Posted on 05/24/2015 1:53:26 PM PDT by OK Sun
Have a look at this article, whose nominal subject is academic freedom and whose implicit subject is the crudity and ineptitude with which a professor at a third tier state university can go about instructing his students:
[Liberty Counsel’s] complaint relates to Grace Lewis, a high school student enrolled at Polk State through the Florida Virtual School Full Time program … Liberty alleges that Russum is a “radical ideologue, bent on imposing his views on students, in violation of acceptable academic standards and the U.S. Constitution.” As evidence, it cites multiple elements of the syllabus and assignments for the online introductory humanities course, including Russum’s notes that “What we take to be the ‘truth’ is just the retelling of the myths of early civilization. The god [sic] of Christianity/Islam/Judaism are [sic] a mixture of the god(s) myths of the Mesopotamians. … The point of this is not to ‘bash’ any religion, we should NEVER favor one over the another, they all come from the same sources, HUMAN IMAGINATION” [emphasis Russum’s].
The complaint also cites Russum’s introduction to the ancient epics, which highlights “elements of homoerotic/friendship, raw human sexuality” and “the use of sexuality and the role of women.” Liberty says that Russum also tried to “deconstruct the Bible by claiming that the discredited position that the Egyptian Book of the Dead is the source material for the biblical Book of Samuel,” for example, and that he discredited Christianity by citing the Crusades and saying that “Christianity proved itself during the Middle Ages to be one of the most violent forms of religion the world had ever seen.”
. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
From the original article referenced in the one linked...
(The student received an A overall in the course. And she didn’t so much have her ideas rejected as she declined to answer the questions on the assignments in question.)
So she just didn’t like his point of view and refused to do the coursework on some assignments. She clearly wasn’t retaliated against. Having a critical view of Christianity is not bigotry.
Russum is clearly an anti-Christian bigot.
‘deconstruct the Bible by claiming that the discredited position that the Egyptian Book of the Dead is the source material for the biblical Book of Samuel,’
Come again?
The linked article gives an excellent rebuttal to this most inane of postmodern atheist arguments.
The general argument is that if even a small portion of an opposing argument is untrue, then the entire remainder is also untrue.
In this specific sense, the professor argued (like so many fresh-faced New Internet Atheists) is arguing that the entire Bible is fiction because a small portion is fiction.
This is simply a lie.
The “evidence” used is that a small portion of the Bible resembles the Egyptian Book of the Dead, a book that Christians would say is fiction.
Resemblance has nothing to do with truth. Causation is entirely different than correlation, as any of these little pipsqueak atheists can tell you once the shoe is on the other foot.
true words
The girl is also an anti-Catholic bigot. I read her papers.
Well, nobody else did so it’s merely a baseless opinion.
Unless you can provide proof of your claim, all that’s left to observe is an attempt to slander someone for no good reason.
In an article and thread where Catholicism is NOT mentioned, nor attacked, why do you have to come in and stir the pot?
“Well, nobody else did so it’s merely a baseless opinion.”
So because no one else took the time to read her papers - when I did - that makes my opinion baseless? What? No, YOUR opinion is baseless unless you’ve read her papers.
“Unless you can provide proof of your claim, all that’s left to observe is an attempt to slander someone for no good reason.”
READ HER PAPERS. They are all online.
“In an article and thread where Catholicism is NOT mentioned,....”
The crusades were mentioned in the article. They all happened before the first Protestant walked the earth.
“nor attacked, why do you have to come in and stir the pot?”
Since her papers - NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE READ (APPARENTLY) - mention the Catholic Church repeatedly I am not stirring up the pot by mentioning the spirit behind her writing.
And you have not yet provided any evidence to back up your assertion.
OK Sun
Since Apr 17, 2015
A noobie.
“And you have not yet provided any evidence to back up your assertion.”
I don’t have to. Read the papers for yourself. It’s the information age. There’s no virtue in ignorance or laziness.
That’s right so don’t be lazy and provide the evidence to back up your claim.
I’m not doing your work for you.
“That’s right so don’t be lazy and provide the evidence to back up your claim.”
No. Do it yourself. I know what I read. I have no need to prove anything. Since I am the only one between us who admits to actually having done any work on this, it is time for you to do some.
“I’m not doing your work for you.”
You don’t have to - I already read the papers. I’m the only one between us who admits having done any work.
You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, but which Alinsky rule is this?
So I guess you were speaking of Grace Lewis's papers Evidence of Discrimination wherin she mention some historical fact about the Roman Catholic church you would rather not hear. However, facts disinterestedly stated do not equal an attack. Daniel Neal's observation still holds true:
It is not to be expected that the most disinterested writer of these affairs should escape the censures of different parties; I thought I had already sufficently expressed my intentions in publishing the History of the Puritans, but because it has been insinuated in a late pamphlet that it looked like a plot against the ecclesiastical constitution, I think it proper to assure the world once for all, that what I have written is with no ill spirit or design against the peace of the Church or nation; that I have no private or party views; no patron, no associates; nor other prospects of reward than the pleasure of setting the English Reformation in a true light, and of beating down some of the fences and enclosures of conscience. Nor can there be any inconvenience in remembering the mistakes of our ancestors, when all the parties concerned are gone off the stage, and their families reconciled by intermarriages; but it may be of some use and benefit to mankind, by enabling them to avoid those rocks on which their forefathers have split. When I am convinced of any mistakes or unfair representations, I shall not be ashamed to retract them before the world, but FACTS are stubborn things, and will not bend to the humours and inclinations of artful and angry men: if these have been disguised or misreported, let them be set right in a decent manner, without the mean surmises of plots and confederacies; and whoever does it shall have mine as well as the thanks of the public.—Preface, The History of the Puritans, Vol. II (1755).>
It would have helped if you had stated which anti-Catholic articles you were speaking about.
“It would have helped if you had stated which anti-Catholic articles you were speaking about.”
When someone needs help with the completely obvious no amount of help will suffice.
1 Corinthians 13:1
2 Thessalonians 3:10
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.