<p>I also found this in my search for more info on the Klan
I am bothered more by the use of the Christian bible to divide the human race than any apathy toward relgion that might be found on college campuses.</p>
<p>
<a href=“volkermord.com”>volkermord.com;
<p>Emeraldkity, that page becomes an ad.</p>
<p>Driver, you’ll have to ask the guy who left Williams.</p>
<p>
Well, I’m more bothered by that too. But I’m also bothered by a sloppy, cavalier, and ignorant bigotry that seeks to paint people of faith as racist, sexist murderers. The implications of what you posted are of a piece with the Klan screed you rightfully deplore, EK4. Sorry if that’s too judgemental for you.</p>
<p>Dstark, perhaps you should ask, before making such a statement.</p>
<p>Are some here making them claim that secularists lack morality? Do only those with a strong religious foundation perform public good? </p>
<p>Secularism and religion are neither good or bad-
I consider myself a deist with a strong belief in a secular government- I believe this country while not without problems is the best it has ever been and will only get better.</p>
<p>Driver, why as a Jew, should I have to sit in a Christian church at a college? If Dartmouth really thought the old days were better, why did they allow females into the school? Why did they hire a Jewish president?</p>
<p>where did I ever make the case that all Christians/Muslims/Sikhs et al are evil?
My point was that traditionally religion has been used- not always used- to condemn and seperate those who are “other”
THat just because someone considers themselves to be “on the side of God” does not mean anything of the sort- and that just because college campuses are more places of secular learning rather than religious sanctuaries does not make them inherently immoral.</p>
<p>dstark, all I can do is repeat: Making people go to church wasn’t the point of the article.</p>
<p>
I think that posting klan/neo-nazi webpages as a comparative reference to Christian religions constitutes calling them “evil.”
Totally agree. The question brought up in the Dartmouth Review article was a matter of degree. S/he thought that traditional religion and morality were too under-represented in the mix, and made that point salient by contrasting it with the the way things were at these schools’ inceptions. There’s no bible-thumping boogeyman under the bed. You’re going to be OK.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that religion alone can give purpose and meaning to modern life as was concluded in the article. I like the fact the schools have gone secular and people from all walks of life can attend without being told to sit in a church. I like the idea that students can go to a school and practice whatever religion they want. Who stops a Dartmouth kid from going to church? I want to know.</p>
<p>I posted the link to the Klan youth group only because I wanted to illustrate religion has been used to hurt people, and that those people think they are as “right” as others on these boards.</p>
<p>I also brought it up in a response to “who was doing the lynching” although I imagined that was a rhetorical question- because it has been my impression that generally it was under the guise of the Klan that lynching was done- although I know that oftentimes people may have used the trappings of the Klan like the hoods & the fiery crosses, to inflict fear and hate when there wasnt a formal affliation.</p>
<p>I couldnt’ really decipher the article but I was responding to the posts that felt that “tradition” was “superior” and what we have “now” is secular mayhem</p>
<p>I saw the point of the article that if the school went back to its religious beginings, all these problems would suddenly go away at the by the school and that the religious students would make the place better and that the veering away from its religious base causeed problems.</p>
<p>But the article implies that times were just wonderful when the school had its religious base, while I disagree, that for many, when there was religion in schools, things were in fact pretty dismal for many, and having religion and religious people didn’t make things better. And that while having that religious base, kids were still drinking, having sex, not caring about things…</p>
<p>Oh my, where to begin?</p>
<p>Apparently, some feel that neo-Nazis and the KKK are representative people of faith and apropos to a discussion of tradition and religion on campuses in the Northeast. </p>
<p>Hmmm? I wonder, would Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao be representative and apropos to a discussion of secularism, atheism and socialism? They certainly had a far bigger following of psychopaths and kindred spirits than the two bottom-feeders mentioned above.</p>
<p>It seems that there are also those who believe if one says they like a connection to tradition in public life that they must also have fond and pining recollections of racism, sexism, lynching and a general disregard for human beings in general. An interesting appraisal of our ancestors, forbearers and traditional cultures such as they are…much like, say, numerous Native American and African tribes which are, by all accounts, as culturally traditional as they can be these days.</p>
<p>Also a rather strange fascination with the Bill Holiday standard, Strange Fruit. </p>
<p>Dstark said:
He wouldn’t want his kid educated in a Christian school. He would prefer a school where intelligence is valued.</p>
<p>A rather droll form of slander and bigotry wouldnt you say? Change Christian School to Jewish school if you dare.</p>
<p>I also have this sick feeling that a few of the posters believe that I should be more appreciative than most for American pluralism on account of my ethnic/religious background; there certainly seems to be an inordinate number of specific references to my personal ethnicity/culture and my personal indebtedness to unspecified liberators by the fornication proponents (such a revealing epithet):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>If you would have been admitted in the 50s, which I strongly doubt you would have been, your skin color and ethnicity would have barred you from virtually every fraternity</p></li>
<li><p>You would not have been able to participate, most likely years ago.
So I would rather a bit if diversity, of which you should be very very grateful</p></li>
<li><p>and now, thank goodness, you have freedom to be a Sufi. You have no idea what it would have been like for you in the 50s. I wish you would recognize that, but you just can’t I suppose.</p></li>
<li><p>you would not have been hired because you were a Sufi.</p></li>
<li><p>FS, would not have been able to even go to but a few schools.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I will be eternally grateful, but it gives me a bit of an eerie feeling to see the argument put forward in this way to be the guinea pig of a partisan political point. But it may be true that I should have to feel more moral debt to someone or other than others do, due to my birth and skin color. </p>
<p>Moreover, citygirlsmom, you said FountainSiren thinks that going back to when things were religious based would fixd things all better.</p>
<p>I neither said nor implied any such thing.</p>
<p>Could you either substantiate this comment or retract it (unless you believe yourself to be not only correct but, in this case, psychic).</p>
<p>I think the point is that the religion vs. secularism has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or moral values. Secular individuals are as likely to be moral, upstanding citizens as the most devout practitioner of any religion – they just rationalize their moral values in a different way. They are likely to be more likely to adhere to whatever values they espouse, since they are governing their own conduct by their own beliefs, and not by the beliefs imposed by a religious authority or scripture. </p>
<p>Here’s an easy example: try talking to a vegan about food. Veganism is not a religion – and while there may be a some religions that bar eating of meat (example: Hinduism) - most vegans in western nations are not following religious strictures. But they are very likely to have come to very strong beliefs about the value or morality of raising or killing animals for food. </p>
<p>But you don’t have to go so far: a secularist who believes stealing is wrong out of a simple respect for the rights of others is no less honest than one who believes it is wrong because it is forbidden by the ten commandments. There is a gut level set of human values that we all seem to agree on regardless of religion that probably stems more from instincts and experience as part of our existance as a social beings – it may be labeled “religious” but even animals follow their own set of rules that could be deemed “moral” within their species. I mean, what makes a healthy and well-fed penguin decide to traverse miles and miles of icy wasteland in order to deliver food to a chick that might not even be living by the time the penguin gets to it? It isn’t God, its nature. </p>
<p>So the entire premise of equating nihilism with lack of religiousity is false, at least when the religion under discussion seems to be Christianity. That is, there may be some sects or denominations of some religions where adherants are far more likely to live consistently within the strictures of their faith – but the broad label “Christianity” isn’t one. I mean face it, you will find a higher percentage of people who call themselves Christians at a typical prison than at a typical college – but you can’t argue that they are more moral people. The converse is true: religion offers a sense of solace to those who have reason to be ashamed of their own conduct. </p>
<p>But even at a college, religion is often used as a cloak or an excuse: the concept that it is o.k. to drink and revel on Saturday night so long as you atone for your sins through churchgoing on Sunday morning is a prime example. Those secularists who sleep in on Sunday morning were no more or less drunk than their churchgoing counterparts, thought they may be more well rested and ready for work on Monday morning. </p>
<p>So forget the premise: the colleges have not lost anything at all by the abandonment of a show of religion. What has happened is that times have changed, and one of the aspects of the changed times is that we no longer expect our college to be places where religious conformity is enforced. It isn’t “nihilism” so much as individualism – and there is no causal relationship, just changed times and changed norms of behavior.</p>
<p>very nice post calmom</p>
<p>I must comment that I was responding to an eariler post about lynching and posted the comment from the KKK site because when others clicked on it it switched immediately to an ad. I wouldn’t have done so otherwise.
However since that is the only thing that I have posted that has even been replied to our acknowledged- I will go back to original post for my argument.</p>
<p>t is hard for this enlightened knowledge to stick when the academic accomplishments of the day are washed away in the night by a meaningless sea of alcohol and one-time assignations.</p>
<p>So what does this mean? It is hard for knowledge to stick?
As I pointed out before Reed college has both a high number of students who attain a PHd in religion( and Phds period) AND where my daughter who hasn’t been to church since she was about 6 is hardly unusual.
So it wouldn’t seem that gradutates were unable to make use of their knowledge gained in a secular environment.
And even if Reed didn’t teach study of classical texts so what?
We have colleges that require professors to swear that they will uphold the teachings of creationism!
Do you think Dartmouth requires that profs swear that they will be secular in all things and breed doom and pessimism?
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised of a high rate of alcohol use from a school with a long tradition of “winter carnival”.
But it is a private school- and has adults as students- its their chioce I imagine what traditions to value
Anyway thats a good thing right? Tradition?
Im well aware that my own beliefs will be in an extreme minority at the college I will attenda female Sufi conservative with a profound respect for ANY traditional or cultural value</p>
<p>It isn’t God, its nature.</p>
<p>Calmom,</p>
<p>Did you come to this conclusion using the scientific method or through some other form of sophistry? Since as far as I know, science has never claimed as part of its domain theological concerns, i.e. there is no god or, god is not behind the way of nature.
What I have gathered about science, at 17, is that it relates itself only to the how and what of things, not the metaphysical why. That is, it does not speculate on the metaphysical cause of things but rather on physical things and physical explanations, which leaves no room for statements like It isn’t God, its nature, in science. So I will take your statement as either a certain kind of musing or a dogma. Ive heard it referred to as scientism not science
might be related to Tom Cruise but Im not sure;)</p>
<p>Secular individuals are as likely to be moral, upstanding citizens as the most devout practitioner of any religion</p>
<p>For all I know this may be true, but it would be interesting to know how you have come to such statistical certainty.</p>
<p>[secularist are] governing their own conduct by their own beliefs, and not by the beliefs imposed by a religious authority or scripture. Here’s an easy example: try talking to a vegan about food. Veganism is not a religion – and while there may be a some religions that bar eating of meat (example: Hinduism) - most vegans in western nations are not following religious strictures.</p>
<p>Should I then understand this to mean that you have concluded that vegans are of a higher moral character than Hindus, since the vegan is not following religious strictures and the Hindu, as a religious person, is (which I should add turns the reason why Hindus do not eat meat into a cartoon caricature of why Hindus do not eat meatthat would be like saying that liberal democrats do not rape or commit murder because there are secular legal strictures [laws] which prohibit it and no other moral or rational reason)?</p>
<p>it may be labeled “religious” but even animals follow their own set of rules that could be deemed “moral” within their species</p>
<p>I suppose someone could, but Im not aware of any ethicist having ever suggested it; you could also say that apples fall to the ground to due a moral inclination inherent to apples having noticed that they consistently and irrationally continue to fall to the ground seemingly as a moral act in order to grow trees and feed the worms.</p>
<p>So the entire premise of equating nihilism with lack of religiousity is false, at least when the religion under discussion seems to be Christianity.</p>
<p>As I suggested to another poster above, rewrite this sentence and for Christian insert Judaism or Hinduism and see how it sounds. Im astonished by these clearly slanderous and unfounded remarks against other peoples faiths/cultures/beliefs; is this a part of the new multi-cultural ethos?</p>
<p>you will find a higher percentage of people who call themselves Christians at a typical prison than at a typical college – but you can’t argue that they are more moral people. The converse is true: religion offers a sense of solace to those who have reason to be ashamed of their own conduct.</p>
<p>The premise behind religious morality is that we are all sinners in need of healing and redemption. If you go to an AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) meeting you will find that everyone there is an alcoholic, though you will not find those abusers of spirits who, in their self-satisfaction, do not consider themselves alcoholic attending AA meetings; in this analogy, alcoholics do not see themselves as sinners/alcoholics in need of healing and redemption, they are quite self-satisfiedoften boisterously proud of their current inebriated lifestyle (although, according to AA dogma, most often, alcoholics will not end up in AA until they have reached rock-bottom much like the prisoners (having committed the sin that landed them in prison) finding God only after they have fallen into prison as in the example you cite of prisoners and Christianity (and Islam); they do not, however, deserve our ridicule but our respect for at least looking for a solution to what afflicts them; whether at an AA meeting after hitting rock-bottom or in prison if they seek AAs legal equivalence in religious redemption and moral instruction).</p>
<p>But even at a college, religion is often used as a cloak or an excuse</p>
<p>Meaning, I suppose, people (even college people) are often insincere and or hypocrites (or do you really mean to say only the religious ones are insincere and hypocritical?); I suppose they may come as a revelation to some
but I expect not.
As I understand these things, human beings have a long association with hypocrisy and insincerity and need no inducements from religion or God to live out their scurrilous and time tested fantasies.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, you totally misread what I said. </p>
<p>Fifty years ago, you couldn’t get into the school. Now you are allowed in the school. You are allowed to believe anything you want. You can think what you want. If you believe in Christianity, you can do that at Dartmouth. There are religious clubs. You can go to church. Nobody is stopping you. </p>
<p>That is not good enough for you. You want everybody to go to church whether they believe or not. You want to control people’s thoughts, beliefs and actions based on some superior morality that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>“The premise behind religious morality is that we are all sinners in need of healing and redemption.”</p>
<p>Excuse me? I belong to a religion - a CHRISTIAN religion - and we do NOT believe in original sin, and we tend to be rather moral sorts, I would think. But I imagine if you force people into a room long enough and preach unstintingly to them that they are sinful, they will find ways to act to meet your preconceptions.</p>
<p>So let’s do what you say, and insert “Judaism”, DStark’s religion, where you wrote “Christianity”. Original sin has disappeared again. Try inserting the religion of my mother in India - She is a follower of Ramalinga - and original sin has disappeared again. Try it with Hinduism, deism, pantheism, Buddhism - NONE of these have human sinfulness as the premise behind religious morality.</p>
<p>It is is okay with me if you choose to remain in ignorance. It is not okay to try to impose it on everyone else. Nowadays at least, you could go to Dartmouth and try to remedy it. You could even go to Williams, and have President Schapiro tell you what his religion says about human sinfulness as the premise behind religious morality.</p>
<p>and we do NOT believe in original sin, and we tend to be rather moral sorts</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>The origins of sin would seem to be superfluous to the fact of sin itself as a moral act; although there may be theological implications to the origins of sin; bad moral behavior, or sinning, needs no proofjust pick up a newspaper on any given day and observe it as an objective fact. </p>
<p>It has been said that there is nothing so substantiated in the eyes of any observer than the fact of sin (bad moral/ethical behavior) in the real world. Sounds about right, when accompanied with an observation of those fighting immoral/unethical behavior in themselves and in the world.</p>
<p>I was not aware that either Quakers believe that there is no sin, or conversely (as you also seem to imply), that there is in fact sin in the world caused by an inordinate amount of attention to the fact of sin (which otherwise doesnt exist) in church/temple/synagogue/mosque. So the act of sin begins in the diagnosis of the effects of that act which is being diagnosed? Wow, this logic is dizzying.</p>
<p>[for the record, you introduced the idea of “original sin”, I have never even mentioned it]</p>
<p>Mini- off topic but could you tell me about the role of Jesus within the Quaker faith. My limited understanding is that Quakers believe in complete equality and that the light is within all of us so I am unsure of the significance of Jesus within the faith. Does Jesus have higher standing or equal standing to others. Is their different sects within Quakers where his role is diminished? As a deist I find many areas of my limited knowledge of the Quaker faith to be agreeable to my way of thinking. I am not sure when god created the universe she would do so with any individual having higher standing</p>