absolutely correct...my verbiage was inaccurate and you are 100% with much better clarification. Thank you for the correction of my slip...because YOU are 100% correct!
Not my Purdue. To much time on her hands.
- Thread starter BoilerJS
- Start date
Having visited Jefferson's house (Monticello) and bought his bible which is in four languages, he did in fact have trouble with the miracle areas of Jesus. However, if you go to his memorial in D.C. you will find quotes that indicate he is a believer.
Apparently, Jefferson was a highly respected person in my lineage because as Kim is doing genealogy, she has found a LOT of Thomas Jeffersons in my family tree. Many of the Founding Fathers (F&&* political correctness) were not only Christian, but Deists as well. They believed in a supreme being.
I think that idea of Deism is what many young people have begun to cling to rather than traditional 'religion' as we all know it. I think that aspect is causing a lot of the difference of culture and socialization in this country between the ages 18-36 vs. 60+. Religion has played such a major impact on the socialization of our country and the fact that the younger generations simply don't view religion as much of an agent of socialization anymore (having been replaced by other factors...most notably technology and mass media) is what is causing the Christian Fundamentalist right to be so outspoken and politically charged with a yearning to return to when 'God wasn't taken out of school.' It is an inherently false statement and one that comes from a place of fear and strain rather than rationalization.
If you want to see where the Christian Fundamentalist right gets their ideology and why they have become (and arguably won) the elections for George W. Bush an Donald Trump, watch 'Jesus Camp' and then read 'Anomie in Modern America and Jesus Camp' that discusses this shift in the fundamentalism and why they have reacted politically the way that they have over the last 15-20 years as a result of social and cultural strain.
Probably a bit of a tangent there but have talked at length about this exact subject with my Sociology class at Harrison in relation to socialization of young people and the differences between public school, private school, and home school along with the impact of religion on our society. When giving young people the chance to speak their minds and do good research on topics such as this, you'd be surprised the depth of knowledge they can show.
Does anyone know of a media outlet that just reports the news anymore? I don't give a sh*t about editorial comments regarding the news, and I really hate when news is created out of thin air.
Two seconds of follow-up research on this topic shows what a non-story this is, but apparently most media outlets have figured out that people don't realize that they actually need to fact-check the "news" these days.
The entire point of the GUIDE mentioned in this story is to help individuals that are trying to convey a message through writing to do it as effectively as possible. The GUIDE doesn't mandate that you write in any particular way. It simply offers suggests. Here is text taken directly from the GUIDE:
"Writing without gender bias is sound and effective. You should always consult your professional or disciplinary community standards or imagine what is appropriate to your rhetorical audience or genre. Writing without gender-biased language is necessary for most audiences. How you approach your audience, what assumptions you make or expectations you assume about it are choices you make as a writer. We merely share what our professional associations advocate, among them the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and its Conference on College Composition and Communication. We invite you to explore or ask your own professional or disciplinary organizations for guidance."
Furthermore, the specifics cited in this GUIDE were actually taken from other GUIDEs:
"The Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Style Guide, and the APA Style Guide all have similar recommendations about inclusive language use in writing (detailed behind pay-walls). NCTE suggests the following guidelines (created, 1975; revised 1985, 2002) that we have adapted and offer only for guidance:"
The concept of gender neutral writing has been around for decades. Purdue University didn't come up with it. But given that the concept exists, it seems reasonable to me for a university to at least mention it in a guideline for communication.
In my opinion, this was a lazy attempt by Carlson and Fox News to make news where it didn't exist, and in the process, take a cheap shot at an institution that I'm very proud of.
Two seconds of follow-up research on this topic shows what a non-story this is, but apparently most media outlets have figured out that people don't realize that they actually need to fact-check the "news" these days.
The entire point of the GUIDE mentioned in this story is to help individuals that are trying to convey a message through writing to do it as effectively as possible. The GUIDE doesn't mandate that you write in any particular way. It simply offers suggests. Here is text taken directly from the GUIDE:
"Writing without gender bias is sound and effective. You should always consult your professional or disciplinary community standards or imagine what is appropriate to your rhetorical audience or genre. Writing without gender-biased language is necessary for most audiences. How you approach your audience, what assumptions you make or expectations you assume about it are choices you make as a writer. We merely share what our professional associations advocate, among them the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and its Conference on College Composition and Communication. We invite you to explore or ask your own professional or disciplinary organizations for guidance."
Furthermore, the specifics cited in this GUIDE were actually taken from other GUIDEs:
"The Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Style Guide, and the APA Style Guide all have similar recommendations about inclusive language use in writing (detailed behind pay-walls). NCTE suggests the following guidelines (created, 1975; revised 1985, 2002) that we have adapted and offer only for guidance:"
The concept of gender neutral writing has been around for decades. Purdue University didn't come up with it. But given that the concept exists, it seems reasonable to me for a university to at least mention it in a guideline for communication.
In my opinion, this was a lazy attempt by Carlson and Fox News to make news where it didn't exist, and in the process, take a cheap shot at an institution that I'm very proud of.
The first link I couldn’t find much (did offer some films, but have no idea what they were) and the second link could not be opened. I agree that who we are is heavily influenced by religion for those religious and heavily influenced by not having a religion as well for those non-believers. This really is nothing new and has went on for a couple of thousand years. Like Cultural Marxism, Diane’s research and many other things, this too is better understood with some understanding and few actually read enough to have the pertinent knowledge in the appropriate domain. I say that with the qualifier that “reading” in many cases is gathering another’s opinion.
One of the things you must have encountered in ed school…some time, was the concept of constructivism. Constructivism is the only way to get to higher level thinking (you might get the higher level answer correct, but I’m talking about the process of thinking), and yet there are “some” that “feel” you can get there without the relevant knowledge in the appropriate domain…as though some strike of the wand imbues one with knowledge…or it happens through Osmosis. What I see running rampant on sooooooooo many fronts across this country is the number of people that “feel” they have a good answer, without that relevant knowledge. If this were a few, there would be no problem…but depth of knowledge escapes many in which some still offer an opinion…and are dead set knowing they are correct. High school students typically don't have enough of an engine to power them in thought in their youth as we too were them at one time...
While it is true that Purdue did not create gender-neutral writing, the OWL is acting in a way that perpetuates it. There is nothing wrong with "mankind" or referring to an elected official as Congressman or Congresswoman.
My personal choice for idiocy is the reference to the head of a committee or academic department as "Chair." Chairs are inanimate and are objects incapable of rational thought. Chairman or Chairwoman are hardly disparaging terms. However, given the nonsense presently accepted as wisdom in the academe I may admittedly have to rethink my position on this term.
My personal choice for idiocy is the reference to the head of a committee or academic department as "Chair." Chairs are inanimate and are objects incapable of rational thought. Chairman or Chairwoman are hardly disparaging terms. However, given the nonsense presently accepted as wisdom in the academe I may admittedly have to rethink my position on this term.
yes, I can't recall any specific quotes in his house or in his writings specifically. Too fricking stupid to recall other things.
I just know as I went to some memorials in D.C I found them very interesting. We are talking about some brilliant men and I also find it of particular interest Jefferson and Adams battles and respect for each other that grew through the years...and the thoughts of each towards the other as each were laying on his deathbed on July 4, 1826.Tangential----I have been to Christ's Church where Washington went (Episcopal Church). It was hard to imagine one side of the church with the north and the other side for the south during the Civil War..a church Robert E Lee faithfully attended as well.
Here is an interesting thought that we can relate to concerning basketball. Years ago when a player lost a contact lens...the game stopped and players from both sides would get down on the floor and look for that contact lens. Today, we get a stare down from time to time on another player. How did we get to where we are today?
What is interesting is that a plaque on the church to which you referred noting Lee's attendance there has been taken down by the church in the name of inclusion and political correctness.
It always amuses me when folks are offended by folks being offended.
since the OWL is on topic ... "... as each was lying on his deathbed."yes, I can't recall any specific quotes in his house or in his writings specifically. Too fricking stupid to recall other things.
Tangential----I have been to Christ's Church where Washington went (Episcopal Church). It was hard to imagine one side of the church with the north and the other side for the south during the Civil War..a church Robert E Lee faithfully attended as well.
Here is an interesting thought that we can relate to concerning basketball. Years ago when a player lost a contact lens...the game stopped and players from both sides would get down on the floor and look for that contact lens. Today, we get a stare down from time to time on another player. How did we get to where we are today?
Damn...didn't know that! Trying to sanitize history with an ulterior motive and using PC as the road to get there should have everyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear VERY concerned.
I've never watched FOX news. For that matter, I don't usually watch any network news on tv. I use different sources from the internet. So are you trying to say this video was part of an actual NEWS presentation that people were to take seriously as NEWS? Is this representative of the other NEWS on the FOX network? I will admit I watched the entire video, but I likened it more to satire and a SNL skit. I didn't think there were any facts or reality presented. It just seemed like something made for laughs. I have a hard time believing anyone could be offended by this. I also have a hard time believing anyone was dumb enough to actually believe this and take it seriously. But I've been wrong before. To me this was more Archie Bunker than actual news. But then again, I knew people who took everything Archie Bunker said seriously!
tijreese talks of reading. I agree. My daughter and son in-law attend church almost every time the doors are open (i am glad they do) and I asked them how often they read their Bible and their answer was not much. To me that is the problem. So many take the pastors or medias or facebooks word for it. they don't research themselves..I have been lyed to so much (mainly by the media) I tend to research everything I'm told.
The plaque or plaques were moved to a new location in the church. The decision WAS made due to inclusion. The church made the decision itself and I think Jesus would have agreed. If you can make such a small change to include more people seeking Christ, where is the evil in that?
If this thread did nothing, it demonstrated how easy to get people to hyperventilate on this forum: Simply link to something on Fox News!
I've not watched Tucker very much, but it's clear to even someone who watches that show once, it's a show focused on social commentary, not so much "the news".
That's nothing new. All the major networks as well as CNN, MSNBC, et al, engage in the same programming.
I went there again a couple...maybe three years ago and there was construction going on and couldn't get in. I wonder if that had anything to do with the plaque. Actually, there are a few plaques on various rows that designate what row certain members occupied. I think prior to Obama...all the presidents attended a service there as I recall in my first tour.
As a side note when entering I could see the Nicene Creed and yet never saw some other things indicating a Catholic Church (which would have surprised me at the time somewhat) and so I asked the priest if the church was an Episcopal church expecting such and he replied it was and quizzed me in why I wondered. We discussed a few things and he said his wife was catholic and I asked about his children and such and he said they all went to the Catholic Church and I couldn't help but wonder how he felt AND what he thought (they are different ya know) about that...and asked and he stated as I know...there are just a few differences between the two churches. If you ever visit the Washington Cathedral you will find Episcopal church as well even though I think most consider it non-denominational in which all of those borrow from denominational churches.
Any considering leaving D.C. to go to Mount Vernon might find the tour worthy as the church is about half way there.
When you discovered the moving of the plaque, did it state why the movement had anything to do with inclusion?
ESPN used to be about Sports coverage. I believe the Olympics are to blame. They came around every 4 years for a couple of weeks and provided a change of pace. In between events, they started doing bios and stories of the athletes involved to fill air time. and because of the ratings, the media thought people actually liked watching the Olympics because of all its outside the lines type stories. And so, rather than covering the sports, the media switched to cover more behind the scenes stuff. and it spilled over to the news and created reality shows. I liked the performances on American idol. I could care less about all the personal stories of the people performing.
and now, when you turn to ESPN and the NEWS, all you have are the personal stories. and now ESPN feels the need to be the social watchdog of athletes and be their judge and jury too. Why not just use the time to provide coverage of additional games? Or maybe provide some scores of teams not named Duke?
it's one of the reasons I no longer watch much TV. I like facts and data. I can go to facebook and this forum for drama. I don't need FOX or Downton Abby.
and now, when you turn to ESPN and the NEWS, all you have are the personal stories. and now ESPN feels the need to be the social watchdog of athletes and be their judge and jury too. Why not just use the time to provide coverage of additional games? Or maybe provide some scores of teams not named Duke?
it's one of the reasons I no longer watch much TV. I like facts and data. I can go to facebook and this forum for drama. I don't need FOX or Downton Abby.
Pete, I understand that the church made the decision on its own. The question is why. And if there was nothing wrong about the plaque in question, since it was moved to another place, perhaps one less conspicuous, then why move it in the first place. The point is that it was moved/removed. It certainly did not go to a more conspicuous place.
Robert E Lee was a significant man in American history and by all accounts a very honorable one. Moving the plaque was done to diminish his association with the church.
Robert E Lee was a significant man in American history and by all accounts a very honorable one. Moving the plaque was done to diminish his association with the church.
Seriously...as bad as you might dislike and find fault in Fox...you somehow think the others are better? Fox never gave questions that were to be asked in a "debate" to one of those on the stage and a whole list of things. I'm going to offer a thought, not a feeling...but finding facts is extremely hard to do. There is a lot of circular referencing where they all drink from the same trough and although you "feel" you are getting independent facts...it is many times just a different mouthpiece. Sometimes a background in certain areas helps temper the facts we are told.
Diane's book is essentially about the dumbing down of the students through sanitizing of books, phrases and such in the battles between Texas and California to both throw out those things that offend them...leaving boring, mundane readings that neither teach or are very enjoyable. It is about having multicultural review of "math" books as an example that may include many things outside of math and explains why the books are so much bigger today than years ago or larger than Saxon or Singapore math as examples.
This is not aimed at you, but how do we know we don't hold the thoughts we do as a result of programming along the way coupled with our inability analytically due to lacking relevant knowledge in the analytical domain and subject knowledge domain to discern truth..if it could ever be discerned. I'm convinced we know a lot less than we think and much less of what we feel.
Do we arrive at logic by emotion or do we arrive at emotion by logic. Sadly all of us are driven by more emotion than we probably wish...
Used to watch FOX almost exclusively. Due to the purge of nearly all the male talent in the past couple of years FOX has changed dramatically. While still conservative it is not the power that it was previously. I've moved most of my viewing to FOX Business channel which combines a mix of mostly business with current news and meets my needs more. If you're really looking for a news outlet that provides an unbiased reporting you'll not find it anywhere. I don't believe it has ever existed. If you truly look back at the history of news coverage in this country regardless of the medium there has never been news reporting without the bias of the announcer or the organization.
The church put out a statement. Perhaps you should read it to answer your questions.
I think in a way, I was pointing out that we often choose to believe what we want to believe.
There are no unbiased news sources. I used to watch Fox exclusively. Sadly it appears they have become something resembling state run media and have no issue stirring the pot on hot topics. I also wonder why a station owned by a non-American would want to influence so many people?
I try to use multiple sources and do some personal research as I did in the church case. That doesn’t always get you the truth, but it certainly helps highlight where the propaganda is coming from.
My first and this is NOT comforting...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...05f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.81d341cf9f81
wow ...wow...wow...and to think Lee was offered by Lincoln to lead the army of the north. I think I lost about 22 IQ points or roughly a standard deviation and a half in contemplating the reasons of ignorance with a desire to sanitize actual history of the civil war in an inaccurate way for a lot of those that went to war and others that held sides...not an accident folks...
Who had these people in school?
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/preparingteachersconference/ravitch.html
"After Teachers College was created in the late nineteenth century, it was often said that 120th street, which separates Teachers College from the rest of Columbia University, is "the widest street in the world." The price of professionalism unfortunately was the split between pedagogy and the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts and sciences.
Pete, I read the statement in the article referenced and the original article describing the movement of the plaques. The new rector seems to want to answer to the "community" and not the parishenors of the church.
It is not the community that employs her. Her primary duty is to her congregation, who seemed not to have been terribly bothered by these plaques as they have been there for quite a while and were there when the parishenors voluntarily joined the church. It seems as though she is answering to outsiders. I would be amazed if any of these outsiders actually joined the church as I think that they are looking for reasons to be offended and will move on to the site of the next grievance.
It is not the community that employs her. Her primary duty is to her congregation, who seemed not to have been terribly bothered by these plaques as they have been there for quite a while and were there when the parishenors voluntarily joined the church. It seems as though she is answering to outsiders. I would be amazed if any of these outsiders actually joined the church as I think that they are looking for reasons to be offended and will move on to the site of the next grievance.
I grew up in the 60's/70's before the internet, calculators and cable TV. We had three basic news services, Mr. Rogers neighborhood on PBS and the newspapers. I knew the names of the news reporters, but never really watched the news unless it was something special like landing on the moon. Was Cronkite more truthful than Huntley and Brinkley? Was Peter Jennings the most objective? For the most part, I educated myself reading newspapers instead of watching TV. I read the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Sporting News, and some magazines like News Week, Time and Life. I was never big into Sports illustrated except one issue a year. As an adult, I listened to Paul Harvey and Rush Limbaugh. I never believed a word Rush said, but he made me laugh.
In the military, I read the same Intelligence briefings as the President did on a daily basis. It's hard for me to believe that source of information I read for over 20 years is now being called and referred to as fake news. I also have friends in the certain government agencies. I am faced with the dilemma of who to believe. Do I believe somebody is lying to the American public now, or was I lied to in the military and by my friends for the past 20 years? I'll admit my life experiences have made me very biased.
I don't dislike FOX news. But for the previous 20 years, it carried the label of Sensationalism, so I didn't pay it much attention.. and it's very hard for me to believe just because we have a new President, that it has changed its format and actually become factual.
In the military, I read the same Intelligence briefings as the President did on a daily basis. It's hard for me to believe that source of information I read for over 20 years is now being called and referred to as fake news. I also have friends in the certain government agencies. I am faced with the dilemma of who to believe. Do I believe somebody is lying to the American public now, or was I lied to in the military and by my friends for the past 20 years? I'll admit my life experiences have made me very biased.
I don't dislike FOX news. But for the previous 20 years, it carried the label of Sensationalism, so I didn't pay it much attention.. and it's very hard for me to believe just because we have a new President, that it has changed its format and actually become factual.
You would have to take that up with them. I didn’t change a thing. I did however ask how being more inclusive was a bad thing. I haven’t seen anyone answering that one. The church has the right to cater to whomever they please I suppose. If the parishioners don’t like the change, they can let their feelings be known and/or move along. That’s what make us a great nation. Many around the world don’t have that luxury.
Yeah, I don’t buy into sensationalism or conspiracies. I don’t know what her agenda was or if she had an agenda. I don’t know how she was placed in the position she is in or why. I do know that article presented zero facts and instead is stirring the pot, much like Fox does.
The parishioners can make thier own decision on how to deal with the issue and it appears they found a compromise. How strange is that in today’s “your either a liberal or conservative” world?
Most folks I think lean to the center and the fringe tends to be the loudest and get the most attention. Can you find sensationalism such as this on liberal sites as well? Yep, sure can. I don’t think the majority of folks out too much weight on them however. Perhaps they do and that is why we are where we are today?
My point is, what’s your point with this article? What does it say to you because all I see is speculation and purposeful division. I live in civil war territory. They have many memorials all over the south. Visit Shiloh for example and you will see plenty of statues honoring confederates. This is a proper place for them in my opinion and if it is divisive to honor then in city parks and buildings, how is removing them “cleansing history”? Did removing “whites only” signs from above bathrooms erase the history that they existed?
Lee means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some see him as an oppressor and some a hero. Do those who feel he was an oppressor not have a voice? I don’t understand why any discussion gets shot down as political and not just how folks feel. Do you listen when they speak or do you immediately think they are liberals who want to cleanse history? I truly don’t get your point here. It appears you are making things much larger than they truly are and then use speculation as facts that people have been brainwashed or indoctrinated just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. If you do at least feel uncomfortable, perhaps you can show some empathy as that puts you on equal ground with what appears to be your opposition.
I’m 51 and see people who long for the past a lot. What I long for is when folks didn’t feel the need to label each other as friend or foe. We are all Americans, but divisiveness is on the rise and we seem to want to eat all we can get. I don’t think it’s out of the realm that other nations are exploiting our eagerness to bicker. It weakens us as a whole and when the folks at the top of our own government appears to be pushing the division, that’s when I think we all need to think about why we are allowing this to happen?
Wow, sorry so long.
I promised myself too.
I think this team is ready to do some real damage. This it the part of the year they have been working for. The time is now, I think they’re ready.
Johny Doe: Your bit of a tangent merits a full on tangent in return. My suggestion to you would be to listen to the members of the "Christian Fundamentalist right" instead of watching a documentary which characterizes them in an unfair way and then ascribes false motives for their behavior. Have a conversation. You'll find less "fear and strain" than you insinuate.
In regards to your "taking God out of school" claim, the arguments surrounding that issue can be made, but you can't possibly believe there hasn't been a full court press to remove any trace of religion from schools. Have you not paid attention to the ACLU over the past 25 years, sir? They sue public schools any time they get the chance. Most schools don't want to pay for the legal fees so they just continue to bend to the desires of the ACLU. As a public educator, surely you know this. Whether the ACLU is correct to do this is up to the individual to decide, but the fact that they engage in this litigious stuff really isn't a matter of debate among those that can count the frequency and volume of their lawsuits.
One could make the argument that the press, social media, academia, and secular progressives have been intentionally hostile toward the religious community. Perhaps this is a major reason that the "Christian Fundamentalist right" has been mobilized? Do you not know about the Southern Poverty Law Center calling religious organizations that disagree with them a hate group guilty of hate speech. They are up to 945 hate groups now. They labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali an anti-Muslim extremist for goodness sake. Meanwhile, Google and YouTube use the SPLC to monitor acceptable content. Did you miss the Obama administration taking the Little Sisters of the Poor to the Supreme Court? Suing nuns, man. Did you miss the mayor of Houston issuing a subpoena to collect and review the sermons being preached by Houston? I could go on for a long time.
I do not need a documentary to help me understand why many fundamentalist Christians do not vote to support certain candidates. Perhaps they are tired of being told they are an anti-woman bigot if they believe that life begins at conception? Or any other of the lame narratives people use to attack them and scare them into shutting up. Fundamentalist Christians are not what you read about on Salon or Mother Jones. But if you want a documentary to support this overt attempt at removing people of faith from academia, try checking out "Expelled" from Ben Stein.
