Posted on 03/21/2013 1:01:26 PM PDT by massmike
It may be one of those horrible required classes one must take to graduate. Finding any college these days that doesn’t require some sort of diversity re-education class is nearly impossible. So that leaves the student to choose the least offensive class they can find.
Now THAT's a great idea! It would immediately show his agenda in sharp focus.
Nope. It's "André" (French for Andrew), with that ghetto-pop "De" attached to the front of it.
n add-on for women you hear a lot in the northeast is "Sha", as in "Shamonique."
Amen to that.
Intercultural Communications class, sounds more like a page out of Hilter Nazi Germany’s propaganda and their physical annihilation of the Jews,after all Jesus was a Jew.
Is that ever true. A few years ago, I had a business editorial assignment dealing with "eyeball hangtime" -- a biologically measurable aspect of human communication about how long people typically look at visual stimuli before moving on.
I went to several of the libraries at an Ivy League university, including its renowned school of communications, to research the issue. Not only was there no information or scholarly work on this practical phenomenon; but the vast majority of scholarly journals focused on communicating by, with or about gays and lesbians.
What?
Watch on right arm = leftie.
when is stomp Allah day?
cowards all of them and the school shows yet again that parents pay for nothing but a peice of paper to get a job and a left wing social agenda, next week feces sex is cool, marriage boring.
just said similar.
College today is about paying a lot fo money to get a piece of paper in order to get a job and a far left radcial social agenda, like homosexual marriage being good and cool
I’m sending mail now and I hope all of you on here will do the same, it;s time to speak up and demand this country be the once great strong country is used to be, a place where others want to come and work hard and follow their religion
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about; though far more interested on the how-it's-done of communication than doing-and-effective-doing than I am familiar with.
>
> I went to several of the libraries at an Ivy League university, including its renowned school of communications, to research the issue. Not
> only was there no information or scholarly work on this practical phenomenon; but the vast majority of scholarly journals focused on
> communicating by, with or about gays and lesbians.
Just because the schools are pushing an agenda and ignoring actual education is not to say that actual education does not exist.
> What?
I'm inclined to share that reaction to the previous paragraph's conclusion.
An utter jackass posing as a professor at a less than first rate school.
His face would make an excellent target for a good ole stomping fest.
It’s the “Deand” part that sounds so feminine — as in Deanna.
We're not disagreeing.
The First Amendment is our protection — sometimes the only protection we have left — when liberals become hypocrites and start advocating intolerant attacks on “hate speech.” But because the Constitution is a secular document, it provides only partial protection at best. Obviously, when push comes to shove I'll take the Bible over the Constitution, but fortunately we don't have anything in our founding documents in America that contradicts Scripture. There are nations where Christians can't say that. Being a good Christian citizen of China or of the former Soviet Union presents challenges we don't face.
I'll give the CAIR people credit in at least one area. They really are being consistent with their principles of jihad. Islam is an inherently intolerant religion which will use persuasion and debate in places where armed force is either impossible or impractical. For a liberal to deny free speech is hypocrisy; for a Muslim to use free speech as a means to an end is entirely consistent with their core beliefs.
Of course, just because someone isn't a hypocrite doesn't mean they're right. Islam and liberalism are both wrong and both need to be fought.
I would have to get the Professors side of the story before I pass any kind of judgment in my mind on the matter. I am thinking that, most likely, the Mormon student overreacted, and made much ado about nothing, since the lesson itself says that refusing to step on it was part of the lesson itself.
...exactly so...the purpose of the exercise, apparently, was to guage why one might not commit the act of defacing an important symbol, and to comment on the importance of such such cultural symbols...I fail to see that the student was being forced to ‘stomp on Jesus’, which would then amount to an overt blasphemy and his reaction wuld be understandable...
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.