MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on December 30, 2017, 07:54:24 AM
-
Something I didn't expect happened at Friday's luncheon for the public-school basketball tournament in which my team is playing this weekend:
Jesus was pushed - aggressively - at the kids.
The tournament is being held at Laney HS in Wilmington NC, MJ's alma mater. It includes 12 public schools - 4 from the local area playing in both the boys and girls events, 4 out-of-town girls teams (including mine), and 4 out-of-town boys teams.
We were "required" to attend Friday's luncheon, which was held in the cafeteria of one of the other Wilmington public schools and was put on by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. We were told we would get a meal and that there would be a "motivational speaker."
I expected a pre-meal prayer, and I expected a speaker who would talk about the usual: good sportsmanship, being good role models, choosing friends wisely, working hard in school, the importance of education, etc, etc. I told my wife beforehand that because it was a FCA thing, I wouldn't be surprised if a little Jesus was sprinkled in. I wasn't thrilled about that but I accepted that it would probably be the case.
Sure enough, we get the pre-meal prayer; relative short and sweet, with a couple of Jesus references. Forget that my team has a Jewish player, and others might have too, as well as others of different faiths. After 7 years in the Bible Belt, I'm already used to blatant disregard for non-Christians.
About 20 minutes later, as the kids are finishing their meal, the speaker is introduced. He is Wayne Robinson, a 1980 draft pick of the Lakers who had a cup of coffee in the NBA and played several years overseas. He's now an entrepreneur and a minister.
It started innocently enough: He told us his background, coming up from the 'hood to rise to the NBA through hard work and dedication and the love of his parents. He told about how his father worked 3 jobs to support the family and that every Sunday he would have to help his father clean toilets. "I respected my pops and I loved him to death, and I knew he didn't want to clean toilets but he HAD to clean toilets because that's what janitors do. But I decided right then and there that I wasn't going to ever have to clean toilets to support my family."
He asked the kids in the room to raise their hands if they thought they would play basketball in college. Probably half the players raised their hands, maybe a little more. Then he asked if their goal was to play in the NBA or the WNBA. Probably 30 or so hands went up, mostly boys. He then presented several statistics showing how few get basketball scholarships and how very, very few players make it to the pros. "I know that for some of you, education isn't your priority, but I'm here to tell you that if you don't want to be cleaning toilets - or sitting in a jail cell - it had better be a priority."
OK, so far, pretty much what I expected. We were about 6-7 minutes into his spiel.
He then talked about his father again, reminded us that his father had to work on Sundays so he didn't get to go to church. But despite that, he knew that God was in his father and that God was looking over the whole family because they had accepted that Jesus was their Lord and savior.
"OK, here we go," I thought. "Just make it snappy, get back to the 'work hard and stay in school' theme and let's get out of here."
He spent the next 15-20 minutes preachin'.
He said that if you don't let Jesus into your lives, you've got nothing to live for. Which probably was news to any Jews, Muslims or - horrors! - atheists in the audience. He said that the devil was doing everything he could to get to these kids and that they had to guard against it, and the only way to do that was to totally commit to Jesus. He recited bible verses. He relayed a couple of Jesus-filled anecdotes.
At one point, he asked everybody to close their eyes and keep them closed and don't look around the room as he asked a few questions. The first one: Anybody who doesn't believe that Jesus is your Lord and savior, raise a finger. I of course did not have my eyes closed and I was looking around the room. Not one finger went up. Not even mine. I wasn't going to be singled out by this guy ... and neither was the Jewish girl on our team ... and neither were any of the others who might have spelled their god's name differently.
He then asked who thought God probably exists but had some doubts. No fingers. Who didn't go to church regularly. Some fingers. Who considered themselves sinners. Some fingers. And on it went, about 10 questions asked. I was starting to feel a little sick to my stomach over the display.
After that was over, he told everybody to keep their eyes closed and repeat after him. He recited a long, very detailed mantra - I would call it a prayer, but it wasn't really praying but indoctrination - in which each person in the room promised to love and embrace Jesus. All of our players kept their eyes closed that I could see; I was at an adjacent table so I couldn't tell if all of them repeated the words, but our 2 other coaches did.
After that, he said something like: "It warms my heart to have so many believers in one room, but it isn't enough to think you believe or to even believe. You have to embrace Jesus, study his teachings and live your lives the way Jesus wants you to. So in a minute, I will ask everybody to come up here and get one of these books."
They were FCA-endorsed bibles. He described them in detail and again said everybody should go up and get one. They might not have enough for everybody, but if you write down your name and address they'll get one to you. He went on and on about the books.
He then wrapped up his speech with more Jesus talk, saying that if you don't accept Jesus you will never have a fulfilling life, and he pushed the books one more time.
Kids got up and dozens of them formed a line to get the bibles, as he continued urging them to do. I'd say 3 or 4 of our 13 players got in line. The others stood in a group talking.
I got up and stood silently. I didn't say a word, but I also didn't act out or anything. But then our other assistant coach said, "Come on girls, don't you want to get your bibles?"
Very much under my breath I muttered, "Come on, man, really?" Nobody heard me (nor did I want anybody to, including the other assistant, whom I really like.) I walked to the back of the room near the doors so I wouldn't say or do anything I would regret as I waited for a merciful ending to it all.
Finally, we filed out of there and got in our cars. I was the driver of a car with 5 girls. Not a single one of them mentioned the speech/prayer session/recruiting pitch. I thought that was a little odd because it was a long program and the speaker was very personable and forceful. If the speaker had been a truly famous athlete or musician or something, I'm sure they would have gone on and on about him or her. But ... crickets. Instead, they talked about how bad the food at the luncheon was - which was true.
(Interestingly, there haven't been any prayers recited before games. I have been to public-school tournaments here where that has been the case, including the Thanksgiving event we played in just a month earlier; it's pretty common here in the Bible Belt; they do the fairly innocuous "God, keep everybody safe, and guide the players, coaches and spectators to be good sports" deal. But they haven't done it here, at least not the first two days.)
So ...
Is this what I should have expected? Is this the FCA's gig - get a bunch of impressionable public school kids together in one room and spend a half-hour indoctrinating them?
Is it appropriate? Should these 4 public Wilmington schools have aligned themselves not only with a religious group but one that would recruit for Jesus so aggressively to a captive audience? Were adults taking advantage of kids by pushing their views on them? Should any religion have been forced on kids, let along one religion to the exclusion of all others?
Our coach had referred to the luncheon as "mandatory." I wonder if the tournament required us to attend as a condition of playing in it; if so, was that wrong? (It's completely possible that the coach was saying he felt strongly that we should attend; in other words it was mandatory in his eyes. I'm not going to ask him.)
I did learn something. If I am ever a HS head coach, and my AD and I are discussing possible Xmas tournaments, I will not agree to go to any if the FCA (or any similar religious group) has anything to do with it. Believe me, I will do my homework well in advance.
Obviously, y'all know where I am on this. Again, I did not make a scene at all, have not talked about it to anybody, have not complained to anybody affiliated with the event or any school (including ours) and do not plan to. I'm chalking it up as 20-30 minutes of personal hell and, most importantly, a valuable lesson learned.
I'd be curious to hear about what folks think, both all the Christians in Scoopdom and the few fellow atheists in the room.
Happy New Year!
-
I think what you have described is very inappropriate. While I think the FCA can rent the public school facilities for the tournament, I think public schools should not be required to attend such a luncheon and a coach shouldn't require his/her players to go.
-
as a relatively young person those motivational speakers people are forced to go to are usually tuned out by pretty much every kid. No surprise to me they didn't talk about him/the bullcrap.
-
Coach your players to the best of your abilities. If they are upset, be as supportive as you can. Communicate with their parents. File it away for next time. The organizers may say it is a required luncheon, but if you have players who were uncomfortable, feel free to communicate that to the organizers as the reason you are skipping out on the luncheon. Finally, winning is the best revenge.
-
Coach your players to the best of your abilities. If they are upset, be as supportive as you can. Communicate with their parents. File it away for next time. The organizers may say it is a required luncheon, but if you have players who were uncomfortable, feel free to communicate that to the organizers as the reason you are skipping out on the luncheon. Finally, winning is the best revenge.
I did not sense that any of the players were upset - more like what URows said: They quickly tuned him out and forgot about him. I haven't reached out to the Jewish girl, and I probably won't because I really don't want to make a big deal of this.
Again, I don't know for sure that teams were required to attend the luncheon. It might have only been our head coach requiring it. I'm going to try to figure out a way to find out just because I'm curious. Even though the coach and I have a good relationship - he hired me, he leans on me for advice and he likes me - I'm not sure I would feel comfortable asking him, given that he definitely repeated the speaker's indoctrination phrases. He and I actually will be making the 3+ hour drive home together later, so I'll have opportunity.
As for winning being the best "revenge," I'm probably the only one who will feel that way about this particular tournament ... but sure ... I like how you think!
We are in the championship game against one of the local teams. Game starts in about 5 hours. I'm always excited to see our kids compete.
-
My team plays in the local private (read: religious) school league. We were playing one of the Christian schools. For the pregame prayer, the other coach on my team led us all in the Hail Mary. I chewed his butt quietly afterwards. He had forgotten that non-Catholics don't use that prayer. No malice on his part. Just not thinking.
-
"All right, let's show them we're the No. 1 team in the country and beat the (bleep) out of them. “Queen of Victory, pray for us!"
http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article31.htm
-
My team plays in the local private (read: religious) school league. We were playing one of the Christian schools. For the pregame prayer, the other coach on my team led us all in the Hail Mary. I chewed his butt quietly afterwards. He had forgotten that non-Catholics don't use that prayer. No malice on his part. Just not thinking.
Before this gig, I was head coach at a public middle school for 4 years. Most of the other teams in our conference were Christian schools, and all said a prayer before the games. I understood this and of course had no problem with it.
I had the same 20-second speech before every game: We are a public school, they are a Christian school. They are going to have a prayer circle before the game. I will be standing here respectfully in front of the bench. If you want to participate, you absolutely can. If you do not, you can stay with me at the bench. Most of the players did the prayers. Over 4 years, I think 2 stayed at the bench with me. Either way, I was fine with it. Thankfully, neither we nor the couple other public schools in the league did public pre-game prayers.
All righty ... time to shut down the laptop and get ready for a championship game!!
Go Lady Knights! And Go Marquette!!
-
I am not familiar with the FCA, but it’s clear they are an Evangelical organization that believes in the gospel message as the road to salvation. They also appear to use personal testimony of their speakers as evidence of dramatic life change, because of the gospel. As such, a guy like Wayne Robinson is going to use his platform to fulfill the great commission of Mat 28:18-20, because he believes what Jesus said in John 14:6, whether he is talking to an atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. However, I too would disagree with mandatory attendance of this luncheon. Hopefully it was not, nor do I hope you and the other coaches were coerced to attend. That was a group evangelism session, not a conversation about Jesus at a coffee shop (from which you could walk away). And if attendance was required, that’s wrong.
Sounds like you handled it well. Should make for some interesting conversation with the other coaches on the ride home. Hope your team did well.
-
It's the FCA's gig so they have the "right" to do whatever they want. I would say its an inappropriate venue for that type of evangilization, but in their minds they are doing the Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, etc. kids a favor. They truly believe they have given these kids the greatest gift they can. I think you handled it as well as you could. I think the only way this changes is if people like you become head coaches and refuse to attend those tournaments until things change.
The more interesting question to me is why do people think this is still an effective means of recruiting kids to a religion? In general, my generation and the youngest generation would be very turned off by a speech like that and it would be more likely to drive them away from church than to it. Sometimes I think that people are more into having their time in the spotlight instead of actually helping someone have a relationship with God.
-
I agree with TAMU. Guy is probably well intended, sincere, and and a good human being. He's probably very charitable.
This one is in FCA. They knew who he was. They asked him to do his gig, and he did.
Fool me once....
-
1. We won the tournament. Played very well and showed those in other parts of the state why we are the best in the Charlotte region!
2. I didn't converse with my coach about this on the way home. We were both in a great mood and I didn't want to open the door to a potentially less-than-fun situation. I often violate the rule about never talking about politics, religion or sex, but I decided this was not the time to talk about religion.
Thanks for the insight so far, everybody.
It was a great Saturday for me, with a tournament victory for my team and the first Big East victory of the season for my other team!
-
You live in the south, I’m surprised you get surprised by this.
-
Something I didn't expect happened at Friday's luncheon for the public-school basketball tournament in which my team is playing this weekend:
Jesus was pushed - aggressively - at the kids.
The tournament is being held at Laney HS in Wilmington NC, MJ's alma mater. It includes 12 public schools - 4 from the local area playing in both the boys and girls events, 4 out-of-town girls teams (including mine), and 4 out-of-town boys teams.
We were "required" to attend Friday's luncheon, which was held in the cafeteria of one of the other Wilmington public schools and was put on by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. We were told we would get a meal and that there would be a "motivational speaker."
I expected a pre-meal prayer, and I expected a speaker who would talk about the usual: good sportsmanship, being good role models, choosing friends wisely, working hard in school, the importance of education, etc, etc. I told my wife beforehand that because it was a FCA thing, I wouldn't be surprised if a little Jesus was sprinkled in. I wasn't thrilled about that but I accepted that it would probably be the case.
Sure enough, we get the pre-meal prayer; relative short and sweet, with a couple of Jesus references. Forget that my team has a Jewish player, and others might have too, as well as others of different faiths. After 7 years in the Bible Belt, I'm already used to blatant disregard for non-Christians.
About 20 minutes later, as the kids are finishing their meal, the speaker is introduced. He is Wayne Robinson, a 1980 draft pick of the Lakers who had a cup of coffee in the NBA and played several years overseas. He's now an entrepreneur and a minister.
It started innocently enough: He told us his background, coming up from the 'hood to rise to the NBA through hard work and dedication and the love of his parents. He told about how his father worked 3 jobs to support the family and that every Sunday he would have to help his father clean toilets. "I respected my pops and I loved him to death, and I knew he didn't want to clean toilets but he HAD to clean toilets because that's what janitors do. But I decided right then and there that I wasn't going to ever have to clean toilets to support my family."
He asked the kids in the room to raise their hands if they thought they would play basketball in college. Probably half the players raised their hands, maybe a little more. Then he asked if their goal was to play in the NBA or the WNBA. Probably 30 or so hands went up, mostly boys. He then presented several statistics showing how few get basketball scholarships and how very, very few players make it to the pros. "I know that for some of you, education isn't your priority, but I'm here to tell you that if you don't want to be cleaning toilets - or sitting in a jail cell - it had better be a priority."
OK, so far, pretty much what I expected. We were about 6-7 minutes into his spiel.
He then talked about his father again, reminded us that his father had to work on Sundays so he didn't get to go to church. But despite that, he knew that God was in his father and that God was looking over the whole family because they had accepted that Jesus was their Lord and savior.
"OK, here we go," I thought. "Just make it snappy, get back to the 'work hard and stay in school' theme and let's get out of here."
He spent the next 15-20 minutes preachin'.
He said that if you don't let Jesus into your lives, you've got nothing to live for. Which probably was news to any Jews, Muslims or - horrors! - atheists in the audience. He said that the devil was doing everything he could to get to these kids and that they had to guard against it, and the only way to do that was to totally commit to Jesus. He recited bible verses. He relayed a couple of Jesus-filled anecdotes.
At one point, he asked everybody to close their eyes and keep them closed and don't look around the room as he asked a few questions. The first one: Anybody who doesn't believe that Jesus is your Lord and savior, raise a finger. I of course did not have my eyes closed and I was looking around the room. Not one finger went up. Not even mine. I wasn't going to be singled out by this guy ... and neither was the Jewish girl on our team ... and neither were any of the others who might have spelled their god's name differently.
He then asked who thought God probably exists but had some doubts. No fingers. Who didn't go to church regularly. Some fingers. Who considered themselves sinners. Some fingers. And on it went, about 10 questions asked. I was starting to feel a little sick to my stomach over the display.
After that was over, he told everybody to keep their eyes closed and repeat after him. He recited a long, very detailed mantra - I would call it a prayer, but it wasn't really praying but indoctrination - in which each person in the room promised to love and embrace Jesus. All of our players kept their eyes closed that I could see; I was at an adjacent table so I couldn't tell if all of them repeated the words, but our 2 other coaches did.
After that, he said something like: "It warms my heart to have so many believers in one room, but it isn't enough to think you believe or to even believe. You have to embrace Jesus, study his teachings and live your lives the way Jesus wants you to. So in a minute, I will ask everybody to come up here and get one of these books."
They were FCA-endorsed bibles. He described them in detail and again said everybody should go up and get one. They might not have enough for everybody, but if you write down your name and address they'll get one to you. He went on and on about the books.
He then wrapped up his speech with more Jesus talk, saying that if you don't accept Jesus you will never have a fulfilling life, and he pushed the books one more time.
Kids got up and dozens of them formed a line to get the bibles, as he continued urging them to do. I'd say 3 or 4 of our 13 players got in line. The others stood in a group talking.
I got up and stood silently. I didn't say a word, but I also didn't act out or anything. But then our other assistant coach said, "Come on girls, don't you want to get your bibles?"
Very much under my breath I muttered, "Come on, man, really?" Nobody heard me (nor did I want anybody to, including the other assistant, whom I really like.) I walked to the back of the room near the doors so I wouldn't say or do anything I would regret as I waited for a merciful ending to it all.
Finally, we filed out of there and got in our cars. I was the driver of a car with 5 girls. Not a single one of them mentioned the speech/prayer session/recruiting pitch. I thought that was a little odd because it was a long program and the speaker was very personable and forceful. If the speaker had been a truly famous athlete or musician or something, I'm sure they would have gone on and on about him or her. But ... crickets. Instead, they talked about how bad the food at the luncheon was - which was true.
(Interestingly, there haven't been any prayers recited before games. I have been to public-school tournaments here where that has been the case, including the Thanksgiving event we played in just a month earlier; it's pretty common here in the Bible Belt; they do the fairly innocuous "God, keep everybody safe, and guide the players, coaches and spectators to be good sports" deal. But they haven't done it here, at least not the first two days.)
So ...
Is this what I should have expected? Is this the FCA's gig - get a bunch of impressionable public school kids together in one room and spend a half-hour indoctrinating them?
Is it appropriate? Should these 4 public Wilmington schools have aligned themselves not only with a religious group but one that would recruit for Jesus so aggressively to a captive audience? Were adults taking advantage of kids by pushing their views on them? Should any religion have been forced on kids, let along one religion to the exclusion of all others?
Our coach had referred to the luncheon as "mandatory." I wonder if the tournament required us to attend as a condition of playing in it; if so, was that wrong? (It's completely possible that the coach was saying he felt strongly that we should attend; in other words it was mandatory in his eyes. I'm not going to ask him.)
I did learn something. If I am ever a HS head coach, and my AD and I are discussing possible Xmas tournaments, I will not agree to go to any if the FCA (or any similar religious group) has anything to do with it. Believe me, I will do my homework well in advance.
Obviously, y'all know where I am on this. Again, I did not make a scene at all, have not talked about it to anybody, have not complained to anybody affiliated with the event or any school (including ours) and do not plan to. I'm chalking it up as 20-30 minutes of personal hell and, most importantly, a valuable lesson learned.
I'd be curious to hear about what folks think, both all the Christians in Scoopdom and the few fellow atheists in the room.
Happy New Year!
All 3 of my kids played for FCA over the years. I found the organization to provide a solid experience. People understand going in there is going to be a religious element involved. It is not a big deal and I think you are overly sensitive respecting these religious matters ( like when you got worked up over your friendly neighbors and the Christmas ornaments). . Just be happy you live in a country that lets you practice whatever religion you want. There are places where that is not the case.
-
All 3 of my kids played for FCA over the years. I found the organization to provide a solid experience. People understand going in there is going to be a religious element involved. It is not a big deal and I think you are overly sensitive respecting these religious matters ( like when you got worked up over your friendly neighbors and the Christmas ornaments). . Just be happy you live in a country that lets you practice whatever religion you want. There are places where that is not the case.
Respectfully, if you think that there is no difference between "a religious element" and the scenario I described, I don't know what to say.
I would posit that 90% or more of those public schoolkids who were dragged to that luncheon had absolutely no idea they were about to be subject to a minister screaming at them about Jesus and the devil for 15-20 minutes.
I am very happy to live in America, and I am extremely happy about the diversity of thought that makes America great.
You live in the south, I’m surprised you get surprised by this.
I was not surprised by Jesus being invoked in the pre-meal prayer. Indeed, I would have been surprised had he not been, because I have observed that most folks here don't give a crap whether people of other faiths are in the room.
But yes, I was absolutely surprised by the forcefulness of the proselytizing that these kids were subjected to.
-
You live in the south, I’m surprised you get surprised by this.
There is a huge difference between the "New South" and the South in which I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s. The New South has been so flooded by "outsiders" that the traditional role of religious sects has been diminished dramatically. Both Charlotte and Nashville have grown exponentially and the folks moving in tend to have less of link to Evangelicals.
The Old South still exists in rural areas as well as Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas. But you see far less of intolerance and legalized vice control (aka, dry counties) than you did when I was a child in Nashville. You knew something was changing when Nashville began having openly gay and lesbian neighborhoods!
-
All 3 of my kids played for FCA over the years. I found the organization to provide a solid experience. ... Just be happy you live in a country that lets you practice whatever religion you want.
I actually thought about this a little more since my previous response, 9-9-9.
You actively chose the FCA experience for your kids. It provided what you had hoped from it, and I am glad for your family.
I do hope you see how that is VERY different from what happened at this event Friday night. Those kids did not choose the FCA experience. Nor did their parents choose it for them. It was forced upon them.
Here is what the team itinerary that was distributed to parents, coaches and athletes 2 days before the trip said:
Friday, December 29th: Lunch - Subs/Sandwiches
Nowhere was it mentioned that it would be a bible-thumping religious event - and that the religion would be evangelical Christian, with the speaker being a minister who would spend 15-20 minutes proselytizing to PUBLIC school kids.
Our team has a Jewish girl. The team we played in our first game had at least one Muslim player (pretty sure, because she wore a hijab while she played); a second player on that team was named Muhammed, so she might have been Muslim, too. I'm an atheist. I would be surprised if there weren't other Jews, Muslims, those of other faiths, atheists, etc., in that room.
They were absolutely not there by choice, and their parents would not have been pleased if they heard the speaker's message which he shouted repeatedly: Only those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior can have meaningful, fulfilling, successful lives.
Please tell me you see the difference between you choosing FCA for your kids vs. what was chosen for those kids Friday.
If not, there's no point in ever having an intelligent discussion about religion in America.
-
The team we played in our first game had at least one Muslim player (pretty sure, because she wore a hijab while she played); a second player on that team was named Muhammed, so she might have been Muslim, too.
If not, there's no point in ever having an intelligent discussion about religion in America.
smh
-
smh
Huh?
Your going to take that and dismiss my overall point?
Again, I don't know wtf you have against me, JB. Trying to have a serious discussion here.
-
Huh?
Your going to take that and dismiss my overall point?
Again, I don't know wtf you have against me, JB. Trying to have a serious discussion here.
You're vs. your.
Maybe your neighbors thought you looked like a Christian?
-
Huh?
Your going to take that and dismiss my overall point?
Again, I don't know wtf you have against me, JB. Trying to have a serious discussion here.
Jay Bee obviously has a wicked hangover today and is taking out his pain on everyone on Scoop.
-
I'll answer your question MU. The speaker's remarks were inappropriate. In fact they were pretty far 'out of bounds'. As you said, a simple prayer or a single reference to the almighty, no problem.
-
I actually thought about this a little more since my previous response, 9-9-9.
You actively chose the FCA experience for your kids. It provided what you had hoped from it, and I am glad for your family.
I do hope you see how that is VERY different from what happened at this event Friday night. Those kids did not choose the FCA experience. Nor did their parents choose it for them. It was forced upon them.
Here is what the team itinerary that was distributed to parents, coaches and athletes 2 days before the trip said:
Friday, December 29th: Lunch - Subs/Sandwiches
Nowhere was it mentioned that it would be a bible-thumping religious event - and that the religion would be evangelical Christian, with the speaker being a minister who would spend 15-20 minutes proselytizing to PUBLIC school kids.
Our team has a Jewish girl. The team we played in our first game had at least one Muslim player (pretty sure, because she wore a hijab while she played); a second player on that team was named Muhammed, so she might have been Muslim, too. I'm an atheist. I would be surprised if there weren't other Jews, Muslims, those of other faiths, atheists, etc., in that room.
They were absolutely not there by choice, and their parents would not have been pleased if they heard the speaker's message which he shouted repeatedly: Only those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior can have meaningful, fulfilling, successful lives.
Please tell me you see the difference between you choosing FCA for your kids vs. what was chosen for those kids Friday.
If not, there's no point in ever having an intelligent discussion about religion in America.
Yes I understand the difference between doing something by choice versus having something foisted upon you.
The reality though is every day there are people foisting values you may not share on kids. You happened to to stumble into a religious setting. From my point of view, the entire academic establishment in america is foisting their liberal values on kids. So from my point of view having kids listen to something at one lunch is not a big deal. Should the organizers have been more forthcoming , yes. At least that way you could have done something in advance, such as eat first with no rhetoric, and then optional rhetoric for example.
-
The longer I think on this, the more I admire your restraint, Mike. I probably would have given into my impetuous side and got up and walked out.
-
Jay Bee obviously has a wicked hangover today and is taking out his pain on everyone on Scoop.
Either he has a wicked hangover every day or he is just a pretentious jerk.
-
Mike,
I know and respect your opinions/feelings on these matters.
But I'm confused. You couldn't let a few Carolina Panther decorations go, but you remained silent here (in a case of in your face proselytizing), not even as much as discussing it with your head coach. What gives?
-
I would have walked out of the FCA thing, tbh
But may not have gone in the first place
-
Huh?
Your going to take that and dismiss my overall point?
Again, I don't know wtf you have against me, JB. Trying to have a serious discussion here.
He's being a bit of a dick.
He's attacking you about you assuming two players were Muslim because one wore a hijab and another was named Muhammad. That's a pretty ''horrible" no no in pc culture. Although in reality it's pretty safe to assume that they are Muslim.
-
He's being a bit of a dick.
He's attacking you about you assuming two players were Muslim because one wore a hijab and another was named Muhammad. That's a pretty ''horrible" no no in pc culture. Although in reality it's pretty safe to assume that they are Muslim.
I would say that it is pretty safe to say that if a female wears a headscarf while playing sports, it is a good bet that she is Muslim (especially if she completely covers her arms and legs as well).
-
I would have walked out of the FCA thing, tbh
But may not have gone in the first place
You have restored my faith in mankind.
Personally, I have nothing against FCA, but they shouldn't be blindsiding a captive audience.
-
Mike,
I know and respect your opinions/feelings on these matters.
But I'm confused. You couldn't let a few Carolina Panther decorations go, but you remained silent here (in a case of in your face proselytizing), not even as much as discussing it with your head coach. What gives?
That's an interesting question, Lenny.
At the luncheon, I felt I was in a difficult spot. My position as an assistant coach for this team is important to me. It is my first high school job. I was worried about perceptions. I didn't want to be seen as the "atheist agitator," certainly not in a setting like that. I don't think that would have been a "win" for me.
Using 20/20 hindsight, what I should have done is quietly gotten up and left. And when they asked me later where I went, I could have said I felt sick to my stomach - which would have been the truth.
Otherwise, no, I fully admit to not being strong enough to confront anybody at the luncheon in front of a crowd of a couple hundred people. Nor did I feel empowered to bring it up to my coach. He not only seemed perfectly fine with the indoctrination but, as I said in the OP, was muttering the words the minister told him to say.
I'm not totally satisfied with that answer, Lenny, but it's the best I have. I will try hard to not find myself in such a position again, but it's not easy to avoid such things - especially here, where everybody just assumes that all others are Christians.
The Christmas ornament thing was a bit of a dilemma but it was relatively easy compared to this.
For one thing, my wife didn't want them there, either. We had a united front and there is strength in numbers. It was on our property. We also really didn't think the neighbor would take it personally, and she didn't.
-
That's an interesting question, Lenny.
At the luncheon, I felt I was in a difficult spot. My position as an assistant coach for this team is important to me. It is my first high school job. I was worried about perceptions. I didn't want to be seen as the "atheist agitator," certainly not in a setting like that. I don't think that would have been a "win" for me.
Using 20/20 hindsight, what I should have done is quietly gotten up and left. And when they asked me later where I went, I could have said I felt sick to my stomach - which would have been the truth.
Otherwise, no, I fully admit to not being strong enough to confront anybody at the luncheon in front of a crowd of a couple hundred people. Nor did I feel empowered to bring it up to my coach. He not only seemed perfectly fine with the indoctrination but, as I said in the OP, was muttering the words the minister told him to say.
I'm not totally satisfied with that answer, Lenny, but it's the best I have. I will try hard to not find myself in such a position again, but it's not easy to avoid such things - especially here, where everybody just assumes that all others are Christians.
The Christmas ornament thing was a bit of a dilemma but it was relatively easy compared to this.
For one thing, my wife didn't want them there, either. We had a united front and there is strength in numbers. It was on our property. We also really didn't think the neighbor would take it personally, and she didn't.
Thanks for an open, honest and thoughtful reply, Mike.
I think all of us are probably more "principled" when our stand doesn't involve much in the way of consequences.
-
Yes I understand the difference between doing something by choice versus having something foisted upon you.
The reality though is every day there are people foisting values you may not share on kids. You happened to to stumble into a religious setting. From my point of view, the entire academic establishment in america is foisting their liberal values on kids. So from my point of view having kids listen to something at one lunch is not a big deal. Should the organizers have been more forthcoming , yes. At least that way you could have done something in advance, such as eat first with no rhetoric, and then optional rhetoric for example.
Not a fair comparison.
I assume the "liberal values" you are referring to are ones of non-discrimination and tolerance (could just as easily be called Jesuit values). I can't be 100% sure they are at every university but every university I have worked for has a statement of non-discrimination or something similar. Students know what they are getting into in advanced and sign a contract stating that (now they may not read the contract all the way through but its there).
This seemed like more like an ambush. There is also a difference between someone telling people in the room that they are going to hell if they aren't Christian and someone teaching students that they should be accepting of people regardless of their identity.
-
Not a fair comparison.
I assume the "liberal values" you are referring to are ones of non-discrimination and tolerance (could just as easily be called Jesuit values). I can't be 100% sure they are at every university but every university I have worked for has a statement of non-discrimination or something similar. Students know what they are getting into in advanced and sign a contract stating that (now they may not read the contract all the way through but its there).
This seemed like more like an ambush. There is also a difference between someone telling people in the room that they are going to hell if they aren't Christian and someone teaching students that they should be accepting of people regardless of their identity.
Of course it was a totally ridiculous comparison.
9-9-9 has total control of where he sends his kids for education. If he doesn't like the message the public schools send, there are a whole lot of private schools at every level, from K through graduate school, who can brainwash them exactly as he'd prefer. Heck, North Carolina and many other states are now providing taxpayer dollars to help fund private-school education - even though those private schools don't have the same academic standards.
The kids who attended that luncheon Friday - and most of the adults, too - were, as you said, "ambushed" by fire-and-brimstone BS. Totally different. Even 9-9-9 acknowledged that before he he shifted the goalposts from the back of the end zone to the pearly gates.
I grew up Jewish. My mother was not thrilled that I chose Marquette. When folks there reassured her that I would not be preached to and that they wouldn't try to convert me, she agreed to let me go there. And Marquette kept its word.
The university pushed good morals and ethics and fairness and tolerance without pushing "Accept Jesus or go to hell." If I wanted Catholicism, it was there for me. If I didn't, it wouldn't be forced down my throat.
I knew in advance what I was getting, and I'm happy to say it was just as advertised.
That luncheon Friday? Definitely not what was advertised. As I said in an earlier post, all we were told was that sandwiches would be served. We weren't told they'd be served with a sales pitch from hell.
-
Not a fair comparison.
I assume the "liberal values" you are referring to are ones of non-discrimination and tolerance (could just as easily be called Jesuit values). I can't be 100% sure they are at every university but every university I have worked for has a statement of non-discrimination or something similar. Students know what they are getting into in advanced and sign a contract stating that (now they may not read the contract all the way through but its there).
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
-
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
I REALLY hesitate to ask this (not because of you but others) but is this true below the university level? I can see it in public higher education and, some, private higher education but I'm not aware of it below that*. This may be just that my kids are still in grade school and we won't be sending them to public high school.
*unless it's around science (evolution, climate change, etc.) or the pledge of allegiance
-
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
On the bolded, I can't speak for all schools and have no experience dealing with leadership below the university level, but every university I have worked for has had extremely conservative leadership at the highest levels. Boards of regents/trustees, presidents, presidents' cabinets, the movers and shakers tend to lean to the right. Most of the lower levels of academia lean to the left but not nearly as much as they are portrayed.
The rest of your post I'm not sure what you are getting at. I guess I would need to know what "liberal values" Herman Cain claims are being forced upon students. The only "liberal value" I have seen systematically pushed at any level is inclusion, tolerance, and eventual acceptance of others regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, immigration status, socio-economic status, political affiliation, etc. And again, I don't think of these as "liberal values" more like common courtesy or basic human dignity. They could easily be renamed to "Jesuit values." I hear of isolated incidents of individuals pushing ideas like pro-choice or anti-gun, but i also hear that on the other side as well.
Universities don't turn students liberal. The current generation of students has always been more liberal. University is just the first place where many of them have had an opportunity to explore and voice those opinions. The political spectrum isn't stationary, its been moving to the left for hundreds of years. Today's moderate is tomorrow's conservative. This generation will be the most liberal generation ever....just like the generation before it was....and the generation before that one....and the generation before that one....
-
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
Can you actually back up this statement or is this something fox told you?
-
On the bolded, I can't speak for all schools and have no experience dealing with leadership below the university level, but every university I have worked for has had extremely conservative leadership at the highest levels. Boards of regents/trustees, presidents, presidents' cabinets, the movers and shakers tend to lean to the right. Most of the lower levels of academia lean to the left but not nearly as much as they are portrayed.
The rest of your post I'm not sure what you are getting at. I guess I would need to know what "liberal values" Herman Cain claims are being forced upon students. The only "liberal value" I have seen systematically pushed at any level is inclusion, tolerance, and eventual acceptance of others regardless of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, immigration status, socio-economic status, political affiliation, etc. And again, I don't think of these as "liberal values" more like common courtesy or basic human dignity. They could easily be renamed to "Jesuit values." I hear of isolated incidents of individuals pushing ideas like pro-choice or anti-gun, but i also hear that on the other side as well.
Universities don't turn students liberal. The current generation of students has always been more liberal. University is just the first place where many of them have had an opportunity to explore and voice those opinions. The political spectrum isn't stationary, its been moving to the left for hundreds of years. Today's moderate is tomorrow's conservative. This generation will be the most liberal generation ever....just like the generation before it was....and the generation before that one....and the generation before that one....
One guys right is another guys left. I am 70 and the center has shifted considerably to the left since I was in college. So what you would consider conservative to me could be considered liberal. It's all in the eye of our biases.
-
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
If I criticize, in any possible remote way, those on the right of the aisle - no matter how mild - all the whiny right wing babies immediately report me to the mods for talking politics. We all know who these several people are.
I wonder if any of these same principled babies will do the same regarding you making a political statement. Fairness dictates that they would report you. Their lack of integrity means it won't happen.
As a matter of fact, they will probably report me again for this post.
So while you make a good point in your post and it is an interesting subject..........
-
I can certainly empathize with being proselytized against your wishes, but isn't 99%+ of what any of us are being exposed to in this world agendas that others are pushing, whether it's wanting you to believe in a bearded white guy who lives on a cloud somewhere, persuading you to buy that fancy new BMW, or convincing you that he/she is the one with whom you should spend the rest of your life (or maybe just that evening)?
To be sure, yes, I am indeed comparing 82's FCA tournament experience with Ernie Von Schledorn hawking the newest piece of crap on his lot or a pair of twin mid-20-somethings wearing matching leopard-print see-through halter tops at a bar on NYE. At some point, you simply have to turn these things off or ignore them.
Is any of it appropriate? So long as no laws are being broken, who's to say? Is it appropriate for a person of authority to tell a bunch of kids he/she doesn't believe in God? Is it appropriate for someone to tell a bunch of kids they should believe in any god they want? Is it appropriate to tell a bunch of kids that before making up their mind about anything, they should at least give some consideration to Satanism? Where do you draw the line?
People have a right to speak their mind about their god (or "god," as the case may be), drive whatever car they want, and wear whatever suits them (again, provided no laws are being broken). You may not like their choice, especially when you're being exposed to it, but just because someone has a right to express him/herself doesn't mean anyone else has an obligation to acknowledge it.
Long story short, next time someone starts spouting off about god in a public setting, just pull out your phone and browse through some soft-core anime. Or play Candy Crush. But definitely the latter if you're surrounded by minors.
-
If I criticize, in any possible remote way, those on the right of the aisle - no matter how mild - all the whiny right wing babies immediately report me to the mods for talking politics. We all know who these several people are.
I wonder if any of these same principled babies will do the same regarding you making a political statement. Fairness dictates that they would report you. Their lack of integrity means it won't happen.
As a matter of fact, they will probably report me again for this post.
So while you make a good point in your post and it is an interesting subject..........
I reported just for the lolz.
-
I can certainly empathize with being proselytized against your wishes, but isn't 99%+ of what any of us are being exposed to in this world agendas that others are pushing, whether it's wanting you to believe in a bearded white guy who lives on a cloud somewhere, persuading you to buy that fancy new BMW, or convincing you that he/she is the one with whom you should spend the rest of your life (or maybe just that evening)?
To be sure, yes, I am indeed comparing 82's FCA tournament experience with Ernie Von Schledorn hawking the newest piece of crap on his lot or a pair of twin mid-20-somethings wearing matching leopard-print see-through halter tops at a bar on NYE. At some point, you simply have to turn these things off or ignore them.
Is any of it appropriate? So long as no laws are being broken, who's to say? Is it appropriate for a person of authority to tell a bunch of kids he/she doesn't believe in God? Is it appropriate for someone to tell a bunch of kids they should believe in any god they want? Is it appropriate to tell a bunch of kids that before making up their mind about anything, they should at least give some consideration to Satanism? Where do you draw the line?
People have a right to speak their mind about their god (or "god," as the case may be), drive whatever car they want, and wear whatever suits them (again, provided no laws are being broken). You may not like their choice, especially when you're being exposed to it, but just because someone has a right to express him/herself doesn't mean anyone else has an obligation to acknowledge it.
Long story short, next time someone starts spouting off about god in a public setting, just pull out your phone and browse through some soft-core anime. Or play Candy Crush. But definitely the latter if you're surrounded by minors.
Benny, you and I have met and we have had many great conversations on Scoop. We agree on many things, and we never rail at each other.
I happen to disagree with you strongly on this topic.
I've said my piece, so I won't "battle" you here. Have a good one.
-
One guys right is another guys left. I am 70 and the center has shifted considerably to the left since I was in college. So what you would consider conservative to me could be considered liberal. It's all in the eye of our biases.
Exactly. That's what I said in my last paragraph. What your generation perceives as conservative the current generation of students would perceive as fringe far right. Your generation's moderate is this generation's conservative, and your generation's liberal is this generation's moderate. This has been happening since the Dark Ages, long before any university. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just the natural order of things as we continue to evolve as a species. Progressives make sure we progress, conservatives make sure we don't progress too quickly.
-
Liberals are in control (have the power) in most of our schools. Power doesn't lend itself to tolerance of opposing viewpoints (no matter which side has it). Minorities (blacks and browns in the USA, conservative students on most college campuses, atheists in North Carolina, etc.) face discrimination as a matter of course. The majority (those in power) may want to deny the discrimination but it's there.
This is true at every level of the educational system. I can speak from years of experience at the Board level in education. The ugly truth is the teachers control the grades and no one is willing to stand up to them. Once they get tenure it is game over and they are free to indoctrinate.
Just as an aside the Liberals in education came up with the whole concept of micro aggression. I actually think that is a projection of their daily posture.
-
This is true at every level of the educational system. I can speak from years of experience at the Board level in education. The ugly truth is the teachers control the grades and no one is willing to stand up to them. Once they get tenure it is game over and they are free to indoctrinate.
Just as an aside the Liberals in education came up with the whole concept of micro aggression. I actually think that is a projection of their daily posture.
Microaggressions is a well documented and researched form of discrimination. I'm not sure what you're implying here.
And I've asked in the thread but perhaps you missed it, what "liberal values" are tenured teachers "indoctrinating" their students with?
-
This is true at every level of the educational system. I can speak from years of experience at the Board level in education. The ugly truth is the teachers control the grades and no one is willing to stand up to them. Once they get tenure it is game over and they are free to indoctrinate.
Just as an aside the Liberals in education came up with the whole concept of micro aggression. I actually think that is a projection of their daily posture.
No Politics!!
-
I reported just for the lolz.
Thanks, bud >:( ;D
-
And I've asked in the thread but perhaps you missed it, what "liberal values" are tenured teachers "indoctrinating" their students with?
Well, let's start with a textbook in my children's middle school a few years ago that talked about the Jamestown colonists. In one passage, the author wrote that, "the settlers knew tobacco would be bad for people and would cause cancer and other diseases, but they sold it anyway for money."
Just in case anyone is confused, the Surgeon General of the United States first documented the link between cigarette smoking and cancer in 1962, under the Kennedy Administration. That was about 275 years after Jamestown and centuries after all these folks had met their maker.
When I pointed out the factual inaccuracies about the narrative to our children's teacher, all she said was, "We thought that was a really good book." When I pointed out the factual mistakes and the implication it makes for capitalism, she looked at me like I just came from Mars.
-
Microaggressions is a well documented and researched form of discrimination. I'm not sure what you're implying here.
And I've asked in the thread but perhaps you missed it, what "liberal values" are tenured teachers "indoctrinating" their students with?
To be fair I had a professor who was openly against trump going as far as to call him Hitler 2.0. He also talked about how white people are all genetically racist and are the only race able to be racist as we are the monocultoristic race in the world.
I brought up Pakistan vs India (he was indian) and all he could argue back was that I was mocking him. So...
-
Well, let's start with a textbook in my children's middle school a few years ago that talked about the Jamestown colonists. In one passage, the author wrote that, "the settlers knew tobacco would be bad for people and would cause cancer and other diseases, but they sold it anyway for money."
That's not liberalism. That's stupidity.
-
Well, let's start with a textbook in my children's middle school a few years ago that talked about the Jamestown colonists. In one passage, the author wrote that, "the settlers knew tobacco would be bad for people and would cause cancer and other diseases, but they sold it anyway for money."
Just in case anyone is confused, the Surgeon General of the United States first documented the link between cigarette smoking and cancer in 1962, under the Kennedy Administration. That was about 275 years after Jamestown and centuries after all these folks had met their maker.
When I pointed out the factual inaccuracies about the narrative to our children's teacher, all she said was, "We thought that was a really good book." When I pointed out the factual mistakes and the implication it makes for capitalism, she looked at me like I just came from Mars.
In this instance is liberal = not true or is liberal = anti cancer?
I don't see anything liberal or conservative about your situation. Fact vs. falsehood? yes.
-
Can you actually back up this statement or is this something fox told you?
It's something anyone with an ounce of brains, honesty, integrity and experience knows. My brother-in-law, a college professor who is running for congress in New Jersey as a liberal democrat, freely acknowledges it - but he's a liberal with all those aforementioned qualities.
-
Well, let's start with a textbook in my children's middle school a few years ago that talked about the Jamestown colonists. In one passage, the author wrote that, "the settlers knew tobacco would be bad for people and would cause cancer and other diseases, but they sold it anyway for money."
Just in case anyone is confused, the Surgeon General of the United States first documented the link between cigarette smoking and cancer in 1962, under the Kennedy Administration. That was about 275 years after Jamestown and centuries after all these folks had met their maker.
When I pointed out the factual inaccuracies about the narrative to our children's teacher, all she said was, "We thought that was a really good book." When I pointed out the factual mistakes and the implication it makes for capitalism, she looked at me like I just came from Mars.
1. I don't believe the textbook story.
2. There were clinical reports that smoking caused cancer as early as the 1760s.
-
This is true at every level of the educational system. I can speak from years of experience at the Board level in education. The ugly truth is the teachers control the grades and no one is willing to stand up to them. Once they get tenure it is game over and they are free to indoctrinate.
Just as an aside the Liberals in education came up with the whole concept of micro aggression. I actually think that is a projection of their daily posture.
Serious questions for Herman, or whoever:
Is Marquette liberal, conservative or in-between? (Maybe better, on a scale of 0-10, 0 being uber liberal, 10 being uber conservative, what number is MU? What # is UW? DePaul? Xavier or Indiana U?)
2nd Q: What makes them that number? The profs? Required subject matter? Student population?
I find it hard to peg MU as liberal or conservative. Some profs are noticeably one stripe or the other, but the syllabus of most classes don't yield (many) opportunities to be political. Math, chemistry, accounting, engineering, nursing, physical therapy, information systems, and the like .. you're going to need to go way off topic to get to a conservative or liberal topic the professor could indoctrinate you with.
Sure, the Gender Studies, Peace Studies, Sociology, Antropology, et al. profs are going to be of a certain bent -- but those classes aren't altering the political belief systems of the students .. (i.e. if you chose to go into Gender Studies .. you're probably not voting Republican ever.)
Or is it the student population that 'indoctrinates'? Over the past 4 election cycles, Catholics are split nearly 50/50, so it's hard to imagine MU students being significantly different than 50/50 -- other than to say youthful people are typically more liberal than their parents. That would apply to all 18+ year olds, though.
Discuss.
-
It's something anyone with an ounce of brains, honesty, integrity and experience knows. My brother-in-law, a college professor who is running for congress in New Jersey as a liberal democrat, freely acknowledges it - but he's a liberal with all those aforementioned qualities.
There is no way for you to know if that is the truth.
And comparing college professors to 1st grade teachers and saying they are all the same is silly.
-
Serious questions for Herman, or whoever:
Is Marquette liberal, conservative or in-between? (Maybe better, on a scale of 0-10, 0 being uber liberal, 10 being uber conservative, what number is MU? What # is UW? DePaul? Xavier or Indiana U?)
2nd Q: What makes them that number? The profs? Required subject matter? Student population?
I find it hard to peg MU as liberal or conservative. Some profs are noticeably one stripe or the other, but the syllabus of most classes don't yield (many) opportunities to be political. Math, chemistry, accounting, engineering, nursing, physical therapy, information systems, and the like .. you're going to need to go way off topic to get to a conservative or liberal topic the professor could indoctrinate you with.
Sure, the Gender Studies, Peace Studies, Sociology, Antropology, et al. profs are going to be of a certain bent -- but those classes aren't altering the political belief systems of the students .. (i.e. if you chose to go into Gender Studies .. you're probably not voting Republican ever.)
Or is it the student population that 'indoctrinates'? Over the past 4 election cycles, Catholics are split nearly 50/50, so it's hard to imagine MU students being significantly different than 50/50 -- other than to say youthful people are typically more liberal than their parents. That would apply to all 18+ year olds, though.
Discuss.
Topper, if you can put all of this into a 10 second sound bite, then I will believe you. 8-)
-
It's something anyone with an ounce of brains, honesty, integrity and experience knows. My brother-in-law, a college professor who is running for congress in New Jersey as a liberal democrat, freely acknowledges it - but he's a liberal with all those aforementioned qualities.
The idea that conservative students "face discrimination as a matter of course" on college campuses is a load of bullsh*t. And to somehow compare it with the discrimination that "blacks and browns" face is mind-boggingly stupid. But of course this mentality is perpetuated by a group who used to shun people who had a "victim mentality," but now embrace such a mentality with wild abandon.
-
There is no way for you to know if that is the truth.
And comparing college professors to 1st grade teachers and saying they are all the same is silly.
If by "knowing" you mean like "knowing" e = mc squared, you're correct. And nowhere did I say that 1st grade teachers and college profs are the same. But I've been on the planet 69+ years, had 18 years of education myself, educated 4 children through college (and in 3 cases grad schools) and have numerous close friends and acquaintances who are educators. Everything I've personally experienced, observed and been told by those in the profession says that those who choose primary/secondary education as a career are overwhelmingly liberal and those who teach in any of the liberal arts departments at most colleges are likewise inclined. I'm sure there are studies done on how teachers vote, what candidates they give money to etc.,- I confess I don't know their results but am confident they would support my thesis.
-
If by "knowing" you mean like "knowing" e = mc squared, you're correct. And nowhere did I say that 1st grade teachers and college profs are the same. But I've been on the planet 69+ years, had 18 years of education myself, educated 4 children through college (and in 3 cases grad schools) and have numerous close friends and acquaintances who are educators. Everything I've personally experienced, observed and been told by those in the profession says that those who choose primary/secondary education as a career are overwhelmingly liberal and those who teach in any of the liberal arts departments at most colleges are likewise inclined. I'm sure there are studies done on how teachers vote, what candidates they give money to etc.,- I confess I don't know their results but am confident they would support my thesis.
Just because many teachers and professors are liberal doesn't mean they "indoctrinate" their students.
-
The idea that conservative students "face discrimination as a matter of course" on college campuses is a load of bullsh*t.
Eh have you seem some of the rallys at campuses?
-
The idea that conservative students "face discrimination as a matter of course" on college campuses is a load of bullsh*t.
Said the dedicated lefty in charge. Shocking!
-
Eh have you seem some of the rallys at campuses?
Yes. They are hardly extensive and hardly "a matter of course."
-
Said the dedicated lefty in charge. Shocking!
Yep. And I'm right too!
-
Can you actually back up this statement or is this something fox told you?
Study by the Econ Journal Watch (don't know anything about them, maybe it's BS) surveyed 7,243 professors at 40 major universities. 3,623 reported being registered democrats, 314 registered republicans. IOW 11.5 Ds for every R. Stunning even to me. I'd be interested in other studies and their findings.
-
Yep. And I'm right too!
Right that they deserve a little discrimination. Right.
-
LOL, whatever. Take your victimization elsewhere. Maybe you and rocket can form a club.
-
Study by the Econ Journal Watch (don't know anything about them, maybe it's BS) surveyed 7,243 professors at 40 major universities. 3,623 reported being registered democrats, 314 registered republicans. IOW 11.5 Ds for every R. Stunning even to me. I'd be interested in other studies and their findings.
So, college instructors' lesson plans are slaves to their political affiliations?
Does a Democrat teach molecular biology differently than a Libertarian? Is the Republican take on Chaucer different than an independent's? Do lDems solve quadratic equations differently than Republicans?
-
All this stuff about college professors is pretty interesting.
Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with taking a bunch of public high school kids to a luncheon advertised only as an event at which sandwiches will be served and then force-feeding them evangelical Christianity.
Anybody who does not want their kids to be subjected to liberal professors has a choice: Send them to one of these "conservative universities":
https://thebestschools.org/rankings/20-best-conservative-colleges-america/
Those 15-year-old kids didn't have a choice Friday; they were ambushed by fire and brimstone.
But hey, I love a meandering thread as much as the next Scooper, so carry on ...
-
So, college instructors' lesson plans are slaves to their political affiliations?
Does a Democrat teach molecular biology differently than a Libertarian? Is the Republican take on Chaucer different than an independent's? Do lDems solve quadratic equations differently than Republicans?
Biases are less likely (as I pointed out earlier) to be seen in math and hard science, much more likely to rear their heads in the arts and soft sciences. Obvious.
-
1. I don't believe the textbook story.
2. There were clinical reports that smoking caused cancer as early as the 1760s.
1) You're entitled. It's several years old (my daughter will be graduated in the spring from college). But I'm not creative enough to make something like that up. It really happened.
2) Assuming there is factual support for the concern as far back as 1760, that's still more than 100 years after Jamestown.
As to the question of liberal versus conservatism, the analogy suggests that the European colonists would do anything for a buck. That capitalism is evil and that the immoral European settlers took total advantage of the natives. I'm not saying there was not immoral activity in the settlement of the new world, but the facts here do not add up.
-
1) You're entitled. It's several years old (my daughter will be graduated in the spring from college). But I'm not creative enough to make something like that up. It really happened.
2) Assuming there is factual support for the concern as far back as 1760, that's still more than 100 years after Jamestown.
As to the question of liberal versus conservatism, the analogy suggests that the European colonists would do anything for a buck. That capitalism is evil and that the immoral European settlers took total advantage of the natives. I'm not saying there was not immoral activity in the settlement of the new world, but the facts here do not add up.
Umm re the natives, really? Like you know we broke treaties, created a mass genocide, and took their land...
-
It's something anyone with an ounce of brains, honesty, integrity and experience knows. My brother-in-law, a college professor who is running for congress in New Jersey as a liberal democrat, freely acknowledges it - but he's a liberal with all those aforementioned qualities.
I could agree at the college level, though that wasn’t your insinuation. Also, while your brotherinlaw might know lots of things regarding New Jersey I’m not sure he’s the best source when it comes to the evangelical schools that take federal funding consistently while teaching alt right indoctrination from Abeka, Bob Jones University Press and Accelerated Christian Education.
I’m just thinking you’re so focused on somebody teaching your kids that global warming and evolution are real that you’re ignoring the fact that there’s thousands of schools teaching kids homesxualiy is a horrific sin and that the earth is 6,000 years old.
-
Benny, you and I have met and we have had many great conversations on Scoop. We agree on many things, and we never rail at each other.
I happen to disagree with you strongly on this topic.
I've said my piece, so I won't "battle" you here. Have a good one.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against you. If I was in your shoes, I’d have been pretty pissed too. I don’t like being told what to believe by anyone, but tolerance won’t work when we stand up for it selectively, just like indoctrination will persist when we don’t stand against it consistently.
All we can do is to teach our kids right from wrong... the rest is up to them. Whether someone preaches lies or false idols to them - whether it’s the bearded guy on the cloud or that global warming is a myth - at the end of the day, all you can do is hope you set a good enough foundation for them to make the right decision.
After all, the most gullible among us are those who have been shielded from lies all their life.
-
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against you. If I was in your shoes, I’d have been pretty pissed too. I don’t like being told what to believe by anyone, but tolerance won’t work when we stand up for it selectively, just like indoctrination will persist when we don’t stand against it consistently.
All we can do is to teach our kids right from wrong... the rest is up to them. Whether someone preaches lies or false idols to them - whether it’s the bearded guy on the cloud or that global warming is a myth - at the end of the day, all you can do is hope you set a good enough foundation for them to make the right decision.
After all, the most gullible among us are those who have been shielded from lies all their life.
Nicely stated, Benny.
And that last sentence is actually quite elegant. I might have to steal it sometime!
-
I’m just thinking you’re so focused on somebody teaching your kids that global warming and evolution are real that you’re ignoring the fact that there’s thousands of schools teaching kids homesxualiy is a horrific sin and that the earth is 6,000 years old.
Dead wrong in your "thinking".
-
Dead wrong in your "thinking".
So you are saying that even the hundreds of evangelical schools around the country are liberal?
Or you’re focusing on the liberal schools and just ignoring the conservative ones?
-
So you are saying that even the hundreds of evangelical schools around the country are liberal?
Or you’re focusing on the liberal schools and just ignoring the conservative ones?
No. I'm saying that you "thinking" that I want to protect my children from from being taught about climate change or evolution is as false as it is insulting.
Certainly, there are what I would call "conservative" (not religious) schools - Hillsdale, George Mason, for example. And Hollywood occasionally makes a movie with a conservative message. But to say that both are the exception rather than the rule is a huge understatement.
-
Study by the Econ Journal Watch (don't know anything about them, maybe it's BS) surveyed 7,243 professors at 40 major universities. 3,623 reported being registered democrats, 314 registered republicans. IOW 11.5 Ds for every R. Stunning even to me. I'd be interested in other studies and their findings.
Not BS; it's a legit journal.
To be sure, surveys like that mask a lot of the heterogeneity of beliefs: "Democrat" has a different meaning for different people.
I remember a similar survey of academic economists a few years ago. IIRC, ~40% were Democrat, ~40% Republican, and the rest were Libertarian and other factions. But I guarantee that an economist who calls him/herself a Democrat is much, much more moderate than a sociologist who calls him/herself a Democrat.
-
Study by the Econ Journal Watch (don't know anything about them, maybe it's BS) surveyed 7,243 professors at 40 major universities. 3,623 reported being registered democrats, 314 registered republicans. IOW 11.5 Ds for every R. Stunning even to me. I'd be interested in other studies and their findings.
Regardless, that doesn't mean they are biased in their teaching. Are there some? Sure. Is it widespread? Doubtful.
-
Regardless, that doesn't mean they are biased in their teaching. Are there some? Sure. Is it widespread? Doubtful.
I'll put it this way - if the numbers were reversed would you be concerned?
-
I'll put it this way - if the numbers were reversed would you be concerned?
No. I conduct my job every day in a way that those who don't really know me have no idea what my political beliefs are. There are countless others I work with who are the same. Teachers and professors can certainly act the same way.
-
For those not reading between the lines of this thread, let me summarize its wisdom thus far:
Liberal, conservative, left, right, up, down, schlemiel, schlimazel.... NEARLY EVERYONE is spouting an agenda whether you like it or not. And if you don't think it's a problem, you're definitely not part of the solution.
-
For those not reading between the lines of this thread, let me summarize its wisdom thus far:
Liberal, conservative, left, right, up, down, schlemiel, schlimazel.... NEARLY EVERYONE is spouting an agenda whether you like it or not. And if you don't think it's a problem, you're definitely not part of the solution.
There is no solution so stop with the pontification.
-
No. I conduct my job every day in a way that those who don't really know me have no idea what my political beliefs are. There are countless others I work with who are the same. Teachers and professors can certainly act the same way.
Can? Yes. It's possible. But I find it impossible to believe that most people teaching political science, philosophy, sociology, etc., etc., don't bring their personal opinions/biases into the classroom. And when you say that you would be unconcerned if faculties at our universities held right wing biases - based on your posting history, I don't believe you.
-
There is no solution so stop with the pontification.
And therein lies the problem. There is a solution, but I'll admit that I don't know what it is.
However, dropping the "if you're not with us, you're against us" paradigm would probably be a good start.
-
Can? Yes. It's possible. But I find it impossible to believe that most people teaching political science, philosophy, sociology, etc., etc., don't bring their personal opinions/biases into the classroom. And when you say that you would be unconcerned if faculties at our universities held right wing biases - based on your posting history, I don't believe you.
Well I don't care if you believe me or not.
Regardless, I was a Political Science major with an Economics minor at MU. I had no idea what the political beliefs of my professors were except for Fr. Tim O'Brien (who told us), Christopher Wolfe (who made it obvious) and one of my Economics professors. (Who I only knew about because of a rant she gave in her office.)
Even knowing this about them, that didn't seem to impact their teaching of the subjects. They were all great professors. I had multiple classes with O'Brien and Wolfe and I still consider the latter my absolute favorite professor at MU even though my political beliefs were pretty much directly opposite of his.
-
Well I don't care if you believe me or not.
Regardless, I was a Political Science major with an Economics minor at MU. I had no idea what the political beliefs of my professors were except for Fr. Tim O'Brien (who told us), Christopher Wolfe (who made it obvious) and one of my Economics professors. (Who I only knew about because of a rant she gave in her office.)
Even knowing this about them, that didn't seem to impact their teaching of the subjects. They were all great professors. I had multiple classes with O'Brien and Wolfe and I still consider the latter my absolute favorite professor at MU even though my political beliefs were pretty much directly opposite of his.
I was also a political science major with a minor in philosophy and english. Had one great, a few good, a few bad and mostly meh profs at MU. Only a handful banged the drum hard, but anyone discerning could tell where most came from - only one I remember totally stifled any debate.
You say your favorite professor at MU was one with whom you disagreed with on pretty much everything. WTF happened to young Sultan?
-
All this stuff about college professors is pretty interesting.
Of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with taking a bunch of public high school kids to a luncheon advertised only as an event at which sandwiches will be served and then force-feeding them evangelical Christianity.
Anybody who does not want their kids to be subjected to liberal professors has a choice: Send them to one of these "conservative universities":
https://thebestschools.org/rankings/20-best-conservative-colleges-america/
Those 15-year-old kids didn't have a choice Friday; they were ambushed by fire and brimstone.
But hey, I love a meandering thread as much as the next Scooper, so carry on ...
Messiah College attempted to call my daughter a few weeks ago. We normally screen calls, but I saw "Admissions Office" thought it might be a follow-up from one of her visits somewhere, so I answered. She gave me the look of "no freaking way" when she overheard Messiah and I somehow politely got through that she wasn't interested. They were bizarrely pretty pushy to speak with her.
-
Can? Yes. It's possible. But I find it impossible to believe that most people teaching political science, philosophy, sociology, etc., etc., don't bring their personal opinions/biases into the classroom. And when you say that you would be unconcerned if faculties at our universities held right wing biases - based on your posting history, I don't believe you.
Dr. Wolfe was/is very conservative. Poli Sci legend in the 80's and 90's at MU You knew it if you had been tipped off and were looking for it. But it almost never came through in his teaching. I loved his classes. I was a poli-sci minor. If I had taken one more history class at MU, I would have had a double minor with history. As well as Theo and Phil courses. Figure 16 (ish) of those courses. 2 Professors had a noticeable bias. One was a Theo class where the course description mentioned liberation theology and the US Bishops encyclical on the economy. (Look it up some time. Those 80's era Catholic Bishops were socialists. But I digress). The other was an American History class. Professor matched up with my political biases, but that was irrelevant because I thought he was a terrible teacher and didn't enjoy it. In other words, loved the prof that voted differently than me, thought the prof who shared some of my political opinions was a lousy prof. As it should be.
Clearly, this was 30 years ago. It wasn't as hypersensitive a time politically. We cared about the material and the presentation. And as students at a Jesuit institution, we were supposed to embrace and seek the learning, not refuse to embrace it because the professor might vote differently than we did.
-
You say your favorite professor at MU was one with whom you disagreed with on pretty much everything. WTF happened to young Sultan?
Wolfe would humor my 20 year old attempts as describing Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties and then explained why he disagreed. But since the class wasn't about our opinions, but the opinions of the federal courts, that didn't matter much. And I worked my ass off and got As in both of his courses. When I applied to graduate school, he wrote a very nice letter of recommendation and we kept in touch for a couple years until he left MU.
I wasn't harmed by differing political views. He never held any sort of bias against me. I think that's how it is for 99% of these professor / student relationships.
-
Your memories, impressions, and feelings about Dr. Wolfe are remarkably consistent with mine.
-
Certain “careers” are best suited for lazy liberals
-
Certain “careers” are best suited for lazy liberals
And some for brain dead conservatives. So we have the name calling covered.
And we need them all to make the world go round.
-
I wasn't harmed by differing political views. He never held any sort of bias against me. I think that's how it is for 99% of these professor / student relationships.
Clearly, you had to have been harmed, you just haven't come to the realization yet. It's like some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
-
Serious questions for Herman, or whoever:
Is Marquette liberal, conservative or in-between? (Maybe better, on a scale of 0-10, 0 being uber liberal, 10 being uber conservative, what number is MU? What # is UW? DePaul? Xavier or Indiana U?)
2nd Q: What makes them that number? The profs? Required subject matter? Student population?
I find it hard to peg MU as liberal or conservative. Some profs are noticeably one stripe or the other, but the syllabus of most classes don't yield (many) opportunities to be political. Math, chemistry, accounting, engineering, nursing, physical therapy, information systems, and the like .. you're going to need to go way off topic to get to a conservative or liberal topic the professor could indoctrinate you with.
Sure, the Gender Studies, Peace Studies, Sociology, Antropology, et al. profs are going to be of a certain bent -- but those classes aren't altering the political belief systems of the students .. (i.e. if you chose to go into Gender Studies .. you're probably not voting Republican ever.)
Or is it the student population that 'indoctrinates'? Over the past 4 election cycles, Catholics are split nearly 50/50, so it's hard to imagine MU students being significantly different than 50/50 -- other than to say youthful people are typically more liberal than their parents. That would apply to all 18+ year olds, though.
Discuss.
This. At every university I have worked at, the students as whole are much more liberal than the faculty/staff as a whole. Universities don't turn students liberal. They were already liberal and for many of them being at a university is just the first time they've been told it's okay for them to express those views.
Every generation has been more liberal than the last one. It's just the natural order of things.
-
Honestly, I have no idea what the political leanings of a single one of my professors or instructors were. It was a long time ago, but I don't remember a single one of them ever espousing a political viewpoint that would give a clue.
Looking back, from those I can remember - and I don't really remember a lot of them - I could probably make a few educated guesses. Especially among the Journalism school folks, since the majority almost surely were left-leaning, but all they'd be is guesses just like that one.
-
This. At every university I have worked at, the students as whole are much more liberal than the faculty/staff as a whole. Universities don't turn students liberal. They were already liberal and for many of them being at a university is just the first time they've been told it's okay for them to express those views.
Every generation has been more liberal than the last one. It's just the natural order of things.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-conservative-generations/index.html
Here's one article that disagrees, at least in part. I agree that the arc of history favors the acceptance of equal rights for all. But that's something that needn't break down on a liberal/conservative basis. True disagreement between liberals and conservatives stems from views on topics like the role of government in her citizens lives. In that area, at least, it appears millennials at 20 may be more conservative than baby boomers or Xers at a similar age.
-
I'll put it this way - if the numbers were reversed would you be concerned?
You are presuming that teachers in all subjects are teaching left wing politics to our kids.
Simply untrue. You know that. The vast majority of teachers never mention politics unless that is the subject they are teaching.
-
Study by the Econ Journal Watch (don't know anything about them, maybe it's BS) surveyed 7,243 professors at 40 major universities. 3,623 reported being registered democrats, 314 registered republicans. IOW 11.5 Ds for every R. Stunning even to me. I'd be interested in other studies and their findings.
Meaningless drivel.
Show me numbers of how many teachers actively teach their politics in a classroom setting.
-
And some for brain dead conservatives. So we have the name calling covered.
And we need them all to make the world go round.
Reminds me of the most underappreciated soliloquy of the modern era.
https://www.youtube.com/v/32iCWzpDpKs
[Disclaimer: Language NSFW]
-
You are presuming that teachers in all subjects are teaching left wing politics to our kids.
Simply untrue. You know that. The vast majority of teachers never mention politics unless that is the subject they are teaching.
I never said "all subjects". I specifically said the arts and soft sciences - political science, history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, women's studies, theology, etc.. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that teachers in these subject don't bring their world view/biases to the classroom.
-
You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that teachers in these subject don't bring their world view/biases to the classroom.
Everyone brings their world view/biases everywhere they go.
But from my college experience - and that of everyone who's discussed their experiences in this thread - faculty were professional, fair and open to all viewpoints. This includes those faculty members who weren't shy about sharing their world view.
Why do you find it impossible to believe that a person can't both have a point of view and be professional?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-conservative-generations/index.html
Here's one article that disagrees, at least in part. I agree that the arc of history favors the acceptance of equal rights for all. But that's something that needn't break down on a liberal/conservative basis. True disagreement between liberals and conservatives stems from views on topics like the role of government in her citizens lives. In that area, at least, it appears millennials at 20 may be more conservative than baby boomers or Xers at a similar age.
I don't disagree with this actually. But fair or not, liberals have been associated with acceptance of equal rights for all and conservatives have been associated with limiting equal rights for some. I would guess that very few vote on things like what role the government plays and vote instead on specific issues that are important to them.
-
I don't disagree with this actually. But fair or not, liberals have been associated with acceptance of equal rights for all and conservatives have been associated with limiting equal rights for some. I would guess that very few vote on things like what role the government plays and vote instead on specific issues that are important to them.
Liberals have been associated with preferential rights for favored classes . Conservatives have been associated with equal rights for all.
-
Liberals have been Associates with preferential rights for favored classes . Conservatives have been Associates with equal rights for all.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Teal, right?
-
Liberals have been associated with preferential rights for favored classes . Conservatives have been associated with equal rights for all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
-
i've often wondered what makes a person, liberal-moderate-conservative. familial, educational, geographic, etc. the only thing that i can think is that some are just wired differently. some just don't know what/why they believe in certain things. some rely on "how it feels", some are very factual. i don't know-a left/right brain thing?
my whole family is conservative, except for the 2nd youngest. he's as liberal as we are conservative. a madison educated pharmacist, very bright lil guy, whom i love like a brother. we can have pretty civil discussions. when it starts to cross the line, we both just laugh at each other. if ya can't laugh at yourself, it's time to go home, eyn'er?
-
Liberals have been associated with preferential rights for favored classes . Conservatives have been associated with equal rights for all.
Here are some very fine conservative people standing up for equal rights for all
(http://aboutislam.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Trumps-America-Nazis-in-Charlottesville-1.jpg)
-
Here are some very fine conservative people standing up for equal rights for all
Does /\ /\ /\ count as Godwinning a thread, or do the nazis actually have to be the German flavor?
-
Does /\ /\ /\ count as Godwinning a thread, or do the nazis actually have to be the German flavor?
that would be discrimination, ehhyn'a?
-
Y'all would have been proud of me tonight.
The HS team I asst coach played a big conference game. Some kid who attended our school and played sports died unexpectedly a couple years ago. His parents have set up some college scholarship fund in his name and tonight's game was dedicated to his memory (and served as a fund-raiser).
As part of the festivities, the girls wore tie-dye warmup t-shirts with a likeness of the kid on it, and us coaches wore them all game.
The likeness of the kid included an angel's halo over his head - in other words, Jimmy was a living angel once upon a time, but he is now in heaven, smiling down on all of us.
A real pain-in-the-arse atheist never would have worn that t-shirt. I took it for what it was, an opportunity to raise money for what seemed like a good cause, and wore my t-shirt without causing a stir.
Oh ... we beat our archrivals by 1 point to all but clinch the regular-season conference title. We're 19-1, and ranked #1 in the region (#2 in the state).
Maybe Jimmy was smiling down on us. Then again, we blew most of a 12-point lead down the stretch, so maybe Jimmy was too busy canoodlin' a lady angel to give a rat's rump about our game!
-
Y'all would have been proud of me tonight.
The HS team I asst coach played a big conference game. Some kid who attended our school and played sports died unexpectedly a couple years ago. His parents have set up some college scholarship fund in his name and tonight's game was dedicated to his memory (and served as a fund-raiser).
As part of the festivities, the girls wore tie-dye warmup t-shirts with a likeness of the kid on it, and us coaches wore them all game.
The likeness of the kid included an angel's halo over his head - in other words, Jimmy was a living angel once upon a time, but he is now in heaven, smiling down on all of us.
A real pain-in-the-arse atheist never would have worn that t-shirt. I took it for what it was, an opportunity to raise money for what seemed like a good cause, and wore my t-shirt without causing a stir.
Oh ... we beat our archrivals by 1 point to all but clinch the regular-season conference title. We're 19-1, and ranked #1 in the region (#2 in the state).
Maybe Jimmy was smiling down on us. Then again, we blew most of a 12-point lead down the stretch, so maybe Jimmy was too busy canoodlin' a lady angel to give a rat's rump about our game!
Well done, Mike - on all fronts!
-
Y'all would have been proud of me tonight.
The HS team I asst coach played a big conference game. Some kid who attended our school and played sports died unexpectedly a couple years ago. His parents have set up some college scholarship fund in his name and tonight's game was dedicated to his memory (and served as a fund-raiser).
As part of the festivities, the girls wore tie-dye warmup t-shirts with a likeness of the kid on it, and us coaches wore them all game.
The likeness of the kid included an angel's halo over his head - in other words, Jimmy was a living angel once upon a time, but he is now in heaven, smiling down on all of us.
A real pain-in-the-arse atheist never would have worn that t-shirt. I took it for what it was, an opportunity to raise money for what seemed like a good cause, and wore my t-shirt without causing a stir.
Oh ... we beat our archrivals by 1 point to all but clinch the regular-season conference title. We're 19-1, and ranked #1 in the region (#2 in the state).
Maybe Jimmy was smiling down on us. Then again, we blew most of a 12-point lead down the stretch, so maybe Jimmy was too busy canoodlin' a lady angel to give a rat's rump about our game!
Your face should be on the team’s next shirts, no doubt.
Honestly, disturbing. I’m happy for your team’s success but the weird/fake nod to Christianity is at best sickening. Hope you like it hot!
-
Your face should be on the team’s next shirts, no doubt.
Honestly, disturbing. I’m happy for your team’s success but the weird/fake nod to Christianity is at best sickening. Hope you like it hot!
Interesting take.
I certainly would have no issue choosing which of the two of you had higher moral standards. (Hint: he lives down South).
-
Y'all would have been proud of me tonight.
The HS team I asst coach played a big conference game. Some kid who attended our school and played sports died unexpectedly a couple years ago. His parents have set up some college scholarship fund in his name and tonight's game was dedicated to his memory (and served as a fund-raiser).
As part of the festivities, the girls wore tie-dye warmup t-shirts with a likeness of the kid on it, and us coaches wore them all game.
The likeness of the kid included an angel's halo over his head - in other words, Jimmy was a living angel once upon a time, but he is now in heaven, smiling down on all of us.
A real pain-in-the-arse atheist never would have worn that t-shirt. I took it for what it was, an opportunity to raise money for what seemed like a good cause, and wore my t-shirt without causing a stir.
Oh ... we beat our archrivals by 1 point to all but clinch the regular-season conference title. We're 19-1, and ranked #1 in the region (#2 in the state).
Maybe Jimmy was smiling down on us. Then again, we blew most of a 12-point lead down the stretch, so maybe Jimmy was too busy canoodlin' a lady angel to give a rat's rump about our game!
I have no problem with a family giving out a scholarship that revokes around faith. It's where an organization tries to do it to the public I have a problem.
-
Tell us about your one loss. Did you lose on a Hail Mary shot?
-
Honestly, disturbing.
Well, he hasn't called for people he disagrees with to be arrested yet. Now THAT would be disturbing.
-
Tell us about your one loss. Did you lose on a Hail Mary shot?
Nope.
We were playing in a Thanksgiving event (not a tournament - each team played 2 games) and went up against a good private-school team with a couple of D1 players.
It was a close game the entire way, and we just didn't shoot well the whole game. Missed a ton of layups, went something like 4-for-15 from the FT line. We had the ball in the closing seconds but didn't get off a good shot.
The day after that 56-54 loss, we beat the team that had been ranked No. 1, which started us on the 16-game winning streak that is still active - although just barely.
Last night's opponent let us stall for almost a minute with a 3-point lead before finally fouling us with 9 seconds left. After we missed the FT, they went down and didn't even try to shoot a 3. They hit an open layup - our girls smartly stepped out of the way - at the buzzer. So that was either some very bad coaching or just some teenage kids not following instructions. I don't keep the book, so I don't know if they had a timeout left or not. Very exciting game, though!
-
It was a close game the entire way, and we just didn't shoot well the whole game. Missed a ton of layups, went something like 4-for-15 from the FT line. We had the ball in the closing seconds but didn't get off a good shot.
Last night's opponent let us stall for almost a minute with a 3-point lead before finally fouling us with 9 seconds left. After we missed the FT,
I know #free throws no matta but 'cmon, Mike! Coach 'em up!
-
I know #free throws no matta but 'cmon, Mike! Coach 'em up!
Thank God there is no Scoop Jr. Board...
All kidding aside, I love these updates.
-
I know #free throws no matta but 'cmon, Mike! Coach 'em up!
At the end of practice Thursday, coach made each girl shoot a FT. If she made it, no running. If she missed it, everybody had to do a full-court sprint, there and back. The 12 girls combined to make 7, so they had to do 5 sprints. He then surprised me by tossing me the ball and saying, "OK, Coach, make a free throw." I hadn't shot a basketball in a month, and promptly - and embarrassingly - shot an airball. Everybody ran, and I ran an extra sprint because I deserved the self-imposed punishment! The other assistant, a former college player, swished hers. But the coach bricked his off the backboard (and he's a really good shooter).
So the coaches (especially yours truly) really need to practice FTs!
-
Athletes In Action, anyone remember those exhibition games?
-
Thank God there is no Scoop Jr. Board...
All kidding aside, I love these updates.
Now. Now. No Christian proselytizing.
-
At the end of practice Thursday, coach made each girl shoot a FT. If she made it, no running. If she missed it, everybody had to do a full-court sprint, there and back. The 12 girls combined to make 7, so they had to do 5 sprints. He then surprised me by tossing me the ball and saying, "OK, Coach, make a free throw." I hadn't shot a basketball in a month, and promptly - and embarrassingly - shot an airball. Everybody ran, and I ran an extra sprint because I deserved the self-imposed punishment! The other assistant, a former college player, swished hers. But the coach bricked his off the backboard (and he's a really good shooter).
So the coaches (especially yours truly) really need to practice FTs!
This may be a hard question to answer, but I was wondering especially with all the headlines coming out at MSU did you and your coach have to take some kind of training as to what is appropriate contact with the girls or is no contact the rule? I could see after a close game win a player may hug you or the coach showing genuine affection, but perceived as inappropriate contact. Do you have a female assistant present? Just asking as we live in troubling times?
-
Before being allowed to coach (or volunteer in school, that matter), I was required to take Virtus training through the diocese.
https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/index.cfm?
-
This may be a hard question to answer, but I was wondering especially with all the headlines coming out at MSU did you and your coach have to take some kind of training as to what is appropriate contact with the girls or is no contact the rule? I could see after a close game win a player may hug you or the coach showing genuine affection, but perceived as inappropriate contact. Do you have a female assistant present? Just asking as we live in troubling times?
No, but it's a good question and there probably should be something required.
We never meet with a player behind closed doors.
-
Before being allowed to coach (or volunteer in school, that matter), I was required to take Virtus training through the diocese.
https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/index.cfm?
We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school. Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...
Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty). But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business. In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.
That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.
-
We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school. Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...
Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty). But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business. In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.
That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.
I know someone whose husband sells liability insurance to churches and private schools, and she has heard everything. And my guess is that training is required by their insurance carrier.
-
We have to do that same training (or something similar) just to be a classroom lunch helper at my kids' school. Talk about lawsuit phobia run amok...
Frankly, I think the "training" is counterproductive... the eight hour commitment for what basically amounts to a lesson in common-sense is enough of a detractor to me that I won't be able to volunteer for anything at school (except recess duty). But I would greatly suspect that to a pedophile, eight hours is simply a cost of doing business. In other words, these "training" programs aren't changing any behavior, and they're certainly not preventing any would-be scumbags from accessing children.
That being said, I don't have the statistics, but I don't recall ever hearing about a pedophile being the parent of an elementary school child or committing crimes at the child's school.
The training sessions aren't about changing behavior and teaching people something they mostly don't know already. They're about providing the schools with a defense against a negligence lawsuit in the event some volunteer diddles little Johnny in the bathroom.
-
Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.
It may seem like common sense, but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.
-
Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.
It may seem like common sense, but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.
I would guess a lot of it has to do with training folks to avoid behavior that could be construed as inappropriate, even though it may be completely innocent. If I am not mistaken, there are rules about the right and the wrong way to hug a kid, etc.
-
I would guess a lot of it has to do with training folks to avoid behavior that could be construed as inappropriate, even though it may be completely innocent. If I am not mistaken, there are rules about the right and the wrong way to hug a kid, etc.
This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!
-
This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!
Wow! I must be the pedophile Grandfather.
-
This is also true. Side hugs good! Front hugs bad! Hugs from behind really bad!
If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify? What’s next? Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry
Serious observation though- I have 2 young girl patients I have known for many years and have observed some really strange, somewhat upsetting behaviors but I have absolutely no proof of anything happening...yet. The older girl, approximately 12-13 now, used to have the cutest personality. Now it’s like she’s in a trance. Her younger sister (10-11)never had the cute personality- just that trance-like behavior. I have known Mom and grandma for 10-15 years. They are really exceptional people. Only met dad 2 or 3 times...I don’t have very good vibes from him. I hope to hell im way off here...about the dad
-
Those trainings are also about teaching people how to recognize inappropriate behavior in other adults. It's not about changing the pedophile, it's about giving the other adult the knowledge and confidence to report the pedophile when they see the warning signs.
It may seem like common sense, but you'd be amazed the behaviors that bystanders allow others to get away with.
I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile... unfortunately, most people also don't want to be the whistle-blower for something that doesn't directly affect them or their family. IOW, being a witness to a crime is a major pain in the ass... you have to go down to the police station for an interview, go through the mugshots/lineups, show up to court, have your character and background scrutinized by the defense, have your name/face thrown about on the news, etc. Most people are going to turn a blind eye, and no amount of training is going to convince them to come forward.
Hell, about two years ago I saw a guy run a red light and t-bone someone in an intersection... I was three cars back waiting to turn. Three cars had a better look at the accident than I did - one having a front-row seat - but when the light turned green, everyone proceeded on their merry way as though nothing happened, and only I and one other person (who was even further away from the opposite direction) bothered to stop.
Pakuni is correct... all this training basically amounts to nothing more than a pre-emptive defense against potential lawsuits. If you think it's going to change behavior - be it the perp's or the bystanders - well, you're way more optimistic about people than I am.
-
I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile... unfortunately, most people also don't want to be the whistle-blower for something that doesn't directly affect them or their family. IOW, being a witness to a crime is a major pain in the ass... you have to go down to the police station for an interview, go through the mugshots/lineups, show up to court, have your character and background scrutinized by the defense, have your name/face thrown about on the news, etc. Most people are going to turn a blind eye, and no amount of training is going to convince them to come forward.
Hell, about two years ago I saw a guy run a red light and t-bone someone in an intersection... I was three cars back waiting to turn. Three cars had a better look at the accident than I did - one having a front-row seat - but when the light turned green, everyone proceeded on their merry way as though nothing happened, and only I and one other person (who was even further away from the opposite direction) bothered to stop.
Pakuni is correct... all this training basically amounts to nothing more than a pre-emptive defense against potential lawsuits. If you think it's going to change behavior - be it the perp's or the bystanders - well, you're way more optimistic about people than I am.
You might like to believe it, but in my experience you are wrong. In most cases, the signs are there. Adult who gets along better with children than with other adults. Long lingering contact with children. Making repeated by seemingly innocent excuses to make physical contact with children. Giving unsolicited and even inappropriate gifts to children. Other adults see these things and often just dismiss them as nothing...and a lot of times they are! No one is saying if you see an adult give a child a hug that is a second too long that you should go and tackle them. It just warrants paying attention and seeing if there is a pattern.
These trainings also cover warning signs of children who are being abused. Abuse often goes on for years without anyone recognizing it. All it takes is one person to notice the signs and check in. It could stop potentially continued years of abuse.
Now I will agree that the method in which these trainings are presented is non-effective. Humans, especially adults, do not learn well online. And often the adults who are required to take the courses just click through as fast as they can because they don't care enough to learn. In that sense yes, it is a way to preempt lawsuits. But the information is usually good (depending on what curriculum is being used).
-
Wow! I must be the pedophile Grandfather.
Context Brother 69. A grandfather hugging his grandchild is acceptable and expected. Random adults who barely know the 5 year old? Not as appropriate.
-
If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify? What’s next? Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry
Serious observation though- I have 2 young girl patients I have known for many years and have observed some really strange, somewhat upsetting behaviors but I have absolutely no proof of anything happening...yet. The older girl, approximately 12-13 now, used to have the cutest personality. Now it’s like she’s in a trance. Her younger sister (10-11)never had the cute personality- just that trance-like behavior. I have known Mom and grandma for 10-15 years. They are really exceptional people. Only met dad 2 or 3 times...I don’t have very good vibes from him. I hope to hell im way off here...about the dad
I don't think it means we're in a bad place. We're just getting to a place in society where we finally realize that thousands of children are molested every year and little changes in behavior can help us save a few of them. If the cost of saving 1 child from being molested is that you have to give side hugs instead of front hugs to random children that you don't know that well, isn't it worth it?
About your patient. It could be what you are thinking. Or it could be a moody teenage girl going through puberty. If you have a relationship, I don't think there would be any harm in just asking if everything is okay at home. Probably will get a "fine" regardless of the situation, but maybe you reaching out could be the one time she decides to open up. You never know. As long as you don't come in with wild accusations or ask in a creepy way I think there is no harm in asking the question. Again, if it ends up saving one person....isn't asking the question worth it?
-
If this is becoming the standard, we are in really sad shape. Maybe if they would use manikins, they could clarify? What’s next? Doing CPR on someone will put you on the sex offender registry
You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.
http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html
-
You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.
http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html
The article doesn't say anything about fear of getting in legal trouble for touching women's breasts. In fact the article flat out says "Researchers had no information on rescuers or why they may have been less likely to help women."
Therefore they are speculating.
-
You joke but men are hesitant to perform cpr on women because of this.
http://www.jems.com/articles/news/2017/11/study-suggests-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders.html
I think the bigger issue is men who want to perform "Chest compressions" on breathing, conscious women.
-
I would like to think that most people can recognize the signs of a pedophile...
The Vatican recognized the signs of pedophiles and ignored them for decades.
-
I think the bigger issue is men who want to perform "Chest compressions" on breathing, conscious women.
Almost spit out my Coke Zero.
-
The article doesn't say anything about fear of getting in legal trouble for touching women's breasts. In fact the article flat out says "Researchers had no information on rescuers or why they may have been less likely to help women."
Therefore they are speculating.
It also says in the very next breath that "no gender difference was seen in CPR rates for people who were stricken at home, where a rescuer is more likely to know the person needing help."
Generally speaking, the majority of bystanders who do nothing when someone suffers an immediate illness/injury fail to act because they simply don't know what to do. IOW, an off-duty paramedic isn't going to walk by someone who just collapsed when there's an AED mounted to the wall 50 feet away... but your average who thinks an AED is some sort of birth control device probably will.
So robably not solely because of legal trouble, but since this is along gender lines it would suggest there indeed is a stigma attached to touching another woman's chest... whether or not this is sexual in nature is unknown (the article does mention the perceived fragility of the female body which, from a physiology standpoint has some merit but something a person trained in CPR should understand is a minimal risk and certainly a worthy one compared to result of doing nothing) - but this goes both ways... I would suspect women who suffer cardiac arrest typically don't do so entirely in the company of men.
Maybe not the last thing anyone wants these days, but I'm sure most people don't want a picture of them with their hands on a lady's chest making the rounds through the media or on the internet, even if they're applying CPR correctly. Whether this has anything to do with the decision a person trained in CPR makes to react or not, who knows.
My question is whether the study controlled for environment.... i.e. if the locations that men are suffering cardiac arrest are occurring in places that correlate with higher levels of CPR training amongst the population, that would go a long way towards answering the question here. Frankly, there's probably something of a cultural or generational effect here, i.e. where men over 55 years old spend their time outside the household is probably much different than where women over 55 spend time outside the household.
-
It also says in the very next breath that "no gender difference was seen in CPR rates for people who were stricken at home, where a rescuer is more likely to know the person needing help."
Generally speaking, the majority of bystanders who do nothing when someone suffers an immediate illness/injury fail to act because they simply don't know what to do. IOW, an off-duty paramedic isn't going to walk by someone who just collapsed when there's an AED mounted to the wall 50 feet away... but your average who thinks an AED is some sort of birth control device probably will.
So robably not solely because of legal trouble, but since this is along gender lines it would suggest there indeed is a stigma attached to touching another woman's chest... whether or not this is sexual in nature is unknown (the article does mention the perceived fragility of the female body which, from a physiology standpoint has some merit but something a person trained in CPR should understand is a minimal risk and certainly a worthy one compared to result of doing nothing) - but this goes both ways... I would suspect women who suffer cardiac arrest typically don't do so entirely in the company of men.
Maybe not the last thing anyone wants these days, but I'm sure most people don't want a picture of them with their hands on a lady's chest making the rounds through the media or on the internet, even if they're applying CPR correctly. Whether this has anything to do with the decision a person trained in CPR makes to react or not, who knows.
My question is whether the study controlled for environment.... i.e. if the locations that men are suffering cardiac arrest are occurring in places that correlate with higher levels of CPR training amongst the population, that would go a long way towards answering the question here. Frankly, there's probably something of a cultural or generational effect here, i.e. where men over 55 years old spend their time outside the household is probably much different than where women over 55 spend time outside the household.
As I said, "therefore they are speculating."
-
As I said, "therefore they are speculating."
Indeed you did. I'll even quote it again for posterity... or just in case Rocky goes on bender after the Butler trouncing and starts deleting random posts.
Therefore they are speculating.
-
On fswisconsin right before the st Johns game. Is this dude just telling us about the Bible for 10 minutes?