Religious Bigotry In A University Classroom?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What "worldview" could possibly disqualify a math teacher? The only issue I could think of is that cartoon where it shows a chalkboard filled with equations and in the corner the text..."And then a miracle happens."

Oh and btw, math is an exact science. What I teach in electrical equations. Interesting that when George S Ohm, came up with "OHM's Law" he was fired and lived in obscurity until a french Scientist realized his genus...his name was Andrea Ampere.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

More of a Californian. but as a history buff, and with all do deference to Mariner, not a Historian, I enjoyed living in the South. Lots of history there especially about the US Civil War. Interestingly they admired Grand by despised Sherman. The people were friendly to me, and I got a high quality education there.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

More of a Californian. but as a history buff, and with all do deference to Mariner, not a Historian, I enjoyed living in the South. Lots of history there especially about the US Civil War. Interestingly they admired Grand by despised Sherman. The people were friendly to me, and I got a high quality education there.

I lived in one of the only places Sherman lost (growing up) on his march to the sea. There is a hospital (or was a mansion where many soldiers are buried, one next to my Mother's home, one Union Soldier is buried in my sister's yard. People used to come from all over to look for mini balls next our land. My dad did not want them on our land for fear that they would find a one or more bodies and try to get the State to put up signs (which they regularly did). My sister's Father-in-law never told the State about the soldier he accidentally dug up for the same reason. He instead marked the grave himself and covered it so it would not be disturbed again. My Father's also had great respect and did not want people digging up and taking metal from soldiers uniforms, be they North or South. I always had a 99+ average when in school taking history, especially Georgia History. I used to be obsessed with books about General Lee...being a Lee myself. Did you know that he used the example of Uriah and stayed in a tent at his home if his mean were in the field. Arlington National Cemetery began at his home with Union soldiers being buried next to his house to discourage him from returning after it was taken by the North.

[frankenstein]

You are way too sensitive. I didn't read anything insulting into anything Dr. Peterson wrote in response to you. He simply pretty much repeated what he has been saying over and over throughout this thread.

You can be rational -- I've seen it myself -- why do you have to be irrational on some of the oddest subjects possible? Are you channeling Jaybear or something?

It has been stated over and over again in this thread that BYU has the right to kick out students who do not adhere to the Honor Code, which is something that they promised to adhere to as a condition of attendance at BYU. The only people who seem to think that BYU has no right to enforce the conditions that students solemnly agree to adhere to are Jaybear and now you. Why? It's a similar matter with respect to simple membership in the Church. If a member of the church chooses to violate the sacred covenants which he or she voluntarily entered into, would you argue that the church had no right to excommunicate him or her? If a person gets a mortgage loan and then fails to pay it according to the agreement, are you saying that the lender has no right to foreclose? What if a renter stops paying rent? Does the landlord have no right to evict? Why is this matter apparently rocket science?

Although Jaybear has been saying that yes of course BYU has the right to kick the student out, it just shouldn't do so. At least that's what I am reading into what he's been saying -- and possibly you agree with him? So, I guess that if a person robs a bank, well, the government may have a right to prosecute him, but it just shouldn't do it -- it's too gauche, perhaps.

Daniel Peterson challenged and therefore argued that BYU does have tolerance for apostates. I showed that Byu does not have tolerance for apostates. I never raised the issue of whether or not byu had the right to discriminate.

I was addressing a very specific assertion raised by Daniel Peterson. I used to the byu honor to prove him wrong, he couldn't handle.the truth or he realized just how ridiculous it was of him to argue that byu does in fact have tolerance for apostates. And rather than.admitting he was wrong and made an absolutely absurd claim, he suggests that I am some form of apostate and then he goes into a rant about an issue I never raised.

I thank you saying I can be rational, and I have been rational in my responses to Daniel's very specific claim, however Daniel is the one who has been irrational.

BYU does not have tolerance for apostates, anyone who claims to teach there would never claim byu does.

Edited January 26, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

Should someone be tolerant of apostates in the sense that they have rejected the institution that is providing their education? It is one thing to allow others who have prior vows of fealty to another religion, it is quite different when one is an apostate.

[Daniel Peterson]

Calm down, frankenstein. Calm down.

I didn't call you an apostate. I didn't even think of calling you an apostate.

Here's what happened:

I found the sentence from you that is quoted immediately below -- in its original, unrevised version -- completely opaque, utterly incomprehensible:

Evidence that byu has no tolerance for apostates, persons who have ex'd, disfellowshipped, on formal probation or ASKED to their name removed from the records of the Church are not admissible.

But I read and re-read it, trying to puzzle out what it might mean, and I finally decided that you intended to say something like "There is evidence that BYU has no tolerance for apostates -- that is, for persons who have been ex'd, or who have been disfellowshipped, or who are on formal probation, or who have ASKED to have their names removed from the records of the Church -- but this evidence is not admissible."

I couldn't see why you would say such a thing, but, since your sentiments didn't seem to be very clear in the first place, reasoned that you were a bit confused. Anyway, I jokingly replied that, if evidence to support your position isn't admissible, that makes it pretty difficult for you to make your case: "That puts you in rather a difficult position, clearly."

Your reaction to that, and your multiple personal attacks and insults, puzzled me at first. So I've tried to figure out why on earth you would imagine that I was calling you an apostate. After several re-readings of that strange sentence of yours, though, I've now decoded what I think you thought you were saying. I believe you thought that you had actually written something along the lines of "There is indeed evidence that BYU has no tolerance for apostates, for persons who have been ex'd, for persons who have been disfellowshipped, and for persons who have been placed on formal probation or have ASKED to have their names removed from the records of the Church: They are not admissible to the University." On the assumption that that's what you thought you were saying, I can understand that you would imagine that my response -- "That puts you in rather a difficult position, clearly" -- was intended to label you an apostate.

But it wasn't. As I've said, such a thought never even occurred to me.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I'll overlook all the rather nasty things you've proceeded to say about me.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Lots depends on when they go apostate. Before BYU attendence. The school doesn't care. They can apostatize from Mormon to Catholic, to any flavor of Protestantism, or paganism, or no religion at all and still apply to and be accepted by the school. Well after BYU attendence BYU doesn't care either. It is just to short time while at BYU that they are asked to remain an active member of the Church if you are already an active member. If not a member at the time of acceptance all that happens is they, like every other student, must sign and follow the Honor Code. Do you really think that a person should continue to recieve the rewards and not follow the rules?

Edited January 26, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

I found the sentence from you that is quoted immediately below -- in its original, unrevised version -- completely opaque, utterly incomprehensible:

Evidence that byu has no tolerance for apostates, persons who have ex'd, disfellowshipped, on formal probation or ASKED to their name removed from the records of the Church are not admissible.

...

I finally decided that you intended to say something like "There is evidence that BYU has no tolerance for apostates -- that is, for persons who have been ex'd, or who have been disfellowshipped, or who are on formal probation, or who have ASKED to have their names removed from the records of the Church -- but this evidence is not admissible."

...

I believe you thought that you had actually written something along the lines of "There is indeed evidence that BYU has no tolerance for apostates, for persons who have been ex'd, for persons who have been disfellowshipped, and for persons who have been placed on formal probation or have ASKED to have their names removed from the records of the Church: They are not admissible to the University." On the assumption that that's what you thought you were saying, ...

This is why it is so frustrating to read many of the posts here: the authors lack basic English grammar, punctuation, syntax, and writing skills. (I'm not worried about non-native English speakers. They have a valid reason—not an excuse, the maximum effective range of which is 0 meters. Simple typos are also a minor concern, spelling mistakes, on the other hand, are grating.).

But, as I have said repeatedly, it's less about their skills than their attitude: it's obvious they care little about their message and respect their audience even less.

There are reasons for English "rules": following them reduces (although, unfortunately, it does not eliminate) misunderstandings like this one. Frankenstein is far from alone in this, and it is as common among apologists as critics.

I beseech all: Use the Reply button. Read your posts before you post them. Read your posts after you post them, and catch at least the obvious errors. Use the edit button. Respect your readers. Care enough about your message to make the meaning clear. Have enough pride in your work and yourself to be seen as an intelligent individual with reasonably well thought-out ideas.

As Rush Limbaugh used to pitch: "people judge you by the words you use." We also judge you by the way you use them. We're not English teachers from ninth grade (grade nine for our Canadian and British members), but the common courtesy of presenting yourself clearly (one means of which is using standard English) will go a long way toward keeping arguments over trivialities to a minimum.

We return to your originally scheduled free-for-all.

Lehi

P.S.: If you don't know how to use them, get rid of ¾ of your apostrophes: you'll be right more often than not. But it would be better to learn the rule (an apostrophe always stands for a dropped letter(s), and never appears in a possessive pronoun). The Flying Apostrophe is a greater threat to humanity than bubonic plague. LS

You can join Frankenstein and Jaybear on their way out of the thread.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Minos

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

I don't remember that about Lee. But it been over 40 years so there is probably a lot more that I have forgotten too. Lee was probably a better General than Grant . I think his biggest problems were the lack of manpower and resources compared to the North. After Gettysburg he could really only wage holding actions.

[J Green]

This is why it is so frustrating to read many of the posts here: the authors lack basic English grammar, punctuation, syntax, and writing skills. (I'm not worried about non-native English speakers. They have a valid reason—not an excuse, the maximum effective range of which is 0 meters. Simple typos are also a minor concern, spelling mistakes, on the other hand, are grating.).

I'm likely one of the more egregious offenders, usually due to my haste in posting before performing basic editing skills. Oh well. My only defense is Jane Austen:

``Oh!'' cried Miss Bingley, ``. He leaves out half his words, and blots the rest.''

``My ideas flow so rapidly that I have not time to express them -- by which means my letters sometimes convey no ideas at all to my correspondents.''

``Your humility, Mr. Bingley,'' said Elizabeth, ``must disarm reproof.''

``Nothing is more deceitful,'' said Darcy, ``than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.''

``And which of the two do you call my little recent piece of modesty?''

``The indirect boast; -- for you are really proud of your defects in writing, because you consider them as proceeding from a rapidity of thought and carelessness of execution, which if not estimable, you think at least highly interesting. The power of doing any thing with quickness is always much prized by the possessor, and often without any attention to the imperfection of the performance. When you told Mrs. Bennet this morning that if you ever resolved on quitting Netherfield you should be gone in five minutes, you meant it to be a sort of panegyric, of compliment to yourself -- and yet what is there so very laudable in a precipitance which must leave very necessary business undone, and can be of no real advantage to yourself or any one else?''

(Pride and Prejudice, vol 1 chap 10.)

[KevinG]

What usually gets lost in discussions over the plight of LDS who are on probation, disfellowshipped or excommunicated is the fact that such actions are in response to voluntary admissions or requests of the persons involved. They are designed to help people repent and regain their status with the church and their security on the straight and narrow path which leads to salvation. Once their period of repentance is over their status is restored in full and they have the same priveledges as any other member of the Church.

For those who voluntarily take their names off the rolls of the Church it is allowed out of respect for their agency and to prevent further condemnation that comes with making a covenent then not keeping it.

Only predators or those who steal tithing funds are excommunicated without voluntary admission of sins or a church court.

Having served on Bishops counsels while at BYU I know just how hard it is to get uninvited to BYU for transgressions. Every effort is made to balance the needs of repentance with continued attendance at BYU.

Now which of these groups is experiecing discrimination from the BYU honor code?

[Scott Lloyd]

P.S.: If you don't know how to use them, get rid of ¾ of your apostrophes: you'll be right more often than not. But it would be better to learn the rule (an apostrophe always stands for a dropped letter(s), and never appears in a possessive pronoun). The Flying Apostrophe is a greater threat to humanity than bubonic plague. LS

Actually, an apostrophe with a noun (rather than a pronoun) makes that noun possessive. But I'm sure you realize this, and I understand what you are saying. You are absolutely right about pronouns and apostrophes.

And FWIW, I'm in wholehearted agreement with your post.