]
[/url]Just a passing observation. No comment whether this is good or bad.
Moderator: Global Moderator

]
[/url]That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.clacy wrote: Yes, being a minority is so hot right now. Being a white Christian.... not so much. To everything....turn, turn, turn.
Hopefully the current state of affairs is just an over-correction from the world we've left behind.
1. The missing piece from what I posted before is that the importance/influence of colleges/universities in society which increased dramatically from e.g. the 1940s/50s onward as the emphasis shifted from thinking for oneself, toward reliance on "experts" (who natch came from these universities). Thus it didn't matter much if university people were marxists before then.Simonjester wrote:an interesting take on when and how it happened that questions the 1960's starting date....Benko wrote: That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.
The story begins with the takeover of our university system—not in the 1960s but a full century before that. To make a long story short, in the early 1800s, American colleges were defined by Christianity, and in fact, most were defined denominationally. But America had no graduate schools, and therefore those desiring to move up the academic rung had to travel to Europe to earn a Ph.D.
But Europe’s universities, especially those in Germany which were by far the most prestigious, were already given over to radical Enlightenment thought that defined secular liberalism. To be educated at the highest level—and the highest level was defined by these German universities—meant to be liberal.
When these freshly minted Ph.D.’s came back, they were entirely defined, intellectually, by the assumptions and goals of liberalism. They had imbibed two centuries of European liberalism as the “latest”? thought—Rousseau, Spinoza, Hegel, D. F. Strauss, Marx, Darwin, Spencer, Comte, etc. They became the first radicals at our universities who believed—firmly, deeply, and all too predictably—that “to be educated”? meant “to subscribe to the most radical liberal views.”? And they were ready to launch a top-down revolution of benighted American society.
Again, not in the 1960s but beginning just after the 1860s.
They weren’t taking over existing graduate programs. Rather, they became the first faculty of all of America’s newly constructed graduate programs. They were the intellectual elite. They thereby defined what it meant to be educated with almost no resistance.
The first generation of graduate professors spawned a second generation of graduate professors and a new generation of undergraduate professors. The generations continued, second to third, third to fourth, and so on.

The correct answer to both of these is "who cares."notsheigetz wrote: [url=http://]
[/url]
Just a passing observation. No comment whether this is good or bad.

A lot of people care.RuralEngineer wrote:The correct answer to both of these is "who cares."

Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.
Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies. Or try calling your local town hall to see if you can reserve a community room for an atheist group meeting. Or the next time someone asks you what church you attend, tell them "I don't go to church, I'm an atheist" and watch their reaction. In some areas of the country, being openly atheist can get you physically assaulted or your property vandalized. Which speaks volumes about what religion does to people's minds.MachineGhost wrote:Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.

Would you expect someone who listed participation in non-charitible religious organizations to fare any better? Both would seem sort of out of place on a business resume, no?rocketdog wrote:Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies.MachineGhost wrote:Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.
Which is funny because progressives/athesists are the ones removing all visible vestiges of christianity from e.g. public spaces and schools, while at the same time forcing school children to learn moslem traditions e.g.rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.
Can't we see that left needs right....radical needs conservative...just like up needs down and short needs tall? How do these issues look through non-dualistic lenses? After-all, nothing can be self referential in the universe. In other words, the right depends on the left for their very survival. Without them, they cease to exist.Benko wrote:That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.clacy wrote: Yes, being a minority is so hot right now. Being a white Christian.... not so much. To everything....turn, turn, turn.
Hopefully the current state of affairs is just an over-correction from the world we've left behind.
*The American Psychiatric Society which ages ago decided that being gay was not pathologic (a good thing), has recently decided that it is OK if adults are attracted to children (i.e. pedophila) as long as they are only mildly attracted to children.

I actually agree with you on this. And you might find this interesting: http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.aspdoodle wrote: Can't we see that left needs right....radical needs conservative...just like up needs down and short needs tall? How do these issues look through non-dualistic lenses? After-all, nothing can be self referential in the universe. In other words, the right depends on the left for their very survival. Without them, they cease to exist.



The Crusades weren't "strong and powerful" enough for Nietzsche? How many army bases does the US have? It seems Christians have no problem with being "strong and powerful".doodle wrote: On a bit of a tangent...Im reading a bit of Nietzsche..."On the geneology of morals"..who thinks that Christianity basically amounts to a 2000 year mistake from the standpoint of the human species. From what I can understand, he seems to be making the argument that Christianity is a religion in which the weak have one upped the strong and virtuous by placing a version of God above them that looks unfavorably down upon their behavior. In addition, he argues that Christianity is actually a doctrine of hate towards the strong and powerful which is couched and disguised as universal love. He quotes St. Tomas Aquinas to support this idea by drawing attention to a statement he made in one of his writings that one of the most enjoyable gifts of heaven will be that the saved will be able to look down upon and witness the sufferings of those eternally damned.
All of this is probably why Nietzsche isnt too revered in Christian circles....

Looks like she harassed the wrong gay guy. Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone would call this a hate crime.murphy_p_t wrote: I'm including another example of a Christian martyr because it is relevant to the specifics of this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stachowicz

Absolutely! There are managers at my company who blatantly post religious artifacts and biblical sayings conspicuously around their office, so that interviewees can't help but notice them. Since it's illegal to ask an applicant their religion, this is an end-run around that restriction, because if the applicant brings up the subject then it's not illegal to discuss. This way managers can screen applicants based on religion without anyone being able to prove it.Pointedstick wrote:Would you expect someone who listed participation in non-charitible religious organizations to fare any better? Both would seem sort of out of place on a business resume, no?rocketdog wrote:Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies.MachineGhost wrote: Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.



I like Tebow because he's from Florida and because he was born in the Philippines and used his money from football stardom to start an organization dedicated to building hospitals over there. I think he may have overdone the religious proselytizing a bit and I prefer football to be about football but I was young and excited about my religion once and did similar things. No need to crucify him for it.TennPaGa wrote: Each of these athletes have their fans, and their detractors. It will always be such.
My recollection was that Tebow got plenty of positive press when he was winning football games.

Amen Bro. "Hate crime" means it was perpetrated against a currently in favor and politically protected group of people by a currently out of favor and politically incorrect person.Pointedstick wrote: I find the whole idea of a "hate crime" to be stupid. Isn't every crime an act of hate?