<p>FS: I’m not going to debate the authenticity of Jesus (personally, I would be much happier to hear a lot more attention paid to his LIFE than his DEATH, as I think Christianity has totally garbled the message), but that again, the speaker presented the choice not as what Jesus believed about himself, but what is objective truth about him. If Bono wants to describe how he sees it, great, but for a speaker representing the student body and its government, it is proselytizing, and i think it’s inappropriate. </p>
<p>The fact that it doesn’t bother you is immaterial; you don’t get to be the spokesman for all non-Christians in the audience.</p>
<p>I just find it ironic that at a university, a place all herald for its ‘diversity’ and multi-culturalism that the one thing that is seen as most offensive are actual displays of intellectual diversity.</p>
<p>I do not think that a Hindu should have to resort to mythologizing their deeply held beliefs to make moral or intellectual points based on those beliefs–I feel the same way about Christians, Muslims and Sufis.</p>
<p>As to speaking for all non-Christians, there are more than enough Christians who find that to be their vocation:</p>
<p>If I were a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, whatever, member of that audience, I would have gotten a clear message of exclusion.</p>
<p>Though, as an actual non-Christian in that audience I thought that my own experience might be appropriate to the conversation.</p>
<p>Christians, like everyone else, can freely discuss their religion at any university. That you can’t see the difference between the free exchange of ideas, and exhortations to follow the only correct way by a person in a position of power, is puzzling.</p>
<p>The president of the student body is hardly a position of power, Garland. It would be quite a different thing if the speech had been made by an official or a faculty member.</p>
<p>If I thought that Riner was declaring all other religious paths incorrect, I would not have necessarily been offended but would have nevertheless taken issue with such a remark. However that is not what he said, or did. </p>
<p>He made moral/intellectual points within the tradition he practices and believes. It happens to be the dominant tradition/beleif in the US. The way I see it is that if the dominant tradition in any particular culture cannot freely refer to their beliefs and traditions, certainly minority cultures will be denied such obvious liberties. </p>
<p>Therefore, instead of being offended by open expressions of faith and belief (to a noble end) I am cheered on by them. </p>
<p>I prefer to have more open discussion, not less. We can openly and proudly refer to our sexual preferences and how they influence our lives, even our artistic or political preferences or beliefs, but it seems that the deepest and most profound form of belief, the one that informs all our other views, is considered beyond the pale.</p>
<p>To me this is indicative of a closed society, not an open one.</p>
<p>I do not share Riners beliefs, but I must say that I was moved by his use of them in a good way. If I so chose, I could have been indignantly offended like many of the people posting here, but I chose to see the kernel of truth rather than the form of the shell.</p>
<p>It’s also my understanding that Riner, a senior, was well known on campus for his strong religious faith at the time the other students elected him. I think he wanted to stir things up, and the college could use some of that. As Stacey Kourlis wrote: “He stood up against political correctness, and it’s about time.”</p>
<p>Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a Convocation and what is its purpose? Is it meant to be a religious meeting at all? I think my daughter went to a convocation in connection with her high school graduation. It was definitely a meeting with serious religious overtones–non-denominational, but definitely Christian in nature.</p>
<p>If I had been a student (or faculty/staff at the College) in the audience, I would have been stunned listening to the roll call of Dartmouth miscreants. Not what I would have expected from school sponsored talk. </p>
<p>But I agree with the basic theme of the talk–a Dartmouth education (or any education), without personal character, is nothing. And I had no problem using Jesus to illustrate character. </p>
<p>I think the talk veered off topic with the sections following: “Jesus is a good example of character, but He’s also much more than that.”</p>
<p>And the talk got back on track after: “You want the best undergraduate education in the world, and you’ve come to the right place to get that. But there’s more to college than
achievement.” </p>
<p>It looks to me as if he had this speech all planned out and then stuck in 4 paragraphs of “preaching, witnessing and testifying” into it. If you look at the talk as a whole, those paragraphs just don’t fit with the structure.</p>
<p>Would have been a better speech with at least one more example of someone with character, one less Dartmouth miscreant and delete the testifying.</p>
<p>ellem,
A convocation is an assembly. At many colleges, it’s an opening ceremony for the school year, an assembly of students and faculty, who hear speakers essentially exhorting them to make the most of the coming semesters. It differs from place to place. At Dartmouth, it seems to be addressed to the incoming class; at Williams, to the new Senior class.</p>
<p>Well–I will note one similarity between Riner and the graduate who spoke about her personal experience learning to acclimate to life as an amputee. Both told of overcoming adversity, achieving some sort of re-birth. I’ll concede, even so, that hers was far more typical. But…what if her religious faith had been the catalyst for her moving on with her life after losing a leg–learning to ski, and all the rest? What if Jesus had guided her on this path, and she hoped to share that experience and sense of redemption with others? :)</p>
<p>To those who found fault with the speaker’s “youthful proselytizing” let us recall our own youth and how our passions (is Mr Riner’s faith less than that?) led us to try to convince others of our point of view, religious or otherwise. Is not acting on their passions - for good and for bad - the very essence and beauty of youth? Would we change that just to preserve our comfort level? Should we be that stupid? Do we need faith? Do we not need faith? Has our intellect alone solved the world’s problems? Has our intellect alone not solved them? Do we care to solve them? Do we not care to?..</p>
<p>One point you all missed…if you have read in the papers of late, the incidences of violence, raping, looting, etc have been greatly exagerated, so his speech was not well researched. The looting, well a few people stole tv while most took clothes and food. He used unsubstanciated rumors to incite his audience. Came across as a bit racist.</p>
<p>And this line:</p>
<p>He is the solution to flawed people like corrupt Dartmouth alums,
looters, and me</p>
<p>He is THE solution…</p>
<p>that is trying to say that if you are flaw, Jesus is the only way. he didn’t say A solution. THE, which means one and only</p>
<p>So, all you sinners, unless you find it in Jesus to fix you, well, you will never be fixed. That is what he said. THE solution. Pretty obvious. </p>
<p>The President of the Class said the solution to fixing your flaws was Jesus. To fixing your character. Jesus</p>
<p>So, FS, beware, you are still flawed cause you don’t see Jesus as your solution.</p>
<p>It wasn’t about God, it wasn’t about Faith, it was about finding Jesus. Plain and Simple. A very Christian speech, which neglected to even consider that people can be good without having Jesus as THE solution. </p>
<p>Wow. I think this school will be sorry they have chosen such a narrow minded, bigoted, and anti-semetic President. Because he is.</p>
<p>by the way, the title to the thread is misleading, unless you see Jesus as God. Because the speechmaker talked about Jesus. Not everyone sees Jesus as God.</p>
Yes, CGM…I pointed this out to you a week ago when you were still on your uninformed rampage. Glad you finally figured it out. Here’s what you would have responded to your own message back then:
<p>Have you ever thought about sitting down and putting all your thoughts into one extended post, instead of the serial non sequiturs? It’s confusing, even to me.</p>