ROLLINS COLLEGE DRAMA CONTINUES

Yesterday, we addressed news reports about a Rollins College student, Marshall Polston, who was suspended following an exchange with his professor, Areeje Zufari. It is claimed that Zufari punished Polston after he disagreed with her comments saying Jesus was not crucified and his apostles did not believe he was divine. Rollins suspended Polston citing threats that he made.

•Keen says the student was not suspended for his “disagreements with the professor, or these classroom activities.” Rather, “it was related to a ‘different’ incident with a student.” No details were given.

•In her story in the Orlando Sentinel, Russon says the professor “filed a ‘protection against stalking’ request” against the student last Friday. Rollins then suspended him. No one questions the filing or the injunction. But is there evidence that he actually stalked her? Or did she file the complaint believing he might stalk her?

•The injunction, Russon says, lists the nature of the professor’s problems with the student. “He has disrupted class twice (we’ve only had two classes) with antagonizing interjections, contradicting me and monopolizing class time.” As a former professor, this complaint reads as an indictment of the professor, not the student. “Antagonizing interjections”? Meaning he sharply disagreed? More important, since when has it been regarded as inappropriate student behavior to “contradict” a professor? Why isn’t this simply a matter of free speech? Similarly, did he not allow other students to speak—did he filibuster?—or was he overly talkative?

•Russon says of the professor, “She wanted him out of her class.” Precisely—this says it all.

"So who is this unnamed student who was “threatened” by Polston? Was it the Muslim male student who justified “beheading for gays and adulterers”? This is not a matter of dispute. According to Robby Soave in reason.com, “Someone even notified the FBI.” By the way, there is no evidence that Zufari found this comment to be “antagonizing,” nor did she contact public safety officials about this proponent of shariah law.

There are so many outstanding questions—egregious matters left on the table—to make any reasonable observer skeptical, if not cynical, of the account offered by Cornwell and Keen. Only they can clear this matter up, but to do so they need to get specific. Otherwise, we are left with the impression that Zufari was intimidated by Polston, leading her to make false conduct charges against him.

One more thing. Overlooked in this entire issue is the propriety of Zufari telling students that Jesus was not crucified nor was he seen as divine by the apostles. If a Christian professor instructed his students on the merits of the Biblical account, he would be accused of indoctrination. So why isn’t Zufari?"

Jesus was not crucified = fake

Any wonder liberals and Muslims are allied? There is no objective truth in those religions. In one of those religion, “truth” was dictated by God to Muhammed, and not subject to scientific test. In the other, “truth” continually evolves as the shared belief of the elite.

When Shak said the earth is flat is was a joke. When God said it was flat in the Koran, that settled it. The earth only appears to be a globe. It is merely useful for certain purposes to suppose it is round. We make calculations based on the false assumption that the earth is a sphere revolving around the Sun, even though we know from the literally forever true Koran that the earth is flat.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Flat_Earth_and_the_Quran

Therefore when the Koran has fake history about Jesus or about Moses or Abraham, etc., that are not validated by contemporaneous writings that have survived to the present, or by long lost tablets and other writings recently discovered, or by scientific discoveries made long after the Koran was published, we go by the Koran because to do otherwise undermines the claims made by Islam concerning the Koran and undermines Islam itself.

Also, because otherwise is blasphemy and subject to death.

# 7

“...interpretation of the 1st Amendment’s religion clause is “separation of the CHRISTIAN church and State”.

I was born over fifty years ago; American by birth, Irish/Catholic by the grace of God. Born in the greatest country that ever existed - by any measure. A most glorious nation founded upon the principle that all men were created equal. The Founding Fathers understood themselves to be creatures, each one infinitely blessed by their Creator.

Sadly, that deontological tenet has increasingly been usurped by the social doctrines of our times; and this more than any other single factor has caused the incremental destruction we witness daily in our beloved ‘Nation under God’.

Liberty and justice for all cannot possibly be achieved by man. The Founders knew that man is utterly incapable of governing his fellow man justly, without adhering to God’s law. They all understood that the foundations for governmental justice and liberty must stem from the ultimate source of all justice and liberties, id est, Almighty God. A quote from James Madison expressed their beliefs succinctly, “Any country not ruled by the Ten Commandments will be ruled by tyrants.”

June 25, 1962 Engle v. Vitale – The Supreme Court of The United States; led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, officially decided, “Prayer in school breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.”

How I wish we still had patriotic men like James Madison in our Nation’s Capital to bitchslap imbeciles like Justice Warren when necessary! Church and State were to coexist in a nation ruled by Judeo-Christian principles.

The erroneous phrasing of ‘separation between Church and State’ altogether subverts the Founders declared purpose - Church was to be separated and exempted from governmental authority, as the Founders simply wanted to prohibit the government from imposing any religion on its citizens. They clearly intended a separation between Church from State, and not strictly Church and State.

The Founders envisioned a free republic, and they understood the arbitrary nature and travesty of King James establishing himself by law as de facto caliph in A.D. 1611. The Anglican Church was founded as a State Institution and as such, all subordinates of the King in all his territories were then members of the Church of England, not by choice; but by royal ordinance.

Being visionaries, the Founders recognized the need to guarantee our freedom to worship our Creator independently, and they were also men who publicly invoked God’s help every time they assembled. They did not foresee, nor would they have allowed, the formation of a society that might possibly enact laws forbidding Bibles and prayer.

The existence and nature of truth is indeed vital. To the Muslims credit, they are not moral relativists. The progressive socialists lay claim to that. The Muslims are kind of like “Sola Scriptua” on steroids. They believe the Koran is true even though it is admitted that it appears to contradicted by physics, archeology and other histories, appears to be muddled and even self-contradictory, and appears to say things that are illogical.

“Sola Scriptura” is the doctrine that “only” the Bible is a reliable source of truth. On its face, this is ridiculous as inference from the necessarily limited number of statements in the Bible to the potentially unlimited number of statements that are possibly true requires logic. Yet, according to this doctrine, only the Bible and not logic is reliable.

We can say that, with the Enlightenment, we came to embrace the scientific method. That the most reliable source of truth is when faith and reason come together. Not that everything that is true can be put to a scientific test. But, enough things that are true can be so tested that we can have confidence in the untestable contentions in a source that claims to reveal truth.

So, let’s consider the Koran. It is claimed to be the dictated word of God, literally true from the beginning of time and for all time. O.K., consider its statement that the world is flat. This would be an amazing thing if it were true, because all educated people have known that the world is a globe since the time of the Egyptians and the Greeks. If we put this amazing assertion to the test, and found that in spite of the apparent curvature careful measurement indicates, the world really is flat, then we could have some confidence in other statements in the Koran that are not testable.

By the way, the argument that the Bible says or the Christian community used to believe the world is flat is fake. It was promoted by critics of Christianity during the 19th Century and eventually the joke became the truth. Much like Democrats believe Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.