 “There’s one now. Get him!” (His sweet spirit still guiding gently) |
Liberty University will no longer recognize its campus Democratic Party club because its parent organization stands against the conservative Christian school’s moral principles.
The club, which has about 30 members, will no longer be able to use Liberty’s name, hold on-campus meetings, or be eligible for student activities money.
“I think it does the university a great disservice to stifle one side of the discussion simply because we are Democrats,” said Maria Childress, the club’s adviser and an administrative assistant at the school.
Brian Diaz, president of Liberty’s Democratic club, said he was informed of the school’s decision in a May 15 e-mail.
Liberty has had a College Republicans club for years. The Democratic club formed in October and worked aggressively to elect President Obama.
“They . . . let the Liberty University College Republicans stay on campus, but they don’t let us,” said Diaz, 18, who will be a sophomore next year. “Sounds like censorship to me.”
Childress said she is trying to appeal the decision to Jerry Falwell Jr., who became the Lynchburg school’s chancellor after his father died in 2007. In the meantime, students who violate the rule face reprimands under the school’s conduct code, which could result in expulsion.
Isn’t it ironic about the name “Liberty University”? I guess liberty doesn’t include the right to have an opinion. Then again, hypocrisy and theocratic leadership go hand in hand, at least according to Jesus.
“Hey, just looking left gives me a crick.”
Thanks, K B
#145 Why do I have to come up with an argument against God? That’s like coming up with an argument the tooth fairy. Or an argument against the easter bunny. Or an argument against wood elves. Or an argument the existence of Harry Potter.
But as a critical thinker (you seem obsessed with that term) you’d have to agree that the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove something exists. You can’t simply make the old double negative circular argument “if you cannnot prove something does not exist, then it must exist”. Boring, been there, done that. Went through that in Grade 2 over the existence of Santa Claus.
I’ll even go so far as to give you that the concept of God exists. Obviously – we are talking about it. By the way, it’s easier to nail down the concept of the easter bunny than nail down the concept of God. All the different Theologians from the different schisms of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion beat the crap out of each other over that one. But concept does not imply existence (Kant really nailed that one, even though he was a boring old fart to read).
If you want to believe in God, I can’t touch you. Faith is a personal decision and I respect that. Not going to criticize that. But I would say that making the existence of God a necessary part of religion belittles faith and any goodness found there. In fact, I would go farther and argue that doubt (and the limits therein) is a necessary part of a healthy faith life. Without doubt, religion becomes just another rhetorical political system which debases people with honest and simple faith.
#148 – Fredo
>>I made the choice…I probably will get health
>>care soon…
You might consider getting health INSURANCE before you get health CARE. You will be in for quite a rude shock when you get the bill, otherwise. You will STILL be in for a rude shock even with health insurance, but it will be a little less unpleasant.
>>but I do not want DMV like health care…a
>>person would have to be nuts to want that…or
>>Canadian, or British style…where they decide
>>if you live…or may put you do death…to spare
>>them the cost.
Why do you suppose that the Canadians and the Brits either laugh at us, or consider us to be barbarians?
Sure, there’s the occasional impatient millionaire who becomes testy because his liposuction will be delayed, and who comes to the US, where money can buy ANY medical care. But the vast majority of the citizenry can’t imagine how on earth we can have 45,000,000 people that do not have access to adequate medical care, because they can’t afford insurance. And to tell you the truth, I can’t either.
#150 – Cubie
>>Why do I have to come up with an argument
>>against God?
Beats me. Fredo is the kind of Bible-thumping kook that gives the rest of us God-loving folk a bad name.
If you choose not to believe, that’s fine with me. And I hope the tolerance is reciprocal.
It seems to have escaped Dittoheads like Fredo, but that’s what it means to be a proud citizen of America, land of the FREE, home of the brave.
#148, Ayatollah1,
I asked you for when this tax is being implemented. You can’t answer. It appears you screwed the pooch again. More unsubstantiated bullshit.
…but I do not want DMV like health care…a person would have to be nuts to want that…
So what the hell does your HMO do? Has your physician ever had to spend an hour on the phone trying to get an insurance agent to even discuss it?
You wouldn’t know a good health plan if it bit your ass.
#153 – Fus
>>So what the hell does your HMO do?
Fredo doesn’t have an HMO. With all that soda he drinks and junk food he eats, he’s afraid to go to either the doctor OR the dentist.
#155 – Fredo
>>As for health care…its a states rights issue…
>>I don’t want to live in a dictatorship…
You obviously don’t want to live in a country where access to basic medical care is considered important enough to provide to its citizens.
Don’t you worry your pretty little toothless head about what Obama is worrying about. He’s plenty smart enough to worry about both North Korea AND providing a decent quality of life for American citizens.
We’re not dealing with Bush anymore, remember.
#156 – Fredo
>>I go to Mexico for my dental work etc…its
>>cheaper.
I’ll bet you go to Joe the “plumber” for your clogged drains, too. I’ll bet he’s cheaper, not having a license and all.
#152, Mustard,
And that is something I can respect.
#155, Ayatollah1,
they should be worrying about N Korea etc…doing what they are constitutionally obligated to do…and get out of the bailout control everything business…its unconstitutional.
N. Korea isn’t in the Constitution. Nor is anything about worrying about what other countries do.
Welfare and commerce are in the Constitution.
I think this is what that cheap Mexican dental work does for you. Numbs the brain too much.
#144
> let’s see if this (me) high school drop out
That one statement says volumes about your posts.
#147
While I agree that it should be the States that come up with a system for health care coverage, there are some things that could be done to improve the system that would clearly fall into the purview of the Federal government. For example, making sure that anyone that wanted insurance could get it from any provider in any State. It is almost guaranteed that any health care or health care coverage system would be advanced via the interstate commerce clause so there is really no point in arguing that the Federal government does not have the authority.
#162 He never argues directly with me, but he does call me a dickhead. He’s a CINO – Christian in name only. 😀
That Alfred1 is a high school drop out explains why he doesn’t understand science, logic, or argumentation at all. It also explains how he can simultaneously not believe in evolution but simultaneously believe “asteroids killed almost all life on the planet…or super volcanoes…or whatever…REPEATEDLY almost all life on the planet wiped out…yet look at it today…it recovered each and every time” which pretty much requires evolution to work…
#165 Alfred, you’re killing me. You’ve popped so many disjunctive syllogisms it’s embarrassing. I promise not to argue with you anymore, I’m worried about your health.
Why would a left winger WANT to go to this Univ.? Weird.
Non sequitur, schooling does not determine brain size, unlike your pin head brain, mine is huge.
too bad brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. If you had stayed in school then perhaps you would have learned that in addition to science, logic, and reasoning. I never said you were unintelligent. I implied that you are ignorant and have a sever misunderstanding of those things.
Patrick FTW
#166 – Alfalfa:
Sorry, you missed the fourth kind of person – the delusional bible thumper.
Apparently a delusional bible thumper with hydrocephalus.
#166
If you are intelligent, you have done a masterful job of hiding it. Your arguments are sophomoric rants. Quoting scripture to argue a point is a sign of a weak position and the inability to form a coherent argument.
While schooling does not necessarily equate to intelligence, on average it does indicate something about intelligence of a person. I have met a few people that were high school drop outs that continued their eduction and were intelligent. However, the majority of them were not particularly intelligent. Until you show us differently, you fit the later category.
About the only thing you have in extra large is your ego. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder, probably from dropping out of high school, but have yet to come to terms with that which you do not know. You know about logical arguments but you do not know how to form them. You know about logical fallacies but do not recognize when you are using them. It is like a five year old thinking they can drive a car simply because they can drive a go-cart.
> God created all things,
> our Matrix, about
> 7,000 years ago”
Case in point. Only someone ignorant a outrance would make such a ridiculous statement. It is near impossible to discuss anything rationally with someone this irrationally ignorant. Presuming you are not suffering from some sort of mental disorder, I suggest you consider going back and getting your diploma and actually taking a few college courses. Such ignorance and irrational opinions will not fly in real science classes.
#171
> It was up to you to
> prove you could construct a
> reasoned argument against God
> , whose conclusion you
> believed irrefutable.
The reasoned argument is simple. You are claiming such a being exists. Provide tangible, repeatable, verifiable proof that it does.
> The first fallacy that leaped
> from your opening was your
> false analogy, billions believe
> in God, no one believes in
> Harry potter…these aren’t the same at all.
Billions believe in all kinds of things. Billions believe in Hinduism. Billions believe in Buddhism. Over the course of history, billions have believed in Thor, Zeus and a host of other beings. Billions of children believe in Santa Claus. Anecdotal evidence is not proof. In order to provide evidence that such a being exists, it must be evidence that could be verified by someone that does not believe in Christianity. An atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, or any host of other religions should be able to review your evidence and come to the same conclusion.
You haven’t even defined what it, your deity actually is. Is it a single being? Is it corporeal?
Thomas, you’re arguing with someone who is seemingly arguing with himself. It’s kind of like talking to a guy with a toupee.
Russell’s teapot is one my favourite arguments and presents, what was for me, the nail in the coffin after spending a number of years thinking about the existence of God. I’ve never understood why so many believers, some who I have a great deal of respect for, always seem to fall back to the same two rather weak counter arguments:
1. I don’t have to prove God exists, you have to prove he doesn’t exist.
2. Lots of people believe in God, therefore he can’t be classified with other non-corporeal beings like your example of Zeus (or Russell’s teapot).
It’s completely baffling to me that the whole proof arguments starts with “I believe, therefore he is, until proven otherwise”. Sadly, even McGrath’s book boiled down to this. I was expecting a lot more but it just didn’t deliver.
I don’t doubt the existence of belief. I doubt that belief necessarily implies existence. In fact it’s the weakest argument for the existence of God.
Ya know, whether Liberty U. is private or public, takes government funds or not, really makes no difference. Liberty U. still resides in the US of A. And the Bill Of Rights should still apply, even behind their Ivory Gates. Excluding a party affiliation, they don’t like, is in violation of Freedom of Speech. The ACLU ought to have a case against them. I’m sure their State won’t make a case against L.U. for its unconstitutional policies. So only an outside concern would have the guts to mount one. Which would automatically get itself labeled as “liberal”, I’m sure. Because only “conservatives” always support other conservatives, in stomping on that wicked US Constitution, that inconveniences them so much.
#182 Alfalfa – Believing in god is EXACTLY like believing in fictional characters.
By the way, Alfie, my best buddy, I could quote you so many paragraphs from various books written by well-respected scientists that discuss the big bang, evolution, etc. But you wouldn’t believe them. So, why do you think quoting from a bible is evidence of the truthfulness of your beliefs?
Nimby, you can nail that whole “lot’s of people believe in God therefore it’s a special case” by using reductio ad absurdum. Or even better use Abraham arguing with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. When God says he’s going to rain down destruction Abraham says you wouldn’t destroy it if there was 50 righteous people, then 40, then 20 and so on. It may be the most fascinating story in the bible.
So the question to ask, is there a threshold for the number of people believing in God to make it a special case? Eventually reduce it down to 1 person (because an arbitrary number like 42 would be absurd) then cite dozens of absurd beliefs with 1 or more people. Jedism for example. This dilutes the special case argument until it becomes a straw man.
# 180 Glenn E. said, “Ya know, whether Liberty U. is private or public, takes government funds or not, really makes no difference. Liberty U. still resides in the US of A. And the Bill Of Rights should still apply”
Bzzt. Wrong. The Bill of Rights (1st Amend) doesn’t apply to you while in my home, do you have a clue as to why it doesn’t?
It might apply at the Univ., it depends on its sources of funding and whether it is public or private. You should try reading the constitution.
#178
> I can’t make sophomoric rants…
> never in college
I really do not need to add to this. It says all that it needs.
Coming back to your claim, you have provided no proof nor even scientific speculation which would require your statement to be falsifiable. Without tangible evidence that said being exists, it does not. The scientific principles you discussed have nothing to do with a supernatural being. If we were able to detect such a being, it would not be supernatural; it would be natural.
#179
Indeed. One has to have hope that even children will grow up at some point.
#181
> Asking for justification of
> claims is NOT an argument…
The argument is simple: the claimant must provide proof of their claim. You are claiming that a being exists and thus the burden of proof lies with you. I’m not asking for justification. I’m asking for evidence that supports your claim. Your particular argument fallacy is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam; an appeal to ignorance. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance. The burden of proof is one you to establish what said being is and that it exists. This is critical thinking 101 and you are failing.
#187
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
#190
Again, you do not understand. It must be evidence that any atheist, Hindu, Buddist or any other religion would accept. Just as a Hindu would not accept the Bible as evidence, I as an atheist do not. Furthermore, using the Bible to prove your deity’s existence is a “beg the question” argument fallacy and thus is rejected outright.
I see evidence of nature all around and none that establishes the existence of your deity. Perhaps if you were able to define in precise, tangible, non-Biblical terms what your deity is exactly that would help.
#190
As an interesting follow-up to your response, if “everything” is your deity, what is not your deity? How do you know when something is not “God”? If you literally define everything as your deity, then we are back to Russell’s teapot as the corner into which you have argued prevents you from ever finding proof said being exists and it becomes the equivalent of Thor, Zeus, Harry Potter and flying dragons.
If God exists how do you know Christianity is the correct religion and not any of the other monotheistic religions?
#193
As I said in #191, what is not God? How do you differentiate “Not God” from “God”?
Sadly, it is clear you do not understand and may never. It would appear that you did yourself a disservice by leaving HS too early as there is much about the world you have yet to learn. You don’t know what you don’t know.
It is clear you do not understand how to assemble logical arguments or how to recognize logical fallacies. In short, you have not yet learned how to think critically. Much like a self-trained athlete that learns bad habits, by not having a coach to help you understand where you are making mistakes, you have learned some mistaken notions about how the critical thinking process works. Like the athlete, it is possible to un-learn these habits, but as the years go on, it will become more difficult.
If you are so convinced the certitude of your logic, I suggest you take a college course from a non-religious accredited university on critical thinking. If your logic is as sound as you feel it to be, then you should not have any difficulty in such a course.
While I’m all in favor of boosting John’s click ratings, I think this discussion has come to its conclusion. Your beliefs are you own of course, however do not for a minute think that because you have blind faith that you are able to think critically. What you think is critical thought is a morass of twisted logic and argument fallacies. One day, perhaps, we can hope, you will find a subject on which you are having an argument, which will most likely not be religion, when the light bulb will click and you will realize the logic mistakes you have been making with respect to your beliefs. Adieu.