge that.

  • Stephen

    At least for their own kind. Not sure, but we might say the same sort of thing about Mormons.

  • Stephen

    At least for their own kind. Not sure, but we might say the same sort of thing about Mormons.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I would say Mormons are far more magnanimous as well as far more competent. They don’t desperately need others. They made in on their own in the wilderness. Where is the self sufficient Islamic state? The point is about being mostly rational or mostly primal. Fear of Mormons has to be mostly primal because it isn’t mostly rational vs. fear of Islam which is mostly rational based on history. Fear is always primal, but after the initial response and rational reflection, then what? Do we find we have just rationalized based on hypotheticals? Or have we actually analyzed based on evidence on record?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I would say Mormons are far more magnanimous as well as far more competent. They don’t desperately need others. They made in on their own in the wilderness. Where is the self sufficient Islamic state? The point is about being mostly rational or mostly primal. Fear of Mormons has to be mostly primal because it isn’t mostly rational vs. fear of Islam which is mostly rational based on history. Fear is always primal, but after the initial response and rational reflection, then what? Do we find we have just rationalized based on hypotheticals? Or have we actually analyzed based on evidence on record?

  • Stephen

    Okay, now I think I get it.

    But then fear is not always irrational. I don’t think it’s irrational either to judge by someone’s core beliefs. That is at the heart of any eventual outcomes or decisions. And when those beliefs are shrouded in secrecy, worse still.

    How do we know Mormons are not simply using political office with the intention of gaining cultural legitimacy, the same thing gays are being accused of regarding marriage? I think that is certainly plausible. Their religion is secretive and authoritarian, why shouldn’t there be a concern. Who knows what kinds of ultimate allegiances they have? I’d feel a lot better if that kind of thing could be examined, but it is off limits. Who is, in that case, in and who is out seems reversed, with the public the “out group.”

  • Stephen

    Okay, now I think I get it.

    But then fear is not always irrational. I don’t think it’s irrational either to judge by someone’s core beliefs. That is at the heart of any eventual outcomes or decisions. And when those beliefs are shrouded in secrecy, worse still.

    How do we know Mormons are not simply using political office with the intention of gaining cultural legitimacy, the same thing gays are being accused of regarding marriage? I think that is certainly plausible. Their religion is secretive and authoritarian, why shouldn’t there be a concern. Who knows what kinds of ultimate allegiances they have? I’d feel a lot better if that kind of thing could be examined, but it is off limits. Who is, in that case, in and who is out seems reversed, with the public the “out group.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But then fear is not always irrational.”

    Right. Nor is it always rational.

    “I don’t think it’s irrational either to judge by someone’s core beliefs.”

    Neither do I. However behavior speaks louder to me.

    “That is at the heart of any eventual outcomes or decisions.”

    Nah, people aren’t that effective at executing the ideals that are preached to them. That is pretty evident from history.

    “And when those beliefs are shrouded in secrecy, worse still.”

    Could be or could just be fearing for the sake of fear. This is not an empirically grounded notion.

    “How do we know Mormons are not simply using political office with the intention of gaining cultural legitimacy, the same thing gays are being accused of regarding marriage?”

    Empirical evidence. Mormons already have cultural legitimacy. The got it the hard way. They earned it through their with their high social function, productivity and self control despite persecution. Mormons do better than every group I am aware of in all of those areas except maybe Orthodox Jews. Gays on the other hand have not, as a group, earned it. Empirical data shows they are lower in social function, productivity and self control.

    “I think that is certainly plausible.”

    No. It is impossible. They have already earned their legitimacy.

    “Their religion is secretive and authoritarian, why shouldn’t there be a concern.”

    Experience. Empirical evidence.

    “Who knows what kinds of ultimate allegiances they have?”

    Probably to a kingdom not of this world.

    “I’d feel a lot better if that kind of thing could be examined, but it is off limits.”

    That’s fair.

    “Who is, in that case, in and who is out seems reversed, with the public the “out group.”

    Well this changes the definition of in group and out group. I mean, you know you are not a Mormon, Jew, Japanese, etc, so you know you are out. Likewise, you know you are Lutheran, so you are in. Self identified status is the basis of in group and out group terminology.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But then fear is not always irrational.”

    Right. Nor is it always rational.

    “I don’t think it’s irrational either to judge by someone’s core beliefs.”

    Neither do I. However behavior speaks louder to me.

    “That is at the heart of any eventual outcomes or decisions.”

    Nah, people aren’t that effective at executing the ideals that are preached to them. That is pretty evident from history.

    “And when those beliefs are shrouded in secrecy, worse still.”

    Could be or could just be fearing for the sake of fear. This is not an empirically grounded notion.

    “How do we know Mormons are not simply using political office with the intention of gaining cultural legitimacy, the same thing gays are being accused of regarding marriage?”

    Empirical evidence. Mormons already have cultural legitimacy. The got it the hard way. They earned it through their with their high social function, productivity and self control despite persecution. Mormons do better than every group I am aware of in all of those areas except maybe Orthodox Jews. Gays on the other hand have not, as a group, earned it. Empirical data shows they are lower in social function, productivity and self control.

    “I think that is certainly plausible.”

    No. It is impossible. They have already earned their legitimacy.

    “Their religion is secretive and authoritarian, why shouldn’t there be a concern.”

    Experience. Empirical evidence.

    “Who knows what kinds of ultimate allegiances they have?”

    Probably to a kingdom not of this world.

    “I’d feel a lot better if that kind of thing could be examined, but it is off limits.”

    That’s fair.

    “Who is, in that case, in and who is out seems reversed, with the public the “out group.”

    Well this changes the definition of in group and out group. I mean, you know you are not a Mormon, Jew, Japanese, etc, so you know you are out. Likewise, you know you are Lutheran, so you are in. Self identified status is the basis of in group and out group terminology.

  • Stephen

    You say tomato, I say tomato. We can do the “rational/irrational” dance all day. At this point, it is moot.

    It is also self-negating to say, on the one hand, that we can empirically know what they are up to by their actions, and then to also say people do not live by their convictions. So which is it?

    Normally, people are not held in suspicion unless they behave that way. In the case of Mormons, the secretive aspect of their religion is a rational basis for being suspicious of them and their intentions. There is nothing “un-empirical” about the secretive way Mormons operate. It is a “fair question” and one we cannot answer as to why. Again, we, the American public, are left out of consideration. We can’t even say that about a Muslim. Their faith is not a secret.

    And as far as Mormons having more legitimacy that gays, shall we compare lists of accomplishments. Within their covertly theocratic Utah enclave they operate just fine, but how many great Americans that were/are Mormon can you name on one hand? As for gay Americans however, or great figures in western history for that matter – Google.

  • Stephen

    You say tomato, I say tomato. We can do the “rational/irrational” dance all day. At this point, it is moot.

    It is also self-negating to say, on the one hand, that we can empirically know what they are up to by their actions, and then to also say people do not live by their convictions. So which is it?

    Normally, people are not held in suspicion unless they behave that way. In the case of Mormons, the secretive aspect of their religion is a rational basis for being suspicious of them and their intentions. There is nothing “un-empirical” about the secretive way Mormons operate. It is a “fair question” and one we cannot answer as to why. Again, we, the American public, are left out of consideration. We can’t even say that about a Muslim. Their faith is not a secret.

    And as far as Mormons having more legitimacy that gays, shall we compare lists of accomplishments. Within their covertly theocratic Utah enclave they operate just fine, but how many great Americans that were/are Mormon can you name on one hand? As for gay Americans however, or great figures in western history for that matter – Google.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It seems to me that Mormons are being judged negatively based on what is not known about them, their good behavior notwithstanding. Whereas gays are being judged positively despite what is known about them.

    Just looks like plain old prejudice to me.

    No matter. Mormons will likely continue to overcome as long as they adhere to the successful model of virtue and family based culture. They may come to be despised for that success by those who are envious. It is unlikely they will be celebrated for it. Diversity is great until someone does something different.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It seems to me that Mormons are being judged negatively based on what is not known about them, their good behavior notwithstanding. Whereas gays are being judged positively despite what is known about them.

    Just looks like plain old prejudice to me.

    No matter. Mormons will likely continue to overcome as long as they adhere to the successful model of virtue and family based culture. They may come to be despised for that success by those who are envious. It is unlikely they will be celebrated for it. Diversity is great until someone does something different.

  • Stephen

    Mormonism is successful for whom? Mormons I guess. And those who don’t fit their rigid worldview, what about them? Ever known any ex-Mormons? I have. It’s not an easy cult to escape.

    And what exactly is it that is known about gays that makes them specifically worse than anyone else? Are gays filling up the prisons, committing violent crimes? No, that would be heterosexuals. But we do a lot about the contributions of gays, and they are numerous. Looks like plain old prejudice to me.

    It isn’t just that we don’t know things about Mormons, it’s that we can’t. Maybe that looks like prejudice, or perhaps it is prudence.

  • Stephen

    Mormonism is successful for whom? Mormons I guess. And those who don’t fit their rigid worldview, what about them? Ever known any ex-Mormons? I have. It’s not an easy cult to escape.

    And what exactly is it that is known about gays that makes them specifically worse than anyone else? Are gays filling up the prisons, committing violent crimes? No, that would be heterosexuals. But we do a lot about the contributions of gays, and they are numerous. Looks like plain old prejudice to me.

    It isn’t just that we don’t know things about Mormons, it’s that we can’t. Maybe that looks like prejudice, or perhaps it is prudence.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It isn’t just that we don’t know things about Mormons, it’s that we can’t.”

    Rationalization hamster.

    Maybe Nation of Islam has some secret plan, too. LOL, Not that it matters. They aren’t competent enough to do too much damage, except perhaps to themselves.

    I think that a combination of factors contributes to the fear of Mormons. First, like I have said, they are extremely competent, cohesive, confident, and conscientious. They follow the classic moral patterns for success. They have strong social institutions. Mormons have the ability to be a real threat. Whereas gays are not a cohesive multigenerational group united by religion and blood like so many Mormons are. Discriminating against Mormons is more like discriminating against Jews. Their high performance creates the potential for a real threat. Gays on the other hand have lots of problems. They have health and social issues, and there is little truly uniting them because they come from all different groups. So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over. They really just want to stop hearing from and about them. Discriminating against gays doesn’t seem sporting.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “It isn’t just that we don’t know things about Mormons, it’s that we can’t.”

    Rationalization hamster.

    Maybe Nation of Islam has some secret plan, too. LOL, Not that it matters. They aren’t competent enough to do too much damage, except perhaps to themselves.

    I think that a combination of factors contributes to the fear of Mormons. First, like I have said, they are extremely competent, cohesive, confident, and conscientious. They follow the classic moral patterns for success. They have strong social institutions. Mormons have the ability to be a real threat. Whereas gays are not a cohesive multigenerational group united by religion and blood like so many Mormons are. Discriminating against Mormons is more like discriminating against Jews. Their high performance creates the potential for a real threat. Gays on the other hand have lots of problems. They have health and social issues, and there is little truly uniting them because they come from all different groups. So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over. They really just want to stop hearing from and about them. Discriminating against gays doesn’t seem sporting.

  • Stephen

    Given that description, we could be describing the Chinese as well as Mormons, and yet their allegiance to the US is always shrouded in suspicion even though we do a lot of business with them. That’s why we fear them too (rationally).

    As far as what was said about gays, I’m sorry, but those descriptions don’t hold water:

    “So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over.”

    If this is so, then why is every fifth or sixth post here about gays predicated on the fear that they are destroying the core morals of the country? They are pariahs for a large swath of the US population, including a lot of Christians with whom they share a faith. Why are we so obsessed with them as a nation if people “just don’t worry” or “people are less likely to fear that, diverse, disorganized groups . . . “? That’s quite frankly laughable.

    Gays ARE a part of all the things you mention, and besides that, they do organize for political purposes just like any other group of citizens. It is their right to petition the government for grievances.

    “They have health and social issues, and there is little truly uniting them because they come from all different groups.”

    Who is this referring to? Put “elderly” or “the poor” and you can say the same things, except for the second part about “little truly uniting them.” Give me a break. What’s left out here is that gays are Americans. They serve in the military, own businesses, raise families and contribute enormously to the well-being and success of this country. And there is no secret cabal running things. Some people would do well to get to know of few of them.

    If Mormons want to run the country, they need to be open to scrutiny and they simply are not. They won’t allow it. Fine. Then they can only expect to get so far.

  • Stephen

    Given that description, we could be describing the Chinese as well as Mormons, and yet their allegiance to the US is always shrouded in suspicion even though we do a lot of business with them. That’s why we fear them too (rationally).

    As far as what was said about gays, I’m sorry, but those descriptions don’t hold water:

    “So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over.”

    If this is so, then why is every fifth or sixth post here about gays predicated on the fear that they are destroying the core morals of the country? They are pariahs for a large swath of the US population, including a lot of Christians with whom they share a faith. Why are we so obsessed with them as a nation if people “just don’t worry” or “people are less likely to fear that, diverse, disorganized groups . . . “? That’s quite frankly laughable.

    Gays ARE a part of all the things you mention, and besides that, they do organize for political purposes just like any other group of citizens. It is their right to petition the government for grievances.

    “They have health and social issues, and there is little truly uniting them because they come from all different groups.”

    Who is this referring to? Put “elderly” or “the poor” and you can say the same things, except for the second part about “little truly uniting them.” Give me a break. What’s left out here is that gays are Americans. They serve in the military, own businesses, raise families and contribute enormously to the well-being and success of this country. And there is no secret cabal running things. Some people would do well to get to know of few of them.

    If Mormons want to run the country, they need to be open to scrutiny and they simply are not. They won’t allow it. Fine. Then they can only expect to get so far.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given that description, we could be describing the Chinese as well as Mormons, and yet their allegiance to the US is always shrouded in suspicion even though we do a lot of business with them. That’s why we fear them too (rationally).”

    No. Mormons are united by religion not just a government and race. Also, Mormons are growing, and it is based on healthy family life unlike China where the gov’t issues birth permits and forces abortion. Now, it is rational to fear that kind of brutality, I agree. But the fear of Mormons is that they are as a group more competent, confident, cohesive and conscientious.

    “So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over.”

    Definitely holds water. Gays are diverse and diffuse. A gay kid could come from any background. His identity as gay is unlikely to be promoted by his parents and peers from very early on like Mormon identity or Christian identity. It is completely different. I agree that some are very actively organized politically, but back at home that is going nowhere because they don’t generally pass that identity on like people pass on religion and culture. Gays are culturally and religiously diverse. There is no gay culture in the same way that there is Mormon culture. There is no legacy.

    “If this is so, then why is every fifth or sixth post here about gays predicated on the fear that they are destroying the core morals of the country?”

    No. That is backwards. The fact that homosexuality is normalized is evidence that the core morals of the country have already been destroyed which some would say means decline is inevitable. Acceptance of homosexuality as normal/fine is a symptom of debased thinking, not its cause.

    “They are pariahs for a large swath of the US population,”

    Not really. Most folks don’t care. They would love to be able to ignore the issue since it is not any of their concern.

    “including a lot of Christians with whom they share a faith.”

    Westboro Baptist is not a lot of Christians. Loving Christian brothers are just calling them to repentance, despite how the media may spin it.

    “Why are we so obsessed with them as a nation”

    We aren’t. The media are. Most folks would be happy never to hear about another gay issue ever.

    “if people “just don’t worry” or “people are less likely to fear that, diverse, disorganized groups . . . “? That’s quite frankly laughable.”

    No it isn’t. We really don’t have any reason to fear gays will take over. They just don’t have the ability to do it.

    “Who is this referring to? Put “elderly” or “the poor” and you can say the same things, except for the second part about “little truly uniting them.””

    The elderly and poor aren’t united.

    “What’s left out here is that gays are Americans.”

    Nah, there are gays everywhere. Always have been.

    “They serve in the military, own businesses, raise families and contribute enormously to the well-being and success of this country.”

    Debatable, certainly in terms of cost/benefit. Certainly the statement is more true of Mormons than gays.

    “And there is no secret cabal running things.”

    Well, there is the gay mafia, but I wouldn’t say they are in charge of gays generally.

    “Some people would do well to get to know of few of them.”

    We all know gay people even if we don’t know they are gay. I would hope you would agree that some people would do well to get to know of few Mormons. I like the ones I know. Can you tell? :-)

    FWIW, I also like my gay friends.

    You know, it is actually possible to love people you disagree with. You don’t have to pretend to respect the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or homosexuality to love just the people but still honestly acknowledge their successes and failings.

    “If Mormons want to run the country, they need to be open to scrutiny and they simply are not. They won’t allow it. Fine. Then they can only expect to get so far.”

    This is not true. There already are Mormon politicians. They have been scrutinized except for religion which is constitutionally protected because citizens wanted that to be separate and not among criteria for holding office.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given that description, we could be describing the Chinese as well as Mormons, and yet their allegiance to the US is always shrouded in suspicion even though we do a lot of business with them. That’s why we fear them too (rationally).”

    No. Mormons are united by religion not just a government and race. Also, Mormons are growing, and it is based on healthy family life unlike China where the gov’t issues birth permits and forces abortion. Now, it is rational to fear that kind of brutality, I agree. But the fear of Mormons is that they are as a group more competent, confident, cohesive and conscientious.

    “So, while some gays may be loud and promote policies that are good for themselves at the expense of others, they are so small, fragmented and not growing as a % of population, that folks just don’t worry too much about them. People are less likely to fear that diverse, disorganized groups are going to take over.”

    Definitely holds water. Gays are diverse and diffuse. A gay kid could come from any background. His identity as gay is unlikely to be promoted by his parents and peers from very early on like Mormon identity or Christian identity. It is completely different. I agree that some are very actively organized politically, but back at home that is going nowhere because they don’t generally pass that identity on like people pass on religion and culture. Gays are culturally and religiously diverse. There is no gay culture in the same way that there is Mormon culture. There is no legacy.

    “If this is so, then why is every fifth or sixth post here about gays predicated on the fear that they are destroying the core morals of the country?”

    No. That is backwards. The fact that homosexuality is normalized is evidence that the core morals of the country have already been destroyed which some would say means decline is inevitable. Acceptance of homosexuality as normal/fine is a symptom of debased thinking, not its cause.

    “They are pariahs for a large swath of the US population,”

    Not really. Most folks don’t care. They would love to be able to ignore the issue since it is not any of their concern.

    “including a lot of Christians with whom they share a faith.”

    Westboro Baptist is not a lot of Christians. Loving Christian brothers are just calling them to repentance, despite how the media may spin it.

    “Why are we so obsessed with them as a nation”

    We aren’t. The media are. Most folks would be happy never to hear about another gay issue ever.

    “if people “just don’t worry” or “people are less likely to fear that, diverse, disorganized groups . . . “? That’s quite frankly laughable.”

    No it isn’t. We really don’t have any reason to fear gays will take over. They just don’t have the ability to do it.

    “Who is this referring to? Put “elderly” or “the poor” and you can say the same things, except for the second part about “little truly uniting them.””

    The elderly and poor aren’t united.

    “What’s left out here is that gays are Americans.”

    Nah, there are gays everywhere. Always have been.

    “They serve in the military, own businesses, raise families and contribute enormously to the well-being and success of this country.”

    Debatable, certainly in terms of cost/benefit. Certainly the statement is more true of Mormons than gays.

    “And there is no secret cabal running things.”

    Well, there is the gay mafia, but I wouldn’t say they are in charge of gays generally.

    “Some people would do well to get to know of few of them.”

    We all know gay people even if we don’t know they are gay. I would hope you would agree that some people would do well to get to know of few Mormons. I like the ones I know. Can you tell? :-)

    FWIW, I also like my gay friends.

    You know, it is actually possible to love people you disagree with. You don’t have to pretend to respect the Book of Mormon, the Koran, or homosexuality to love just the people but still honestly acknowledge their successes and failings.

    “If Mormons want to run the country, they need to be open to scrutiny and they simply are not. They won’t allow it. Fine. Then they can only expect to get so far.”

    This is not true. There already are Mormon politicians. They have been scrutinized except for religion which is constitutionally protected because citizens wanted that to be separate and not among criteria for holding office.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X