There are a lot of small four year colleges around, and the competition is tough. We feel it at my university, the University of Minnesota Morris, and it's difficult because we can't honestly say that all those other colleges are bad — they're actually very good because they value the same advantages that we do — small class sizes, personal attention to every student, a curriculum that emphasizes breadth of knowledge and the integration of ideas. So it's always good to see some place where we, as a secular and public liberal arts university, have a clear advantage.
Concordia College is one of our peer institutions, and they certainly do offer a good education. But like many of the small private colleges around, they are affiliated with a religion, in this case the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Like most of these colleges, though, they're not dogmatic about their faith, and you can attend no matter what your religion, or lack of it (colleges that demand adherence to one faith are not our peers at all — they tend to be crap colleges anyway). However, sometimes the board of trustees, or whatever organization is managing the place, will meddle. Such meddling has occurred at Concordia.
The college denied the formation of the student organization Concordia Atheists-Secular Students at Concordia College on the basis that atheism is not in compliance with "college standards," despite the support it received from the Campus Ministry Office.
What "college standards" do atheists not meet? Are we not equal members of the Concordia community? Do we not share the same rights to express our religious views as those that participate in Sunday Night at East or in Tabernacle?
According to the most recent Concordia College Factbook published for the 2008-2009 academic year, upwards of 16 percent of the school population reports no religious affiliation. The group already has 60 members on Facebook, which, just as an example, is 37 more members than the Campus Republicans (a recognized organization) can claim. How can a school deny the recognition of such a sizable minority of its students?
How can they do it? Easy. The college is founded and run by blinkered faith-heads — liberal ones, but still a group with peculiar, irrational biases, and sometimes those biases will flare up and slap students in the face.
The solution is easy, though. If you're thinking of going to college, or have children who will be going to college, you should look into small liberal arts colleges — they really are phenomenal places for learning. But you should also emphasize that you want to attend a secular, public liberal arts college; one that doesn't give a damn about your religion. Like (shameless plug) UMM.
We also welcome transfer students.
- Log in to post comments
Wow, that IS surprising. Mostly because Lutherans (at least the ones who raised ME) are so darn passive-aggressive that it's quite unexpected of them to come out and deny a group's formation like that. Silly Lutherans.
Atheists, pah. Those kids are just Satanists in disguise. Of course YOU support the invasion of good Christian schools by the foot soldiers of Lucifer.
That's easy, PZ. The standards are those of their god, that Yahweh, Jehovah fellah. You know, slavery, genocide, rape, killing gays, etc.
Uh oh, PZed. I think you've just been caught proselytising.
Even your advertising of your university is a slap in the face to "faith-heads".
Your administration must love getting mail about you ;)
Metz,
When it comes to colleges they call it recruitment.
I wonder if someone on the Concordia-Moorhead board got confused because all of the other Concordias in the US are LC-MS and he thought this one should act like it's LC-MS, too.
I recall attending several parties at Concordia & Moorhead State (now MSU-M; Hi, Ron!) when I went to NDSU in the mid 70s. They seemed pretty normal back then. But, you know, things change.
For those of you wanting to stay in warmer climes, the University of South Florida (in Tampa) has a rather active chapter of the Secular Student Alliance.
Shortly after returning from the Peace Corps in Africa, I got a job teaching physics, math and chemistry at a 4-year college in Appalachia. One of my classes was Probability and Statistics. To avoid the usual chalk-and-talk lectures, I decided to acquaint the students with some applied probability using a deck of cards. I looked all through the student bookstore, unable to find anything even remotely resembling playing cards. When I asked the lady who ran said establishment where I might find the cards, she looked at me over her glasses, glanced around as if searching for a tissue with which she could handle me and said icily, "We don't sell playing cards here. This is a religious institution."
Wow! And these were the frigging Presbyterians.
PZ:
I'm a huge fan of public education, including at the post-secondary level, but I feel bound to point out that secular and private are far from mutually exclusive. During my daughter's college search (mostly in southern New England), we visited quite a number of private liberal arts colleges that were aggressively liberal and conspicuously friendly to secularists of all stripes... even in some cases where the school has a (historically distant) legacy of church involvement. Yale, where my daughter ended up, was, of course, founded with an explicitly religious mission, but is currently, as a community, about as friendly to atheists and secularists as anyplace you could imagine.
Jus' sayin'....
You might get some transfer students and even professors from Mississippi, PZ--some Republican halfwit here has introduced a bill that would do away with tenure for professors altogether. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/HB/0300-0399/HB0329…
Probably all e-mails with the words "PZ", "Myers", "Meyers", "God", "faith", "atheism" etc. etc. in them are forwarded straight to /dev/null by the mail server.
Wow, an organization fails to support another organization whose objectives and ideas would result its destruction. Color me shocked (if the colr shocked is unavailable because your thought a box of 24 was good enough, use a nice magenta.)
history punk (@13):
The existence of a club for atheist students would result in the destruction of a college merely because that college is church affiliated??? A small group of like-minded undergraduates represents such a grievous threat to its college and the instutition that establish it that it can't be suffered to congregate???
WTF are you smoking, and where can I get some?
One of Concordia's biology professors is a Jebus-freak. He has a link to an article titled, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
Why have science at all then?
Actually, it stated that atheism isn't in compliance with the college standards, not atheists. I think there's a bit of a difference between the position and the people who hold the position.
stptrck75,
I just skimmed that article, and it seemed to me a good one. Its purpose is to share with the author's fellow Xians why radiometric dating works fine and cannot be dismissed in favor if YEC delusion.
So overall, I would put that article to the credit of its author. He took the risk of attracting the ire of his religion participants to set the record straight, and he also demonstrates that it's possible to do good science even though you have some religious faith.
Did I miss something?
...and you're surprised why?
[jon_stewart_mode]WEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRD!![/jon_stewart_mode]
Wait, isn't ELCA Michelle Bachmann's church? If so, this shouldn't be a surprise.
That's dumb. Everyone knows you need more faith to believe in evolution than God, so we atheists are actually quite religious. They have a problem with religious groups?
Man, I wish Christians had some sort of book they could all read from or something so they'd be much less subjective in their beliefs.
It's a pity.
My wife got a great education at Concordia in Portland, OR and no one ever asked her once about our evil secular ways.
"The existence of a club for atheist students would result in the destruction of a college merely because that college is church affiliated??? A small group of like-minded undergraduates represents such a grievous threat to its college and the instutition that establish it that it can't be suffered to congregate???"
I work in the public history field. Few in the public history field, other than volunteers, support the Libertarian Party. Why? because if the Libertarians took charge, the public history field would collapse with the withdraw of public funding. Donations, corporate support, and volunteering cannot pay for or provide the things necessary for the field. Volunteers can learn tour scripts and help with events, but few can go out and get the Phds or the MAs and the resulting knowledge and then give that away free for years on end at specific times. Those people have to be paid. That requires state support and that requires politicians who think the state can do good. Thus the public history profession skews hard left- mostly democrats, some green party in areas the democrats are either totally in control (like Baltimore City where I used to live) or weak, the deep south.
Now, if we all go atheist, the Lutheran church goes bye-bye. So, it is perfectly natural for a Lutheran backed college to deny resources like school sanction to such a group.
Now, do agree with their decision? No. Do I think the group actually posed a critical threat to the school or the Lutherans? No. Do think their decision is rational? No. However, I get, however insane, where they are coming from.
I went to a Catholic private college because it's the only one in the state that offers an MLIS. The U of M used to offer a Master of Library/Information Science, but no longer.
It's a mistake for any institution to deny the formation of an atheist group. If the college wants to be Christian, they would enter into a dialog, not act like the Roman Empire.
History punk, by that logic, the college wouldn't support a Muslim club, a Jewish club, or a Catholic club either, and I'm pretty sure all those organizations exist at Concordia.
I dunno. Lutherans generally seem more interested in coffee than in god.
HP continues to show why we consider him several bits short of a dollar.
I don't know where all these comments about the Lutheran sect of Christianity being so mild and liberalized are coming from. Where I'm from, they represent the far-right end of the political spectrum. In fact, the majority of Jack Chick tracts I've been handed have come from people having just been to Lutheran services on sundays.
If asked to pick Christian sects that I thought were most liberal, I would first pick Unitarians(obviously), Methodists, and even Catholics, long before I got to Lutherans.
Steven Mading, there are several different flavors of Lutheran. Wisconsin Synod (WELS) are pretty fundie; Missouri Synod are extreme fundie; but ELCA are generally pretty tame.
I used to teach at a small Lutheran college. They were quite sensible about religion, in that it almost never came up. Despite the horror stories I had heard about the institution under the previous college president, who had been known to summon instructors to his office to give them a lecture starting with the phrase, "I've noticed that your wife hasn't been attending church as often as she might be able to...."
But I really have to laugh every time I hear someone brag that their university or college has "small class sizes". I currently teach at a college where the classes have a maximum of 18 students, and I've been known to teach sections of no more than two students.
You missed the point because you are stupid and crazy.
A religious institution that thinks the Thought Police is a good thing? Pretty normal really. But that doesn't make it ethical or desirable.
When are they going to start burning the heretics and apostates at the stake again? This was standard xian practice until people got tired of it and took away their guns, rope, and firewood.
Concordia college was created centuries too late. The New Minnesota Inquisition isn't going to go over too well with some of the population. OTOH, the Michelle Bachmann segment is undoubtedly drooling at the idea.
Michelle Bachmann is a WELS. They are extreme fundie. Right on their website it says that the Pope is the antichrist.
Oddly enough, in Minnesota she probably gets more than a few Catholic votes anyway.
Doesn't look like the Lutherans are real confident about their god anymore. Afraid of a Skeptics club? Is their triune god sleeping, dead, or nonexistent.
NitricAcid:
Yes, that really is quite pathetic!
NitricAcid (continued...):
Ha!
:P
Aww. I'd love to, especially if I got to be in one of your classes, PZ. But, you guys don't have my major. :(
(However, I also think it's wicked-cool that you have a create your own major option)
@history punk,
If the College also denies the formation of all Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucianist, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Animist, and all non-Lutheran Christan student groups, since if everyone adopted any one of these faiths the Lutheran Church goes poof as well, then you would have something resembling a point.
If not, you don't.
Like University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, where I teach! COPLAC schools, represent!
The beauty of trinitarian theology is that he can be all of these things at once.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, eh?
My point, QC#33, was that when recruiters boast that their college has the advantage of "small class sizes", they usually mean the classes are as small as 40 students. Or sometimes 30.
I went to a local "Concordia" (these Lutheran Concordias are popping up everywhere now), and came out with a Masters. I am proud saying that I was likely the only atheist in the bunch. One of the requirements around here is that graduate studies cannot have any religious required component, such as religious studies. I never took a single religious study course, and was never indoctrinated or even preached to. Not all are bad, but not all are good either. I would happily recommend the school I went to to others.
IIRC, any college that receives federal funds of almost any type must not discrimate based on a number of things, including religion or lack thereof, to continue to receive federal funds.
@27:
If there were a Hell, its lowest dungeon would be reserved for people who "fixed that for you".
history punk (@22):
First: So you're saying that regardless of what you might actually believe is broadly, philosophically true, you will espouse whatever political party gives you the best chance of retaining your own personal job? Mind you, I'm not really accusing you of being quite that mercenary, but surely you can see how vulnerable what you wrote is to being read that way, whether innocently or deliberately. The very Libertarians at whom you take potshots would be particularly predisposed to understand your comments in cold, "market-based" terms.
Next: If the edifice of Christianity were quite that vulnerable to the social gatherings of some college kids, it would have already vanished from the Earth long since.
Further: What truthspeaker said (@24).
Still Further: A university's first duty is to the intellectual development of its students. If the Lutheran church "goes bye-bye" because Concordia does too good a job, my guess is that it would not mean that Concordia itself would "go bye-bye." An institution that consequential would no doubt be able to find any number of other sponsors... if, indeed, its endowment and other income streams aren't already sufficient to keep it alive independently of the church.
Finally: My political mentor is a sophomore at Georgetown (yes, a 49 year old man calls a kid his daughter's age his "political mentor"; got a problem with that?), which is by all accounts generally a less secular and more conservative place than Concordia is described as in PZ's post. As far as I can discover, there's no official atheist student organization at Georgetown, but my liberal gay atheist friend nevertheless feels right at home there, and has risen to prominence within the student government... and to my knowledge, neither GU nor the Jesuit order is teetering on the edge of extinction.
There's just precious little evidence that atheist students — either separately or in groups — pose any credible threat to the continued existence of their schools or the churches that sponsor them. You may be able to "get ... where [Concordia is] coming from," but that doesn't mean where they're coming from is a nonfictional place.
Andreas @ 43
Really, you think I deserve to spend eternity with Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggert?
Andreas Johansson (@43):
No, if there were a Hell, its lowest dungeon would be reserved for people who say "If there were a Hell, its lowest dungeon would be reserved for people who...."
Bill @ #46 (and Andreas, but mostly for Andreas)
I tend to agree with that.
but ELCA are generally pretty tame.
That's why so many congregations around here are talking about leaving the ELCA. The national church apparently isn't rabidly anti-gay enough for North Dakotans.
Sorry! My mistake. In that case, this silliness on ELCA's part is a totally separate issue from whatever church manages to hold onto Congresswoman Crazypants. Never mind!
"Do we not share the same rights to express our religious views as those that participate in Sunday Night at East or in Tabernacle?"
Uh - what religious views? Since when was godlessness a religion? Perhaps they meant "views of religion" - or else the author is confused and agrees with the lie that godlessness is a religion.
The bigger issue, in a time & place (today, in the USA) is that people are trying to reduce government spending & let religious institutions pick up the slack (on the taxpayers dime, of course). The fundie wet dream is that education (as well as welfare, counseling, etc) would be done by religious institutions.
Places like Concordia hang between being two goals - claiming religious roots but providing secular services.
"Good" religious institutions will dampen the religion when they supply the secular service. "Bad" religious institutions will use their position to proselytize and enforce their religious rules on people who are forced to use them because the alternative is gone.
As an example, the PTA Council I was in needed a place to hold a meeting. The few public facilities were booked or too small, so the local Methodist church offered a room. Very nice of them & I like Methodists, but...the minister proceeded to offer a prayer before the meeting started. It burned my butt that religion was injected into a purely secular organization.
People don't want to pay the taxes so that government buildings have facilities; they want to keep the money, donate it to a church (& get a deduction their income tax) which uses it to build facilities they control (also tax exempt).
Sorry PZ, but I had a difficult enough time convincing the boyfriend to move to Fargo. No way I could get him to move to Morris. So, it's NDSU for me, not UMM :-p
Sorry PZ, but I had a difficult enough time convincing the boyfriend to move to Fargo.
You convinced him? Coolness!
Just wondering if anybody knows if the school receives federal funding. If it does then the students do have a legal recourse to the First Amendment. A private institution gives up its ability to discriminate as it wills when it accepts government money over a certain limit.
UM-M doesn't seem to offer any graduate courses so I'd have to get a PhD elsewhere.
I'm considering doing what Alan B is doing and getting another undergraduate degree but only UM-Duluth offers a degree in oceanography. Sorry, PZ, but I think I'm more interested in a Maritime Studies degree from the University of Connecticut-Avery Point.
'Tis:
If you end up in Groton, look me up; I'm in the Hartford area, ~1 hr away.
You convinced him? Coolness!
More like coldness, but not today...
Bill,
I live in Groton.
'Tis:
More and more, I think a CT/Southern New England Pharyngulite meetup is in order!
More and more, I think a CT/Southern New England Pharyngulite meetup is in order!
Well, MAJeff, Jadehawk, I tend to agree...a Red River Valley Pharyngulite meetup? There's more of us in the blasted wasteland, as I remember.
Bill Dauphin@46:
No, if there were a Hell, its lowest dungeon would be reserved for Friday night keggers, ice skating and skiing, along with the access tunnel to Heaven. Heck, it would be so popular that people would betray their mothers, sell their friends out to the cops for thirty pieces of silver, or even stab their friends in the back, just to get in. It would also have a working ventilation system.
I know all this because it was written down in this book several hundred years ago. Heck, if you can't trust really old books, what can you trust?
The slight fact that the middle part of the book says that the only land in the Southern Hemisphere is a giant mountain sticking out of the sea directly contradicts my current physical location in Australia is merely proof that the continents moved a lot faster hundreds of years ago - just like the YEC claim! I'm guessing that Australia was hanging out near Japan eating sushi and annoying the local whalers.
Religion isn't the problem here. It's the acronym - Concordia Atheists-Secular Students, Concordia ASS.
yeah; now I just need to convince NDSU to admit me :-)
as awesome an idea as that is, Fargo and Grand Forks are ATM about 4hrs away by car, and the train stops there in the middle of the night, so unless one of you feels like sacrificing themselves to pick me up/drop me off at the train station at some truly disgusting nighttime hours, I don't think that'll be possible until next year. I'm so not driving my car to Fargo by myself ever again.
Concordia College's public mission statement is as follows: "The purpose of Concordia College is to influence the affairs of the world by sending
into society thoughtful and informed men and women dedicated to the Christian life."
It is bizarre that atheists would affiliate themselves with a college dedicated to a worldview entirely opposite theirs, and it is perverse that atheists would then demand that a college dedicated to Christian life modify its mission to accommodate them. Why the situation is just as bizarre and perverse as creationists demanding that Mr. PZ Myers teach the creationist point of view in his biology classes. I wouldn't fault Mr. Myers for telling the creationists to pack off, and I congratulate Concordia College for telling the atheists to do likewise.
Yawn, Me99 just doesn't get it. Maybe he needs to actually think what equal opportunity means, instead of give religion special privileges, probably with federal money involved...
----->point
----->me99's headIn case you haven't noticed, the whole point of this thread was that one is better off at a secular institution, because one can't expect actual fairness and acceptance of diversity from a Christian institution.
*coffee through nose*
Jadehawk:
#63 simply proves that you're insufficiently conniving and self centered: If you offered to "host" (which could really amount to just finding a congenial bar), you could make them all come to you! ;^)
Umm, that's not reasonably supportable.
The "creationist point of view" is demonstrably false regarding the facts of not only evolution and biology, but geology and astronomy. Not wanting to teach lies by "telling the creationists to pack off" is not a proportionate comparison.
I wonder if creationist groups are allowed on secular campuses. Hmmm.
D'Oh! @69, I meant to refer to #64.
Jadehawk
What Bill said @ 69. I'd drive, though meeting the late-nite train is no problem, either. Pain-in-the-ass it's always late, but the website keeps one duly informed.
And MAJeff, I live across the alley from UND. No trains needed.
Shrink the cap and add the word nui to my handle; the gee thingy.
This reminds me of when the group USN Out, a group of glbt graduates of the US Naval Academy, tried to join as one of the Naval Academy's officially recognized alumni group.
They were turned down twice for reasons as weak as those Concordia used to turn down the athiests-secular student group. They can't even tolerate the gays after they leave the service. Pathetic.
See usnout.org for more details.
I'm so taking you up on that. Now all we need to make it happen is for MAJeff to agree to the meetup, and someone to actually set a date for it :-)
@ 75
I'm so taking you up on that.
The first step is getting in touch. See @ 73.
More like coldness, but not today...
I know! There was actual melting taking place!
Well, MAJeff, Jadehawk, I tend to agree...a Red River Valley Pharyngulite meetup? There's more of us in the blasted wasteland, as I remember.
There did seem to be a few more.
Fargo is likely better. It has Asian food.
While I was doing a similar tour with my son, I noticed that the folks at Penn were happy to remind us more than once that it was the only Ivy League school that had no religious affiliation at the time of organization. Now, all of them are used in congregations throughout the land as a warning against the evils of secular education.
That's not true, Cornell never had any religious affiliation either.
Midnight -
Agreed. Penn did have a century's advantage on Cornell, though. Maybe they don't think Cornell is "really" Ivy.
Or I misremembered exactly what they were boasting about, maybe it was that it was the _first_ secular college.
A college named after a foundational document of a religious movement and supported by the funds of a religious institution found by that movement thinks it is improper to support a group denying the very belief upon which the college is founded and named.
How unreasonable.
Next thing you are going to tell me is that an atheist newsletter will think it improper to sell add space to the Pope.
aaaaand another one who doesn't get it. let me quote myself, since yumacat clearly didn't actually read the thread before posting:
Not all Concordia post-secondary institutions are religious -- Concordia University in Montreal is pretty much secular (even though one of it's founding colleges was Jesuit)
Well you missed the point. This is because you are stupid. Must have gone to a religious grade school and couldn't even graduate from that. I'll type real slow and maybe you will catch it.
No one denies that Concordia can make up whatever arbitrary stupid rules it wants as long as it doesn't receive federal funding. If they want to force their founding religious cult on their paying customers, they can. They just did.
But why would anyone pay good money to be treated like a retarded child at a university?
Don't have anything to do with anything that has xian associated with it. Religion poisons everything.
If you want a good education at a small university, there are many such that won't restrict your freedom of thought, belief, expression, or activities. At UMM for example, you can still be a xian and join xian student organizations of which there are probably many. Or you can join a skeptics group. You have choices and there are no thought police.
At religious schools, it won't be that way. You will either think what they tell you to think, or shut up. Some of them are far more restrictive than that. Some of them would (and may still do so) expell people for .....dating someone of another race.
Don't waste good money on a religious college or university. The secular ones are just as good, many are far better and they are usually the same price or cheaper. Plus you are only young once, might as well take advantage of it.
A religious university can't be a University, it's as simple as that. A university has to be universal; it has to welcome the universe of ideas. It can't allow just one idea (especially a crap one).
Xenithrys, sure it can.
Humour fail? Proselytise := recruit, but with (intentional) religious connotations :-\
RSEVANS, JAD is an obsessed kook. :)
Anyway, he's not been ignored (just search for his name in the search box conveniently located at the top of the page).
Because he loves it so?
The peer reviewed literature is open to his ideas, as long as they are scientific, as JAD well knows. Why is he afraid of his peers? One would think he knows he is a kook, and no longer able to convince his peers...
Because JAD is an increasingly senile old inconsequential kook?
That's like asking why someone won't debate Mr. Magoo
And Jadehawk misunderstood my sarcasim and Raven exposed that the only way he or she can make a point is through name-calling and blind prejudice for those who take an opposing opinion.
First, Jadehawk, I realize that you were saying that secular schools are more tolerate of religious freedoms than religious based schools. Well...yeah. It is a religious school. Of course it is going to be less tolerant of religious diversity. I disagree, however, that secular schools are more tolerant in all areas that religious schools. Having spent a good chunk of time around Cal-Berkeley, the most secular of all schools, I also found it one of the most intolerant in terms of those who do not share the Berkeley Utopian vision. They claim tolerance until it is not their kind of tolerance, then you are labeled stupid, simple and uneducated. It was so funny that every other place I lived I was accused of being a raging liberal and in Berkeley I was made out to be some kind of Rush Limbaugh.
Anyway... Raven, I attended public schools for grade school, high school, and I attended and graduated from a state university (The University of Arizona). When I was thirty, I did switch careers and became a Lutheran pastor, which required four years of seminary, but that was the only private education I have had my entire life, and two years of that was at the Graduate Theological Union near Cal-Berkeley. So, before you go throwing out names and assumption and bellowing about the intolerance and mind-controlled religious minions that are out to get you, perhaps you need to back away from the secular humanist kool-aid yourself.
And, whoever said the University system cannot be a "religious" system: Do a little historical and etymological research.
Oh, and Raven, it is interesting that you refer to Christians as "xians". I am assuming that is a take on the "X-mas", which some uninformed Christians think is actually a secular abbreviation and insult for the holiday. Actually, "X" or "XP" (sorry, I don't have the Greek fonts) are known throughout Christian history for standing for the Greek - (the language in which the New Testament was written) - word "Christos" or "Christ". In fact, the banners hanging in our church has a big "X" symbol on it. Do you use this abbreviation to economize your words or is it a failed attempt at an insult?
unless you had Berkeley refuse to let you have a harmless club, it's not a comparable situation. Please, don't make yourself look silly. Tolerance doesn't mean not having what you're saying called out as bullshit if that's what they are. Tolerance means not preventing you from publicly saying it.
take your haughty condescensions somewhere else, please. you're not telling us anything we don't already know.
Another poster with point whooshing 5000 ft above his head. Nobody says religious studies cannot or should not occur at public universities. What we say, is that religion should not prevent the formation of atheist/secular student groups, especially if the college/university receives any federal monies. Which almost all but the most rabid fundy schools do these days. Nobody should be discriminated against because they don't believe in imaginary deities, which is what PZ stated in original post. Religion should be side matter for delusional fools at every institution of higher learning except divinity colleges and seminaries. That is our point.
Nerd, what he meant was comment #86; which was promptly corrected in #87, so I've no flaming clue why he felt the need to even mention it, nevermind doing it as condescendingly as he did.
No, no one said we could not open up a club. I was threatened and intimidated with bodily harm by a mob engaged in a "non-violent" demonstration for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time...
When you pointed out that I answered a post already answered, you were right. I missed it. As to the tone in which it was answered: if people are claiming open minded intellectual superiority because they are not handicapped by religious belief then at least get the "objective" facts right.
I do apologize if I came across as mean-spirited; however, if you look, I never called anyone any names, as did Raven, or challenge anyone's intelligence. All I did was sarcastically point out the hypocrisy I see in some of these posts and challenge Raven that his personal attacks may reveal his own prejudices and close-mindedness. Even with him, I believe all I said was that his response "reveals" his ability to respond without name calling and I implied that he was exhibiting the same self-righteous delusions of which he claims religious people of having.
I never accused him or you of being stupid, deluded or immoral because you are an atheist, because I don't believe that you are and I do not believe most atheists are. You are obviously an intelligent person; Raven, the posted evidence is not so clear.
However, here is one of the "open-minded" comments in this blog...
"Nobody should be discriminated against because they don't believe in imaginary deities, which is what PZ stated in original post. Religion should be side matter for delusional fools at every institution of higher learning except divinity colleges and seminaries. That is our point."
"Imaginary deities" "delusional fools". What is really sad is that I basically agree. No one should be discriminated against in the public sphere because of their religious or non-religious belief. I would be totally against such discrimination in a public institution and would I not expect an atheist school to allow religious clubs.
But by the increasingly "condescending" tone of this and other atheist voices, it is hard not to get defensive even when you basically agree with them.
I get it; you do not believe in God. But is it necessary to constantly give condescending slaps to those who do like somehow the faith and belief that I have is no more valid than a child's belief in Santa Claus? Even if you think it isn't any more valid, even if personally you do not understand how any educated person could believe in God, does your failure to understand how I can believe automatically mean that otherwise intelligent individuals of faith are "fools"? It sure seems like it. But, I also freely admit that atheists are often just reflecting back the attitude that they have received by being unfairly labeled unethical and immoral just because they do not believe in God.
I really did not mean to offend anybody. My sarcasm was only intended to make a point. If it came across otherwise, I do apologize. I don't know it all and I know that Christians have often times acted as if they do - but so do atheists.
And my only point about your original post was that it is a religious school. If you "trusted" the ELCA to act differently just because we Lutherans are more liberal than the average Christian, then I think your expectations were a bit off. I understand, you believe that secular schools are more open-minded, tolerant and give a better rounded education than religious schools. I don't agree, but I understand and respect your opinion.
leebennight,
Care to explain just how it it is more valid, and in what sense it differs?
Santa Claus knows if you've been good or bad, and gives you pressies or coal accordingly. Somehow, this is achieved via one's parents, relatives and friends.
God knows if you've been good or bad, and judges you to Heaven or Hell accordingly. Somehow, this is known to be true because (?).
PS You came here with your vacuous claims; you don't want "slaps", don't post inane comments.
Oh yeah,
Why the scare quotes?
I will admit, your defensiveness is understandable, since your position is untenable.
if you thought my complaint about your responses was about their tone, then I have not expressed myself clearly. What I was saying is that your condescending assumptions that we don't know what we're talking about are not making you any friends here. Tone is irrelevant. Swearing is irrelevant, as well, and complaining about it on this blog is seen as a sign of not being able or willing to respond to the substance of a post. After all, the sentence "the earth is an oblate spheroid" isn't any more correct than the statement "the earth is an oblate spheroid, asshole".
as for your complaint that your beliefs are treated no more seriously than the belief in Santa Claus... well, from where I'm standing, they both look equally silly. Actually, no; at least, kids who believe in Santa have evidence in the form of eaten cookies and drunk milk, and gifts on Christmas morning. Christianity doesn't even have that much going for it. I see no reason to give it more respect just because it's something adults believe in.
And let me repeat what I said in my previous post: no one has the right not to be criticized or made fun of. sorry. if your beliefs are silly, we'll laugh at them. Unless you can show some evidence that they aren't silly.
John,
I really don't see how your confrontational approach is constructive.
;P
If I think your belief in The Big Guy In The Sky is foolish and that your belief makes you a fool, then why shouldn't I call you a fool? If you say that 2+2=5 then I'm justified in calling you a fool, especially since you brag about having been educated way past the 3rd grade. In a similar way, if you say that you believe in The Big Guy In The Sky then you're a fool. If you don't like being called a fool for having a foolish belief, that's your problem, not mine.
SC, have you been drinking?
SC, I stand "corrected".
(PS I think I love you!)
?
It was a reference to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/haiti_needs_help.php#comment…
Please let me know if you need a bouncing ball for any other comments. (I know I can sometimes make leaps that others can't be expected to follow...)
:) Nah, you probably had a semi-point there, as I semi-acknowledged. Just teasing.
*blush*
I think I love you.
If you have any coherent points, I missed them in the rambling tangle. Most of us, myself included have a lot more education than you. Nice try at condescension and sarcasm but it missed the mark. Xian is a 1700 year old abbreviation invented by xians to describe xians.
Most of us are also ex-Xians. We know of what we speak.
You also didn't address any of the real points we made. Once again they are listed below and numbered.
The point PZ made was that religious universities will inevitably restrict your freedom of thought and expression while charging you money. These are mind control cults after all.
But you have a choice in the USA. You can always go to a secular public or private university.
College is frightfully expensive these days compared with even my past. And people are only young once. Concordia ECLA or UMM? Well, for nonLutherans especially nonXians, Concordia just told everyone which to choose. UMM.
SC, ah. Of course, in that comment I was referring to a very specific commenter¹ (whom I also love!).
[Yes, I've been drinking.]
--
¹ And she's made an offer I've accepted. :)
I can use a red rubber ball.
'raspberry'
Internet tramp. :)
Oh, not I.
(...What?)
OK, I officially hate them.
WTH????? Have you been asleep for the last 20 years? Pay attention, it is 2010.
The fundie death cult xians have already put a big down payment on destroying the USA, that 8 year Bush catastrophe.
The fundies are all xian Dominionist who openly hate the USA, seek to destroy it, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. They says so all the time. They sponsor xian terrorists who occasionally assassinate MDs.
As scientists, we have all been victims of the War against Science, said to be the only war that Bushco made any progress with.
Two of my friends are dead in Iraq.
Xians created the New Atheists. Dobson makes more atheists in a day than PZ or Dawkins does in a year. And it isn't just asthetics or common sense. It is a matter of personal and national survival.
Don't play the xian persecution card. It's stupid and it is a lie.
The No Religions are 24% of the population, growing rapidly, and US xianity is definitely on the skids downhill.
As a Lutheran, you probably feel that none of the malevolent hate, violence, and general evil of the fundies has anything to do with you. You may even be right. My natal sects weren't into hating gays or overthrowing the US government. Their big thing was eliminating poverty and world peace.
But the moderates mostly stood mute and apathetic while the fundies took over the US religion. And BTW, the fundies hate scientists, atheists, No Religions, Democrats, gays, and on and on. They hate you too. Xians have a 2,000 year history of hating each other and occasionally fighting wars. As I recall, the Lutherans and Catholics fought a war that killed tens of millions of people.
SC, smash the market place!
"God knows if you've been good or bad, and judges you to Heaven or Hell accordingly."
John,
You are misinformed about the Christian Gospel message. God does not send people to heaven or hell based upon the good or bad a person does. It is about faith given to us by grace. I realize that this is probably not a distinction about which you wish to unpack or even have corrected, but actually Christian faith is the opposite of that of Santa Claus.
I also see you quoted this part of my response but did not answer my question as to whether or not the intelligence of those who believe in God can be summarily dismissed just because they believe. Although, your lack of an answer probably is my answer.
As to the "scare" quotes: I am typing at 10:00 at night on a computer with sticky keys and in a font that I can't seem to change and that is small enough to thwart even my bifocals. Therefore, I must admit I am not writing in the most professional manner at the moment. The quotes were unnecessary, but I also think quite irrelevant to the point.
Also, you say my position is untenable and that basically my vacuous claims deserved this response. Your response merely proves my point because you did not deal with any but the most superficial points and grammatical errors in my post; then, you take the next illogical step of summarily labeling the whole as untenable. You may not agree with what I said, but they are neither vacuous nor untenable. You just don't agree with them.
As to me being defensive: I am not defensive because someone disagrees with me or even that someone may call me to task for being condescending. I believe I did apologize for that. What I am defensive about is the mindless name calling and demeaning behavior that until recently has been usually employed by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims rather than agnostics and atheists who historically have used their faith in facts and reasoned arguments to make their points instead of bullying people with uneducated rhetoric. Such tactics will do no more in promoting the virtues of atheism than it has in promoting the tolerance of Christianity.
I am not going to take up any more post space because I know this has evolved into something that is way off topic from the original post. Therefore, if any wish me to respond, you may e-mail be directly at leebennight@gmail.com and provide your e-mail in kind.
Good night.
Nice! Fuck, what does that remind me of? Something by Mano Negra...?
leebennight and hed-dle, sittin' in a tree...
Shorter leebennight:
*pout!*
Evidence for your monster-deity, or STFU.
"Everything I type comes out in Comic Sans!"
OK, this will be the last one. I write too slow and lots of other good posts. This one particular stuck me...
"Swearing is irrelevant, as well, and complaining about it on this blog is seen as a sign of not being able or willing to respond to the substance of a post. After all, the sentence "the earth is an oblate spheroid" isn't any more correct than the statement "the earth is an oblate spheroid, asshole".
This is true when judged from a scientific perspective. When judged from a literary, sociological or dare I say, religious, perspective, the two statements are different because they are not being judged by the scientific facts that it conveys but by the intangible flavor of language, personal motives and beliefs in what is acceptable language. I think this is one of the challenges that Christians and Atheists have in talking with one another: we judge the same things by different criteria, which each feels is of more value than the other.
It is also the critical mistake that fundamentalists make in trying to make Scripture a science and biology textbook. It was never created to be such a thing. It was intended to convey faith. Some feel that their faith in God is threatened if somehow a seven day creation or if Noah's Ark cannot be provided as scientific and historic fact. And it does make them look like fools to try because it is a foolish and irrelevant task. It's like trying to write a poem by using a calculator.
The use of myth has been much understood and devalued by much of the fundamentalist right. Myth is usually equated with something not being true; actually, myth is used to convey a truth. Did George Washington actually chop down the cherry tree? I don't know; probably not. But is the story true? Yes, in that it conveys the truth of his honesty that many people witnessed and experienced and his willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. This is the way that most of the Bible is written; therefore, those who try to defend it by literally proving it actually undermine the truth that it contains.
OK. Now I am getting tired and rambling.
I know that you all know and realize this, especially the author of the original post, and I really did not mean to cause offense. I do enjoy these type of discussions and I am truly sorry if I came across poorly.
No, you are just rambling like any other godbot trying to prove he isn't a rambler because he can think clearly. It comes out as a ramble every time.
Myth is usually equated with something not being true; actually, myth is used to convey a truth. Did George Washington actually chop down the cherry tree? I don't know; probably not. But is the story true? Yes, in that it conveys the truth of his honesty that many people witnessed and experienced and his willingness to accept responsibility for his actions.
I am sure that the story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree was by Irving Washington, a fiction about a real person. You cannot compare that to the story of Christ. There is no evidence that he existed.
leebennight:
Ah, you're one of those.
Lessee... Torquemada and Jeffrey Dahmer will go to heaven; Ghandi and Siddhārtha Gautama will go to hell.
Right. Your eisegesis is noted.
It was not worth responding to. :)
The smarter someone is, the better they are at delusion and self-sophistry. It's a matter of intellectual honesty and epistemology, not of intelligence.
Well, allow me to make it clear.
It was indeed condescending, not "condescending".
Right. Nice flounce, but needless.
After the first hectocomment or so (and a couple of days), thread drift is expected.
I'm pretty sure you're not out-of-line in responding to me or others here.
Please feel free, unless you want me (and possibly others) to think you're withdrawing from confrontation about your beliefs because you know they're unsustainable.
Friendly word of advice: it's not a good idea to post an unobfuscated email address on the internet.
Not if he didn't, no.
So...
Evidence for the existence of your deity?
Here at Pharyngula we have a term, "tone troll," which rather neatly describes you. All too often we get people arguing against evolution. One of their favorite arguments is "you guys are potty-mouthed therefore evolution is false." You're not quite at that level but not far from it.
"Acceptable language" is a relative thing. When I was in the Navy the language used aboard my ship would be considered "unacceptable" in the vicarage parlor. At this website, the ultimate arbitrator of what is or is not acceptable language is Professor Myers. While he doesn't indulge in "naughty words" often, he does so on occasion. He certainly has not expressed any objection to other people using vulgar words and phrases. Quite the contrary, in fact.
If you're familiar with the works of the late A. Bertram Chandler then you know his most famous quote: "This is Liberty Hall, you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard."
Welcome to Liberty Hall.
Are Aesop's fables true?
Janine,
The story about Washington and the cherry tree was invented by Parson Mason Locke Weems for a book published in 1809.
Thank you, 'Tis. I knew the story was an invention, not a myth.
It needs a few years yet to ferment before it becomes a myth.
Religion is the vinegar of myths.
there you go again, presuming we aren't familiar with the many different flavors of Christianity. Seriously, stop. We have had every sort of it thrown at us at some point or another; and in any case, the details of theology aren't relevant as long as the base is made up of whole cloth. It really doesn't matter what shape you think the emperor's buttons are, when the evidence says the emperor isn't wearing any clothes to begin with.
I didn't claim that the two statements weren't different; I claim they're both equally true. Just because religious types must resort to Appeals to Authority (and with it the evaluation of the character of said authority) because they lack evidence for their positions, doesn't mean that's an actually valid way of determining whether something is true or not; not even in sociological contexts, as you seem to think. There are no "other ways of knowing".
Why is it that the goddists all think we've been living in caves, raised by wolves, and never been exposed to Christianity?
I had 12 years of Catholic education. It was an argument I had with a monk in 8th grade religion class that started me on the road to atheism. I know many other Pharyngula regulars have similar backgrounds. So please don't assume that we're "misinformed" about Christianity. Most of us were steeped in Christianity before we realized how absurd a belief it is.
And once again we have a christian telling us what we do or don't know about their religion, as if we were born under a rock. Seems to happen a few times a week, doesn't it? Well, for your information my father used to preach, and I've spent time behind the pulpit myself. The difference is that now I read the Bible with an open mind, not assuming that it is true or that the actions described are justified, but letting it attempt to provide its own evidence and justifications. It fails.
It seems that the people who wrote your mythology couldn't make their mind up on that.
The answer to those who claim that "all ya gots ta do is believe ta be saved" is to quote James 2:17: