7 ms·

The non-religious, progressive side has dominated college campuses for about 15 years. It's okay to have alternatives, and it's okay for both sides of the belie

The non-religious, progressive side has dominated college campuses for about 15 years. It's okay to have alternatives, and it's okay for both sides of the belief continuum to be represented.

adenozine 4y ago
With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly. Nobody has opposed the existence of churches or religious institutions in any major political setting for a long time. That’s what representation means, that their right to exist and operate is protected. It’s not being attacked. I’m a devout follower of Neaus Christ, but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach these days. I’m nearly ashamed of what that means for this country.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  devout follower ... but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick You seem to be working with a definition of "devout" that I'm unfamiliar with.
  - adenozine 4y ago
    This is embarrassing to post. Just say you have trouble relating to people, it’d come across better. Devout is about dedication, not visibility. My journey has nothing to do with how I portray myself and behave in social settings. Very few of my coworkers even know I attend church and do mission work. I don’t have to wave a flag out of my ass to worship the Living God, unlike the majority of phony half-believers keeping pews warm Sunday mornings. They leave church filled with impatience and anger, and treat those less fortunate as a filth and a burden despite being commanded by God to serve THEM! All that said, I’m not at all shocked you don’t understand. Good luck.
    - reaperducer 4y ago
      Wow, that was... an overreaction. Nobody stated that you have to "wave a flag out of [your] ass." I merely pointed out that "devout" has a particular meaning that seems to be in conflict with the notion of being "sick" to admit that you're Christian. In my (Roman Catholic) theology classes, and many decades of religious study, I was always taught that part of being Christian is to not be afraid of what other people think of you being a Christian. That accepting persecution for your faith is a very basic act of faith. I merely suggest you use a word other than "devout" to describe your relationship with your faith. "Adherent" might work. But as there are many different types of Christianity, perhaps your line requires less devotion, or a different type of devotion than mine. I'm not sure what a "journey" is, but I wish you well with your life and your interest in improving your relationship with God.
      - watwut 4y ago
        He is ashamed to be associated with other Christians, because he finds their actions shameful. He is not ashamed ofnthe God part. He is ashamed of Kavanaugh.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- seneca 4y ago
  > With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly. This is actually the opposite of reality. Roe was the mandate of one belief over the entire country, legislated from the bench no less. Overturning it is a return to federalism, and allows each state to decide which beliefs it wants to uphold.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread, but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
    - seneca 4y ago
      > We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread Yes, you're probably right. It's not likely to be productive. > ... but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote. Perhaps, but it doesn't read that way. Even if it were, that would just be lamenting representative democracy. Maybe a better point than the one that actually seems to have been made, but also probably not a particularly productive conversation.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        Even a direct democracy can violate the rights of 49% of its voters. That's why we have a concept of inalienable rights and a semi-aristocratic branch of government that is supposed to be a check on violations of them.
  - adenozine 4y ago
    Well shit, why stop there then? Let’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe. Let’s peel back the DMV and just let states decide who is fit to drive and let each state run their own database. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and lose the IRS and let states collect our taxes up. Federalism just works! (tm)
lettergram 4y ago
15 years? It’s been dominating college campuses since the 60s at least; probably goes back as far as the 20s. Recall, most of the eugenics movement was started in the US in the 1910s - 1920s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_State... It was wide spread and taught in colleges in the 20s https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-america-s-eugenics-movement/ https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-a... Arguably since 1900, there’s been a steady decline in religion in the United States (slower than elsewhere). It marched through the institutions and now even religious universities are supporting outright sins stated in the Bible (see the split in the Methodist church)
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  Are you trying to draw a dotted line between areligiosity/agnosticism and... eugenics?
  - lettergram 4y ago
    Eugenics are inherently opposite to the teachings of Christianity. Christianity being the dominate religion in the US it’s easy to argue that progressivism has been in universities / dominate in universities since the early 1900s which was my point.
    - WaxProlix 4y ago
      Your first sentence requires a lot of citations (I think that a lot of eugenicists of the past and present have been enamored of 'Tradition' and race, and Christianity is tightly bound to those in modern times), and the second doesn't parse well for me.
      - elcritch 4y ago
        It’s quite a bit more complicated than it’d seem. The Scopes trial for example is widely misconstrued (IMHO) as science vs religious ignorance and is a good exemplar. It really had more to do with eugenics which went hand in hand with evolution at the time. The science book in question was full of racist and eugenics pseudoscience. There’s a few of the accounts of the Scopes trial from a more wholistic understanding: A more academic one: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09505430802062885 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950543080206288... > Using Bryan's unread closing remarks as a key to his views, this revisionist historical work argues that Bryan opposed evolution primarily for political and ethical reasons—reasons that have been lost to historical memory. Bryan's overarching concern was the threat to society posed by extrapolations of evolutionary doctrine—namely, Social Darwinism and eugenics. His commitment to the Social Gospel put him at odds with the concept of natural selection being applied to humans. A more biased one but which highlights the emotional aspects better: https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-science-and-scientific-racism/ https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-scienc... > The relevant statute, known as the Butler Act, was not a fusty old one. In fact the Governor had signed it into law only two months previously. The Tennessee House of Representatives had passed the bill by 71 votes to 5; the state Senate endorsed it 24 votes to 6. … > At this time almost everyone who considered themselves ‘progressive’, including everyone who considered themselves a ‘Darwinist’, strongly supported the-then rampant eugenics movement. In rural Tennessee, folks may not have had a sophisticated grasp of Darwin’s theory of evolution, nor of his cousin, Francis Galton’s related, but pseudo-scientific theory of eugenics; but they knew the progressives who preached Darwinism in the cities despised country people, called them “imbeciles” and “defectives” and would sterilise them if they got half a chance. > More than 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilised under eugenics laws passed by 33 states. It wasn’t just low IQ that established someone as likely to have a dysgenic effect: a history of heavy drinking, or conceiving a child out of wedlock, were enough to mark someone down as a “moral imbecile”.
jen20 4y ago
You realize that religion and conservatism need not be connected?
vehemenz 4y ago
Presenting religious education as an alternative to mainstream secular education ignores the fact that most of the religious teachings are false. Teaching things that are false is not education. If you want to call it education, then it's poor education.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I do not know how to describe this post as anything other than anti-religious bigotry not tolerated on Hacker News.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vehemenz 4y ago
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Human rights are also false. Human dignity is false. Morality is false. If we’re only going to teach things that are true there’s not going to be much philosophical content anywhere.
watwut 4y ago
You are aware that Christian colleges existed for years? They have pretty large tradition. However, many of them are unpopular outside that demographic, because they enforce quite serious restrictions on students. You can be kicked out for having sex, drinking, for cloth you wear and quite a few other infractions that don't exists elsewhere. Teacher can't be divorced or omg single parent either. As bonus, all discussions about free speech of students in what you call progressive school are quite funny, if you compare it to large speech restrictions students in Christian school have to follow.
- analog31 4y ago
  It varies widely from one college to the next, and perhaps also with the general social climate. I attended a Christian liberal arts college in the early 80s. I didn't belong to the same sect as the college, and wasn't particularly religious. The college had strong science programs, which is why I was there. It was kind of an interesting time, with "fundamentalism" coming into broader public visibility, the Moral Majority, and so forth. This seemed to matter more to the students than to the college. I remember listening to late night debates in the dorm about whether the college's sect was "fundamentalist," and what they should be teaching about evolution, rock music, and so forth. Naturally there was a religion department, and the college also contained the seminary for the sect's ministers. Officially, I had to take two religion courses, one of which was pretty much an outline of the sect's doctrines (which I've forgotten), but it was a required course, so it had to be easy enough for everybody to pass. And my Econ 101 professor taught about "Christian economics," which turned out to be Reaganomics, including the Laffer Curve. Almost all of the region's small colleges were sectarian in some form or fashion, but varied widely in terms of how visibly religious they were. My experience was decades ago, and the alumni magazine that I get from the college suggests that they haven't changed much with the times. I'm not sure I'd choose a religious college today, or recommend one to my kids.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  Catholic schools in particular tend not to be nearly that strict. Nobody would mistake Georgetown, BC, Villanova, Fordham, or Notre Dame for somewhere like Liberty University. Indeed, the campuses would be ghost towns if some of those rules were strictly enforced.

The non-religious, progressive side has dominated college campuses for about 15 years. It's okay to have alternatives, and it's okay for both sides of the belief continuum to be represented.

adenozine 4y ago

With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly. Nobody has opposed the existence of churches or religious institutions in any major political setting for a long time. That’s what representation means, that their right to exist and operate is protected. It’s not being attacked. I’m a devout follower of Neaus Christ, but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick to my stomach these days. I’m nearly ashamed of what that means for this country.

reaperducer 4y ago
devout follower ... but calling myself a Christian in modern America makes me absolutely sick You seem to be working with a definition of "devout" that I'm unfamiliar with.
- adenozine 4y ago
  This is embarrassing to post. Just say you have trouble relating to people, it’d come across better. Devout is about dedication, not visibility. My journey has nothing to do with how I portray myself and behave in social settings. Very few of my coworkers even know I attend church and do mission work. I don’t have to wave a flag out of my ass to worship the Living God, unlike the majority of phony half-believers keeping pews warm Sunday mornings. They leave church filled with impatience and anger, and treat those less fortunate as a filth and a burden despite being commanded by God to serve THEM! All that said, I’m not at all shocked you don’t understand. Good luck.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    Wow, that was... an overreaction. Nobody stated that you have to "wave a flag out of [your] ass." I merely pointed out that "devout" has a particular meaning that seems to be in conflict with the notion of being "sick" to admit that you're Christian. In my (Roman Catholic) theology classes, and many decades of religious study, I was always taught that part of being Christian is to not be afraid of what other people think of you being a Christian. That accepting persecution for your faith is a very basic act of faith. I merely suggest you use a word other than "devout" to describe your relationship with your faith. "Adherent" might work. But as there are many different types of Christianity, perhaps your line requires less devotion, or a different type of devotion than mine. I'm not sure what a "journey" is, but I wish you well with your life and your interest in improving your relationship with God.
    - watwut 4y ago
      He is ashamed to be associated with other Christians, because he finds their actions shameful. He is not ashamed ofnthe God part. He is ashamed of Kavanaugh.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
seneca 4y ago
> With Roe V Wade overturned recently, this seems a bit tone deaf. The beliefs are being much more than represented, they’re being mandated and legislated and protected unfairly. This is actually the opposite of reality. Roe was the mandate of one belief over the entire country, legislated from the bench no less. Overturning it is a return to federalism, and allows each state to decide which beliefs it wants to uphold.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread, but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote.
  - seneca 4y ago
    > We probably shouldn't turn this into a Roe v Wade thread Yes, you're probably right. It's not likely to be productive. > ... but perhaps they were talking about the state legislation released by the court, which is applied equally to the people who want or don't want it and is not a result of a popular vote. Perhaps, but it doesn't read that way. Even if it were, that would just be lamenting representative democracy. Maybe a better point than the one that actually seems to have been made, but also probably not a particularly productive conversation.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Even a direct democracy can violate the rights of 49% of its voters. That's why we have a concept of inalienable rights and a semi-aristocratic branch of government that is supposed to be a check on violations of them.
- adenozine 4y ago
  Well shit, why stop there then? Let’s peel back the FDA and let the state decide what food is safe. Let’s peel back the DMV and just let states decide who is fit to drive and let each state run their own database. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and lose the IRS and let states collect our taxes up. Federalism just works! (tm)

lettergram 4y ago

15 years? It’s been dominating college campuses since the 60s at least; probably goes back as far as the 20s. Recall, most of the eugenics movement was started in the US in the 1910s - 1920s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_State... It was wide spread and taught in colleges in the 20s https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-america-s-eugenics-movement/ https://fee.org/articles/the-progressive-ideas-that-fueled-a... Arguably since 1900, there’s been a steady decline in religion in the United States (slower than elsewhere). It marched through the institutions and now even religious universities are supporting outright sins stated in the Bible (see the split in the Methodist church)

WaxProlix 4y ago
Are you trying to draw a dotted line between areligiosity/agnosticism and... eugenics?
- lettergram 4y ago
  Eugenics are inherently opposite to the teachings of Christianity. Christianity being the dominate religion in the US it’s easy to argue that progressivism has been in universities / dominate in universities since the early 1900s which was my point.
  - WaxProlix 4y ago
    Your first sentence requires a lot of citations (I think that a lot of eugenicists of the past and present have been enamored of 'Tradition' and race, and Christianity is tightly bound to those in modern times), and the second doesn't parse well for me.
    - elcritch 4y ago
      It’s quite a bit more complicated than it’d seem. The Scopes trial for example is widely misconstrued (IMHO) as science vs religious ignorance and is a good exemplar. It really had more to do with eugenics which went hand in hand with evolution at the time. The science book in question was full of racist and eugenics pseudoscience. There’s a few of the accounts of the Scopes trial from a more wholistic understanding: A more academic one: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09505430802062885 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950543080206288... > Using Bryan's unread closing remarks as a key to his views, this revisionist historical work argues that Bryan opposed evolution primarily for political and ethical reasons—reasons that have been lost to historical memory. Bryan's overarching concern was the threat to society posed by extrapolations of evolutionary doctrine—namely, Social Darwinism and eugenics. His commitment to the Social Gospel put him at odds with the concept of natural selection being applied to humans. A more biased one but which highlights the emotional aspects better: https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-science-and-scientific-racism/ https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-scienc... > The relevant statute, known as the Butler Act, was not a fusty old one. In fact the Governor had signed it into law only two months previously. The Tennessee House of Representatives had passed the bill by 71 votes to 5; the state Senate endorsed it 24 votes to 6. … > At this time almost everyone who considered themselves ‘progressive’, including everyone who considered themselves a ‘Darwinist’, strongly supported the-then rampant eugenics movement. In rural Tennessee, folks may not have had a sophisticated grasp of Darwin’s theory of evolution, nor of his cousin, Francis Galton’s related, but pseudo-scientific theory of eugenics; but they knew the progressives who preached Darwinism in the cities despised country people, called them “imbeciles” and “defectives” and would sterilise them if they got half a chance. > More than 60,000 Americans were forcibly sterilised under eugenics laws passed by 33 states. It wasn’t just low IQ that established someone as likely to have a dysgenic effect: a history of heavy drinking, or conceiving a child out of wedlock, were enough to mark someone down as a “moral imbecile”.

jen20 4y ago

You realize that religion and conservatism need not be connected?

vehemenz 4y ago

Presenting religious education as an alternative to mainstream secular education ignores the fact that most of the religious teachings are false. Teaching things that are false is not education. If you want to call it education, then it's poor education.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I do not know how to describe this post as anything other than anti-religious bigotry not tolerated on Hacker News.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vehemenz 4y ago
barry-cotter 4y ago
Human rights are also false. Human dignity is false. Morality is false. If we’re only going to teach things that are true there’s not going to be much philosophical content anywhere.

watwut 4y ago

You are aware that Christian colleges existed for years? They have pretty large tradition. However, many of them are unpopular outside that demographic, because they enforce quite serious restrictions on students. You can be kicked out for having sex, drinking, for cloth you wear and quite a few other infractions that don't exists elsewhere. Teacher can't be divorced or omg single parent either. As bonus, all discussions about free speech of students in what you call progressive school are quite funny, if you compare it to large speech restrictions students in Christian school have to follow.

analog31 4y ago
It varies widely from one college to the next, and perhaps also with the general social climate. I attended a Christian liberal arts college in the early 80s. I didn't belong to the same sect as the college, and wasn't particularly religious. The college had strong science programs, which is why I was there. It was kind of an interesting time, with "fundamentalism" coming into broader public visibility, the Moral Majority, and so forth. This seemed to matter more to the students than to the college. I remember listening to late night debates in the dorm about whether the college's sect was "fundamentalist," and what they should be teaching about evolution, rock music, and so forth. Naturally there was a religion department, and the college also contained the seminary for the sect's ministers. Officially, I had to take two religion courses, one of which was pretty much an outline of the sect's doctrines (which I've forgotten), but it was a required course, so it had to be easy enough for everybody to pass. And my Econ 101 professor taught about "Christian economics," which turned out to be Reaganomics, including the Laffer Curve. Almost all of the region's small colleges were sectarian in some form or fashion, but varied widely in terms of how visibly religious they were. My experience was decades ago, and the alumni magazine that I get from the college suggests that they haven't changed much with the times. I'm not sure I'd choose a religious college today, or recommend one to my kids.
mattkrause 4y ago
Catholic schools in particular tend not to be nearly that strict. Nobody would mistake Georgetown, BC, Villanova, Fordham, or Notre Dame for somewhere like Liberty University. Indeed, the campuses would be ghost towns if some of those rules were strictly enforced.