Religious Bigotry In A University Classroom?

[Jaybear]

Isnt' the choice whether or not to be verbally abused or have to keep your religious beliefs to yourself rather than being verbally abused or expelled?

What it seems like you are saying is that you would rather be verbally abused than have to keep your religious beliefs a secret since you can't be expelled without first broadcasting your religious beliefs.

Not that complicated.

Would your rather be in the situation where (1)you had to keep your religion a secret from a single professor or face the risk of verbal abuse; or (2) Keep you religious beliefs a secret from your teachers, classmates, friends, church members at the risk of expulsion from school?

[Pahoran]

Niether situation is conducive to a proper academic enviroment.

In your intensely biased opinion.

At the public school you will have mormons who are reluctant to express thier religous belief for fear of belittlement and perhaps relatiation.

As you perfectly well know and relentlessly downplay, it's considerably more than that. Derengowski bragged about how, after subjecting his sole LDS student to the inquisition of a "mock trial" in which she was assigned to defend the position that was predestined to lose, she stopped attending his class, and will fail.

And I was not aware that subjecting oneself to that kind of structured, co-ordinated, teacher-directed in-class bullying was a condition of enrollment at a tax-funded institution; were you?

At BYU, you have secret apostates who cant express thier religious beliefs for fear of expulsion.

And thus we've been jaybeared again.

As you perfectly well know, your hypothetical "secret apostates" don't "risk expulsion" because of their "religious beliefs." They risk it by their actions, in that they have chosen to join another church.

That's not a belief. That's an action.

And you think it all fine and dandy for them to do that and still expect to enjoy a benefit of membership in the church they've just left?

It's not just the case that their beliefs have changed; they have made a considered decision to transfer their allegiance away from the Church that is subsidising their education. Can you offer one good reason why the Church should continue to do so, in any degree?

Just how lowly do you rate the concept of personal integrity anyway?

If I were the student impacted, frankly I would prefer a verbal abusive professor over expulsion. Its much simplier for the mormon to conceal his religon for 3 hrs a week, or transfer to another class than it is for the apostate to carry on the charade of being a faithful mormon or to transfer to a new school.

So bottom line, option 2 is worse, and its not even close.

Since Jaybear's judgements in matters of morals are always 180 degrees wrong, that counts as a vote for option 1.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

So you promise to do something for a specified time. Then if you change your mind, you still want all the benefits, but not the responsibility that the agreement carries?

At 19 I joined the USAF. I can imagine what would have happened a couple of years in if I told my CO that I no longer believed in the Air Force, and wouldn't be held to my contract, but still wanted all the benefits of being in the Air Force.

He would have laughed me out of his office, and told me to go back to my job. If I would have persisted. Well the military does have jails.

[Jaybear]

As you perfectly well know, your hypothetical "secret apostates" don't "risk expulsion" because of their "religious beliefs." They risk it by their actions, in that they have chosen to join another church.

That's not a belief. That's an action.

Except perhaps for football players, Mormons are expelled for leaving the faith, regardless of whether they join another faith.

So secret apostate must pretend to believe.

That is belief.

And you think it all fine and dandy for them to do that and still expect to enjoy a benefit of membership in the church they've just left?

No. I would expect that that they would be willing to pay tuition for nonmembers.

It's not just the case that their beliefs have changed; they have made a considered decision to transfer their allegiance away from the Church that is subsidising their education. Can you offer one good reason why the Church should continue to do so, in any degree?

Yes its is a case of a change in belief.

As for reasons:

1. Out of respect to the students, who would otherwise have to and will lie to secure the endorsment necessary to complete thier degreee. .

2. To encourage students to fully and freely explore thier faith, regardless of where they end up ... ie Joseph Smith.

Just how lowly do you rate the concept of personal integrity anyway?

Since Jaybear's judgements in matters of morals are always 180 degrees wrong, that counts as a vote for option 1.

BYU's policy towards it students who lose their faith encourages and rewards dishonesty not personal integrity.

[maklelan]

BYU's policy towards it students who lose their faith encourages and rewards dishonesty not personal integrity.

So if a person makes a decision to violate a contract, but also decides to lie to avoid the consequences, the contract itself is responsible for encouraging and rewarding that dishonesty? This means that any and all strictures that can be circumvented through dishonesty can be said to encourage and reward that dishonesty. That's absolutely asinine.

I'll ask you again, please get back on topic.

[Jeff K.]

Anti Mormons will justify any bigotry if they can. To anit-Mormons the professor did nothing wrong. If the professor were to push, slap or even shoot the student, some salient reason for the reaction will come forward. It is after all, always the Mormon's fault.

[Daniel Peterson]

Moreover, I don't see any difference between mocking/deriding someone's religious belief and mocking/deriding someone's political beliefs or scientific beliefs or philosophical beliefs or historical beliefs, except that some religious people consider religous beliefs to be sacrosanct. God shall not be mocked.

I don't favor mockery and derision as a classroom teaching technique in any event, but tell me this: Do you believe that teachers in, say, public, tax-supported high schools ought to be permitted to regularly mock and deride -- or even to overtly oppose and criticize -- specific religious faiths? I know that you're an atheist or agnostic of some sort, but is that what you're advocating?

Personally, I believe that actions speak louder than words. At BYU if a Catholic student converts to Mormonism, its cause for celebration. Whereas, if a Mormon student converts to Catholocism, its cause for expulsion.

Mocking seem rather tame in comparision to expulsion.

If a public, tax-supported school or other institution barred or expelled people for their religious beliefs, I would vigorously oppose that. I firmly believe, though, that a private institution can (within very, very broad parameters) set its own policies for "membership." I would argue for that on the basis of, among other things, the principle of freedom of association.

Oh I get it. Since BYU openly discriminates against prospective Catholics students in its admission practices, it not descrimination to boot out a mormon student who converts to Catholicism.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Are you seriously arguing that a Mormon school ought not be allowed to discriminate in its admissions policy in favor of Mormons? That a Catholic/Jewish/Buddhist/Evangelical institution ought to be barred -- morally if not legally -- from preferentially serving Catholics/Jews/Buddhists/Evangelicals?

Lets stay on point. Peterson want to award BYU browie points for religous tolerence by its professors.

Peterson no want to award bowie knives. No want to award brownie points, either. Peterson cite fact. Peterson think it good thing that teachers at BYU no mock non-Mormon religions. You no think that good?

You tell me, what is worse: 1. A ocassional professor who might derides and mock a student who coverts to Catholicism; 2. An administration which would unequivocally kicks said student out of school.

A professor who routinely mocked a student in his class, or mocked the student's faith (however recently acquired), would be a disreputable scumbag. At BYU no less than anywhere else. However, a private school that told a student to go elsewhere when the qualifications for which that student was admitted to the school had fundamentally changed would be exercising its legal and moral rights, even if an outsider who had no dog in the fight happened to disagree with its decision.

No, nothing manipulative or coercive about that approach: "Your not being kicked out of school because you joined the Catholic Church, you are being kicked out becuase you breached a contract."

We take covenants really seriously. (I don't believe that's a bad thing.) Violation of major covenants means loss of eligibility to attend BYU. Simple, clearly understood, and plainly within the University's legal and moral rights.

Niether situation is conducive to a proper academic enviroment.

I think the academic environment at BYU is pretty good. You're welcome to drop into the senior Middle East Studies seminar that I'm teaching right now in order to check my claim out. Or, alternatively, you can come to my class on the Qur’an in Arabic, though I think you'll find that one less interesting. If, however, you think that the academic environment at BYU is too poor for you or your children to attend the school, I would counsel against your applying here. There are, I'm told, other schools in the United States and, even, elsewhere.

At the public school you will have mormons who are reluctant to express thier religous belief for fear of belittlement and perhaps relatiation.

And, if it's a public high school, as mine was, they will have essentially no option of going anywhere else. Everybody in the district who wants to attend the high school can attend the high school, and those who don't want to attend the high school will almost certainly still have to attend the high school, and they'll be taxed to support it.

At BYU, you have secret apostates who cant express thier religious beliefs for fear of expulsion.

And they can freely choose to go somewhere else. And support for the school is voluntary.

Not everybody who wants to attend BYU can attend BYU. Yet you seem to think that BYU is obliged to allow people to remain at BYU who have violated covenants that BYU considers transcendently important and that those people had promised to keep while at BYU, even with the certain knowledge that keeping such people there means that other people, people who desperately want to attend BYU and who would keep their covenants, are thereby prevented from attending.

If I were the student impacted, frankly I would prefer a verbal abusive professor over expulsion.

Then you should prefer to attend a school where virtually nothing can get you expelled and where professors are free to verbally abuse students. Perhaps, in fact, you did.

BYU isn't such a place, but there are plenty of places that will meet your standards.

Its much simplier for the mormon to conceal his religon for 3 hrs a week, or transfer to another class

It's outrageous to expect a student at a public, tax-supported school to have to hide his or her religious belief in order to avoid abusive treatment from a teacher.

In the case of my high school, though, the teacher who opened every class day -- five days a week, in the summer school class to which I referred -- with a half hour's derision of Mormonism apparently wasn't aiming it at any particular student. He would have continued whether she was there or not. And what he was doing was plainly inappropriate, as any reasonable person would readily grant.

than it is for the apostate to carry on the charade of being a faithful mormon or to transfer to a new school.

Life is tough. But when the student violates a substantial element of the premise upon which the student was admitted to the University, it isn't unfair to tell that student that his or her place at the University rightfully belongs to someone who will keep his or her covenants.

Every student at BYU, whether LDS or non-LDS, is receiving a very substantial subsidy from the LDS Church. I confess that I don't understand how the LDS Church is somehow obligated, either morally or legally, to continue to subsidize somebody who has rejected the Church and violated his or her covenants. And I really don't understand why the LDS Church is somehow obligated to subsidize those who have rejected the faith at the cost of those who are faithful.

I would expect that that they would be willing to pay tuition for nonmembers.

Which is still a heavily subsidized tuition.

So, in your view, X, who has rejected the faith of Y, has a right to remain at the University, even at the expense of Y, who is doubly penalized by X's continuation at the University: X occupies the place that Y could otherwise have had, and Y's tithing (or that of Y's family) subsidizes X's education.

BYU's policy towards it students who lose their faith encourages and rewards dishonesty not personal integrity.

BYU's grading policy toward poorly performing students encourages and rewards dishonesty, not personal integrity, in those students disposed to cheat. Getting bad grades would be icky, just as transferring to another university would be a bother. So it's the University's fault if students sometimes resort to dishonesty. Right?

[why me]

Obviously, this is a very risky thing, and academic freedom -- freedom of speech in general -- is a central value that we should always affirm.

I think that you have heard of professors being taken to task for supporing positions that some students may find troubling. And these professors risk censorship because of their stance on world issues. And these same groups can claim bigotry by the professor. And that was my point Dan. Of course, there are clear lines of bigotry. But there are also positions on world issues that can cause problems for professors too, if certain groups claim bigotry.

[why me]

You(not you personally) can be a bigoted as you like. There are no laws against it. But don't be surprized if you get called on it if done in public. Students are essentially a captive audience. They can't leave without consequence. But I'd sure file a complaint against any teacher that pulled that stunt.

If a person works in academia, one knows that not all positions on the world stage are popular or liked. And certain students can act accordingly. There have been cases of professors being taken to task for certain positions they advocate by students who do not agree with that professor. And I do think that more and more professor's are careful not advocating unpopular causes because of the reaction from the students.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think that you have heard of professors being taken to task for supporing positions that some students may find troubling. And these professors risk censorship because of their stance on world issues. And these same groups can claim bigotry by the professor. And that was my point Dan. Of course, there are clear lines of bigotry. But there are also positions on world issues that can cause problems for professors too, if certain groups claim bigotry.

I don't think we disagree on this.

[why me]

We can all agree that bigotry is terrible and yet the label should not be abused to silence people who advocate unpopular causes or positions.

Edited January 25, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I don't think we disagree on this.

I also think that it has become unfortunate because it takes away from the true nature of bigotry and what exactly it is. Unfortunately I can not show examples because they would be political examples where students disagreed with professors positions and they put these professors on certain lists. This is also reverse bigotry but rarely recognized.

[Daniel Peterson]

The fact remains that teachers in tax-supported public schools (and particularly in mandatory-attendance K-12 schools) are under certain restrictions. And the fact remains that Mr. Derengowski, from the reports, seems to have acted very inappropriately in his classes.

Academic freedom is not, and should not be, absolute, though it should be and typically is quite generous.

A Holocaust-denying historian or a rape-encouraging anthropologist, for example, would not last long at even the most open-minded school.

And private schools have considerably more latitude in such matters: I was barred from speaking at a certain private university in Australila a few years back because, quite falsely, the powers-that-were assumed that I would be delivering an anti-Islamic tirade. It was unfair, but they were within their rights to make that decision.

[Jeff K.]

If he has tenure........ better to move a mountain.

[Pahoran]

The Rate my professors website as quite a few responses for Derengowski. Most of them are positive -- most of his students share his prejudices, so he's not goring any ox they care about -- but under the "Professor rebuttals" tab, he swoops on the few (and mild) criticisms he received. However, I think he would have done better to have kept silence, especially on one of them. He wrote:

On bias, Yes. Just like Jesus, Muhammad, Dawkins, or the student who thinks he's unbiased, I am biased. My bias or worldview is Christian. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by me." So, if whomever has a bias against me, whomever has a bias against Jesus. Nothing new. Read John 15:18.

That's right; if you disagree with Derengowski, you're against Jesus. No false modesty there!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

I don't favor mockery and derision as a classroom teaching technique in any event, but tell me this: Do you believe that teachers in, say, public, tax-supported high schools ought to be permitted to regularly mock and deride -- or even to overtly oppose and criticize -- specific religious faiths? I know that you're an atheist or agnostic of some sort, but is that what you're advocating?

Not sure why you feel the need to ask the question (rhetoric?). I said clearly below, that I don't beleive mockery and derision are appropriate teaching methods. That is especial the case at the high school level, where children are present.

If a public, tax-supported school or other institution barred or expelled people for their religious beliefs, I would vigorously oppose that. I firmly believe, though, that a private institution can (within very, very broad parameters) set its own policies for "membership." I would argue for that on the basis of, among other things, the principle of freedom of association.

So I take it you think religious descrimination is wrong, as a matter of principle, and where it can be ... tax supported schools, it should be strictly prohibited.

Ironically, its the religious schools that seek the freedom to descriminate on religous grounds. Wait, is that ironic or hypocritical or both?

Are you seriously arguing that a Mormon school ought not be allowed to discriminate in its admissions policy in favor of Mormons? That a Catholic/Jewish/Buddhist/Evangelical institution ought to be barred -- morally if not legally -- from preferentially serving Catholics/Jews/Buddhists/Evangelicals?

Nope. I made no such argument. As far as I am concerned, BYU is free to do so.

What I have a problem with is a BYU professor suggesting that BYU is a shining example of religious tolernence, while overtly practicing religious descrimination.

Clearly I have either I have done a poor job articulating my point, or you simple feel more comfortable building and attacking a strawman, than actually try to address my points.

Peterson no want to award bowie knives. No want to award brownie points, either. Peterson cite fact. Peterson think it good thing that teachers at BYU no mock non-Mormon religions. You no think that good?

Not really.

IMO, college level professors should have the freedom to speak their mind in college classes, even if their opinion could be contrued by students as mocking or derisive of their beliefs, regardles of whether the belief in question is religious, political, historical, etc.

You obviously prefer a University environment where the Administration imposes strict rules on what the professors can and cannot do and say in their classrooms.

I think the academic environment at BYU is pretty good. You're welcome to drop into the senior Middle East Studies seminar that I'm teaching right now in order to check my claim out. Or, alternatively, you can come to my class on the Qur’an in Arabic, though I think you'll find that one less interesting. If, however, you think that the academic environment at BYU is too poor for you or your children to attend the school, I would counsel against your applying here. There are, I'm told, other schools in the United States and, even, elsewhere.

We are fortunate to live in a diverse country. I would never consider attending BYU or sending my children there. There are, by constrast,. many many parents who would not want their children to go anywhere else.

To each his own.

So, in your view, X, who has rejected the faith of Y, has a right to remain at the University, even at the expense of Y, who is doubly penalized by X's continuation at the University: X occupies the place that Y could otherwise have had, and Y's tithing (or that of Y's family) subsidizes X's education.

No. Never said said that. I said that if it were my decision, they would have the right.

I would prefer to foster an environment where students were free to explore thier faith, even if that exploration led them choose another faith.

BYU considerations apostacy inherently bad. I don't see anything inherently wrong with people changing their religious beliefs, regardless of which faith they started. Calling it a breach of a covenant is simply wordsmithing.

[Doctor Steuss]

Sorry to derail this thread that's evidently about Mordor BYU, but…

Third, every Muslim should be profiled, and if caught breaking the law—even if it’s spitting on the sidewalk—should be deported or executed, depending on the level of offense. If deported that Muslim should be given the strict order “Don’t ever come back! You’re no longer welcome here!” If executed, then the rest of the Muslim community can thank Allah for the infidel sending the criminal (not martyr) to his reward. At least the rest of humanity won’t have to be concerned about him wreaking senseless havoc in this world anymore.

The fact that there isn’t exactly a lack of examples of Christians committing acts of terrorism in America notwithstanding, I wonder if he is aware that he has become the very type of religious extremist that he seemingly fears?

I find his type of rhetoric frightening, and I’m glad he’s been removed from his position of influence wherein he had more power to spread this poison to budding minds.

[frankenstein]

The fact that there isn’t exactly a lack of examples of Christians committing acts of terrorism in America notwithstanding, I wonder if he is aware that he has become the very type of religious extremist that he seemingly fears?

don't be such a dolt Doctro Stuess, killing in the name of Jesus is honorable and doing a favour for God, so while you might think bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus is terrorism, it isn't. And in your willful ignorance you claim muslim terrorism is the same as christian terrorism, but it is not, christians kill in the name of the One True God who is Jesus, muslims kill in the name of a false god. Why can't you see the difference.

Edited January 25, 2012 by frankenstein

[Pahoran]

Jaybear,

You've twice been asked by the thread originator to stop derailing the thread, and yet you keep on doing it.

And although it runs the risk of encouraging you, I find myself obligated to address some of your more egregious jaybearings.

So I take it you think religious descrimination is wrong, as a matter of principle, and where it can be ... tax supported schools, it should be strictly prohibited.

Ironically, its the religious schools that seek the freedom to descriminate on religous grounds. Wait, is that ironic or hypocritical or both?

An obvious and clearly deliberate misstatement of Dan's position. "Religious discrimination" is simply the favouring of one religion over another. To say that governments in general have no business, either by themselves or through agencies they fund such as schools, favouring one religion over another -- or that governments in particular whose constitutions require the separation of Church and State should not do so -- does not in any way imply that "religious discrimination" is actually "wrong, as a matter of principle." It simply means that it is wrong for governments and their agencies to practice it.

A religious institution, however, simply has to favour one religion -- namely its own -- over another. Its members practice "religious discrimination" every Sunday that they drive past a church other than their own. To accuse a church (or church-owned educational or eleemosynary institution) of "hypocrisy" in advancing its own cause, simply because that cause happens to be religious, is so startlingly, moronically absurd as to beggar belief that anyone could genuinely be that obtuse.

Nope. I made no such argument. As far as I am concerned, BYU is free to do so.

What I have a problem with is a BYU professor suggesting that BYU is a shining example of religious tolernence, while overtly practicing religious descrimination.

As I said: clearly the letters B, Y and U produce a pavlovian response from you; but instead of drooling, you start snarling. The fact remains that Dan is right: any non-LDS student at BYU can reasonably and confidently expect that his faith will not be held up to Derengowski-style ridicule and abuse there.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

He just likes doggin BYU.

[Doctor Steuss]

don't be such a dolt Doctro Stuess, killing in the name of Jesus is honorable and doing a favour for God, so while you might think bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus is terrorism, it isn't. And in your willful ignorance you claim muslim terrorism is the same as christian terrorism, but it is not, christians kill in the name of the One True God who is Jesus, muslims kill in the name of a false god. Why can't you see the difference.

Just when I thought my monolithic character flaw of being unceasingly dim-witted had reached critical mass, I somehow manage to best myself, by cramming a bit more stupidity into my daft frame.

There goes that New Year's Resolution.

[Jeff K.]

Doctor Steuss, on 25 January 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Sorry to derail this thread that's evidently about Mordor BYU, but…

The fact that there isn’t exactly a lack of examples of Christians committing acts of terrorism in America notwithstanding, I wonder if he is aware that he has become the very type of religious extremist that he seemingly fears?

don't be such a dolt Doctro Stuess, killing in the name of Jesus is honorable and doing a favour for God, so while you might think bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus is terrorism, it isn't. And in your willful ignorance you claim muslim terrorism is the same as christian terrorism, but it is not, christians kill in the name of the One True God who is Jesus, muslims kill in the name of a false god. Why can't you see the difference.

Sigh, blind leading the inarticulate.......

I suggest a healthy dose of Locke regarding property rights, and then understanding how distinct environments allow for different rights. If I am a guest in a Baptist school and become a Latter-day Saint, I can be asked to leave, it is their right, I am a guest with limited rights in that environment. In public school however must accomadate all, it is not "private". Its support comes from all and not a limited means, its work is for the public and not private groups.

[Daniel Peterson]

Not sure why you feel the need to ask the question (rhetoric?). I said clearly below, that I don't beleive mockery and derision are appropriate teaching methods. That is especial the case at the high school level, where children are present.

There is a distinction between approving of mockery and derision as appropriate teaching methods -- you've clearly said that you don't approve of them -- and believing that there are constitutional and/or legal and/or ethical protections for the use of mockery and derision (particularly of specific religious faiths) as teaching methods in public, tax-supported schools. I wanted to be clear regarding your position on the latter issue. That's why I felt the need to ask the question.

So I take it you think religious descrimination is wrong, as a matter of principle, and where it can be ... tax supported schools, it should be strictly prohibited.

No. I do not think that religious discrimination is wrong as a matter of principle. I believe that Jewish and Catholic schools have a right to give preferential treatment in admisssions to Jewish and Catholic applicants, for example.

I do not, however, believe that religious discrimination has a legitimate place in public, tax-supported schools.

Ironically, its the religious schools that seek the freedom to descriminate on religous grounds.

And, in my view, they should have it. Latter-day Saint tithepayers are under no legal or moral requirement that I can discern to subsidize the educations of non-Latter-day Saints or former Latter-day Saints at a Latter-day Saint school.

What I have a problem with is a BYU professor suggesting that BYU is a shining example of religious tolernence, while overtly practicing religious descrimination.

I like to exercise movie discrimination. I don't go to movies that I expect will stink. I also practice book discrimination. I don't read every book that is published every year. I choose what I read.

There is nothing wrong, as such, with discrimination. In many contexts, it's not only good but absolutely necessary. Take BYU, for example. In any given year, it has x places available in the coming freshman class. Yet it receives x+y applications. Accordingly, it must discriminate, because y applicants simply cannot be admitted. Only x applicants will be allowed to enroll. As part of its selection criteria, it takes religion into account. This is perfectly legitimate for a private school, supported very heavily by voluntary religious offerings, to do. And, when it accepts a student, there is a quite explicit agreement between BYU and the successful applicant: She will, for example, maintain a certain grade point average. She will also abide by certain citizenship requirements, and she will not seriously violate the religious covenants she has taken upon herself. If she breaks the terms of that agreement, the school is entirely within its rights, and, I would argue, perfectly justified, in considering the agreement nullified.

This is obvious. It's the nature of BYU. You apparently don't want BYU to be BYU. My own feeling is that there are already plenty of non-BYUs, and that, if somebody nonetheless wants to launch yet another non-BYU, he or she is perfectly free to do so. But BYU has no moral or legal obligation to cease to be BYU. I'm perfectly happy to have Catholic and Evangelical schools be as Catholic and Evangelical as they want to be. It doesn't bother me even a teensy tiny bit. In fact, I could with that Notre Dame and Georgetown were a bit more Catholic than they currently seem to be. I'm not even slightly threatened by religious or educational pluralism.

I remain quite happy with the fact that BYU doesn't permit, and certainly doesn't encourage, classroom attacks against other faiths. Quite the contrary, in fact. I think that's a very good thing. Many religious schools don't follow such a policy.

IMO, college level professors should have the freedom to speak their mind in college classes, even if their opinion could be contrued by students as mocking or derisive of their beliefs, regardles of whether the belief in question is religious, political, historical, etc.

I think, to the contrary, that a department or college making decisions about tenure or continuing contracts has a very legitimate interest in getting rid of teachers who use derision and mockery as major components of their instruction, and I think that a tax-supported public institution (and particularly a community college like Mr. Derengowski's) can terminate the employment of a teacher who obsessively attacks a specific religious group with complete justification

You obviously prefer a University environment where the Administration imposes strict rules on what the professors can and cannot do and say in their classrooms.

If you're talking about BYU, I can only say that you don't know what you're talking about. In my now nearly thirty years of teaching here, I have never had to submit a class syllabus for approval nor had any administrator question my reading assignments or teaching.

I would never consider attending BYU or sending my children there.

And I presume that you don't contribute to its support, either. Yet you seem very much exercised by what goes on at my place of employment.

BYU considerations apostacy inherently bad. I don't see anything inherently wrong with people changing their religious beliefs, regardless of which faith they started. Calling it a breach of a covenant is simply wordsmithing.

Your view differs from the view of those who own, those who lead, and those who pay for BYU.

Why do you care? What business is it of yours?

[frankenstein]

Sigh, blind leading the inarticulate.......

I suggest a healthy dose of Locke regarding property rights, and then understanding how distinct environments allow for different rights. If I am a guest in a Baptist school and become a Latter-day Saint, I can be asked to leave, it is their right, I am a guest with limited rights in that environment. In public school however must accomadate all, it is not "private". Its support comes from all and not a limited means, its work is for the public and not private groups.

insults aside.

what on Gods green earth does John Locke have to do with bombing abortion clinics and killing in the name of Jesus?

Edited January 25, 2012 by frankenstein

[Pahoran]

yes, John Locke, the person who was heavily reference to support the notion that Pre-Columbus peoples had no rights to the land upon which they had lived for generations.

Apart from once again your zealotry to take offense, your zealotry to issue an insult and your zealotry to demonstrate your hypocrisy, it should be obvious that my comment had nothing to do with YBU, but rather my comment was in support of Doctor Stuess comment about christian terrorist.

Jeff wasn't the only person confused by what you were saying. Steuss seems to have taken it that you were saying he was stupid. I could tell you were being sarcastic, but I couldn't tell just what your point was. Thank you for clearing that up.

So giving you all credit for good intentions, the clarity could have been better.

Regards,

Pahoran