Jump to content

Liberal Assault On Religion


Recommended Posts

Catholic professor punished for views

A college professor in Ohio has been punished for refusing to hide his religious identity from his students.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, officials from Lakeland Community College removed Dr. James Tuttle from his philosophy classes and threatened him with dismissal because he made statements on his syllabi and in class that disclosed his traditional Catholic religious faith and how that shaped his personal philosophy.

FIRE says last March, Tuttle was the target of a student complaint that contended he mentioned his Catholic beliefs too often. The student suggested the professor undergo "counseling for tolerance."

Unbelievable! One complaint from a single arrogant, sanctimonious, red-diaper-doper-baby, fool college student and this decent man is targeted and removed from his class. Counseling for tolerance?! Outragous. Who's the intolerant one here?

It seems that stories such as this one are starting to appear almost daily as the secularists continue their mindless assault on one of the most important stablizing forces in society: religion, Christianity specifically.

Why is it that fanatical left-wing groups such as the ACLU are attempting to drive religion from public life entirely? How does the Star of David that a person wheres around their neck even concern you? How are you adversly affected by the message of love envoked by a public nativity sceen? This is absolute insanity.

The US Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. If this single college student twit is so terribly offended, then he should take it upon HIMSELF to withdraw from the class. Take you're secularist crap elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Our constitution also provide's for freedom of speech. A man has just as much right to say that he is of a faith as the atheists have to say that they aren't. For some reason, it often seems that some (some, mind you, not all) atheists seem to believe that they are the only one's who are allowed to express their beliefs. As I've stated before, so much of our culture in just about every aspect has come from religion. You take religion out of our culture, and we won't have a culture worth having, and this is from a purely objective standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are religion classes available if a person wanted to be enlighten on religion

i respect that people have a right to believe and practice religion.

but when people in some form of authority and expertise such as educator imposes that believe, their believes or even their own biasness even subtly onto others it becomes questionable. and one complain is enough to warrant an investigation even from a job point of view.

i would have like to see the incident just as a poor error in judgement, couselling sounds so medical, but perhaps it is what i hope some training in presentation of class material

i often wonder whatever happened to “clinical supervision” and “peer supervision” in the classroom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that we pause and consider the fact that WorldNetDaily is known for its inflammatory articles. The article above fails to report the point of view of the Dean, the college, and the professor in question. Only the opinion of FIRE is expressed.

If you go to the FIRE site, they have a copy of a letter that they sent the administration. There's a little more information in there. For example, the professor expressed some sort of public disdain for a student's chosen sect in the classroom. That's what prompted the comment that the professor needed to be more tolerant.

If it turns out that the professor was persecuted for mentioning his faith in the classroom, then this action by the college is indefensible. But that remains to be seen.

All we have is FAITH's assertion that the college was persecuting this man. There may be other factors at play that haven't been mentioned in the WND article.

We'll have to wait a while to find out the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean James L. Brown of the Arts and Humanities Division received a letter from the student of Dr. Tuttle's  "Introduction to Philosophy" class stating that she found Dr. Tuttle's views "very offensive," claiming that Dr. Tuttle "looked distastefully" at her when he found out she was a "pegan," and suggested that he should recieve "counseling for intolerance."

In his letter to Dr. Tuttle, Dean Brown stated that he was "more bothered by your disclaimer than by anything I read in [the student's] complaint.  This disclaimer statement informed students that Dr. Tuttle is a "committed Catholic Christian philospher and theologian" and asked students to "please be aware of where I am coming from." He also asked students who might be "uncomfortable" or whom he might "rub the wrong way" to " feel free to talk to [him] outside of the classroom situation, and we can try to resolve any problems that might arise later."

Dean Brown's objections to Dr. Tuttle's "disclaimer" are mystifying.

--FIRE's letter to President Morris Beverage

Don't you see what's going on here? By including the disclaimer, Dr. Tuttle has gone out of his way in an attempt to avoid conflict with his students. The same cannot be said of this self-rightous pegan brat who most likely originated the conflict by having a combative, vitriolic reaction to the disclaimer in the first place. I don't see any other students having a problem with this. This is a controversy created by one agitator and a moronic administrator.

I'd like to get the input of the other students in the class to find out what really went on.

The article above fails to report the point of view of the Dean, the college, and the professor in question. Only the opinion of FIRE is expressed.
Tuttle's point of view is represented by FIRE. As for the Dean, he was "bothered by the disclaimer" and I doubt we'll get anything else out of him on this subject as is so typical of someone likely so arrogant that he refuses to justify his actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you see what's going on here? By including the disclaimer, Dr. Tuttle has gone out of his way in an attempt to avoid conflict with his students. The same cannot be said of this self-rightous pegan brat who most likely originated the conflict by having a combative, vitriolic reaction to the disclaimer in the first place. I don't see any other students having a problem with this. This is a controversy created by one agitator and a moronic administrator.

I'd like to get the input of the other students in the class to find out what really went on.

Dean, he was "bothered by the disclaimer" and I doubt we'll get anything else out of him on this subject as is so typical of someone likely so arrogant that he refuses to justify his actions.

Well, I have to assume that FIRE quoted the Dean correctly and it IS a strange thing to say that one would be bothered by such a disclaimer.

I trust we won't have to wait long for more on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another story for WorldNetDaily.com (sorry Hardner ;) ).

Teacher told: Ditch the Star of David

A teacher [inge Telhaug] in Norway has been told to stop wearing the Star of David he normally hangs around his neck because it might provoke the many Muslim students at the school where he works.

"I can't accept this. It is a small star, 16 millimeters, that I have around my neck, usually under a T-shirt. I see it as my right to wear it," Telhaug told Norwegian Broadcasting.

Telhaugh, who teaches immigrants Norwegian language and culture, said the restriction violates his free-speech rights.

Kjell Gislefoss, principal of the school, was especially concerned about the symbol offending Palestinian immigrants at the school.

"The Star of David would be a symbol for one side in what is perhaps the world's most inflamed conflict at the moment. Many have a traumatic past that they have escaped and then we feel that if they are going to learn Norwegian then they can't sit and at the same time be reminded of the things they have traveled from," Gislefoss said, according to the Aftenposten report.

Oh really? Well, it offends me that the Palestinian immigrants are offended by the Star of David, so I think Palestinian immigrants should be removed from school.

Come on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I know this is sarcasm, but thank you for illustrating my following point.

Oh really? Well, it offends me that the Palestinian immigrants are offended by the Star of David, so I think Palestinian immigrants should be removed from school.

The really stupid thing is that I could actually see the article about how someone says that seriously. Has political correctness, tolerance, and observation of minority rights has gotten so bad that we have to censor ourselves as the majority?

I hope not.

I don't have a problem allowing Sikhs to wear turbans or Muslims to pray to Mecca in school, but we also need to be careful to allow Christians and Jews to do as they wish.

I am not familiar with this case, this instance, but it reeks of the same type of reverse-discrimination that we seem to hear about every day in the news. Of course, we don't hear "reverse-discrimination", but that's what it is.

When a Christian student is not allowed to pray in school because the school board is afraid of being viewed as intolerant, and when somebody actually goes to the trouble of complaining about this behaviour, that is reverse-discrimination.

We would never hear the end of it if a school board disallowed turbans because hats aren't allowed in the classroom.

Just look at Don Cherry's little fiasco. Not related to religion, maybe, but certainly similar circumstances. He gets investigated by the language commissioner because he said the word "French" on tv? It wasn't an issue of "language rights" to begin with, and nobody complained to the commissioner anyway!

The language commissioner is going out of her way to persecute somebody who has done nothing wrong. He expressed a viewpoint; he wasn't fostering hate. This is the type of reverse-discrimination that makes this world an idiotic place sometimes.

Sometimes you just need to take a step back and say, "What is the problem here? Why is this a big deal? Who the hell cares, anyway?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
Here we have of the Secular-Socialists hard at work telling us what to think and say and how to think and say it. Thought police at its finest.

You're the only one that I see telling people what to think, in this thread and the one you created.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All other religions including the secularist will stand in awe of your faith - If you have it...The power of belief when bridled and understood is a force to be rekoned with. Mr. Canada likes the idea of the cause - and seems to think - "on ward Christian soldiers" - well...warfare is conducted by secularists and atheists and those that belong to a religion they do not fully understand. Perhaps Mr. C has been listening to long to American late night radio stations that espouse - the great end times conflict - with the devil.....................hate to break it to you Mr. C...but Revelations was not a prophecy but a warning...as for the devil factor - It's people like you who live in fear that propogate and give life to this entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have evolved. It is no longer physical wars civilized humans fight but the war of ideas. Some ideas are being trumpeted as progressive when they are in fact against nature and a fallacy. These are the ideas that are dangerous and must be quashed as they will only lead to our own destruction as a human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide an example of some ideas that are being trumpeted as progressive when they are in fact against nature and a fallacy.

What are these ideas that are dangerous and must be quashed as they will only lead to our own destruction as a human race?

"Do unto others as you would have done to you." Is a good rule unless one is a masochist. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide an example of some ideas that are being trumpeted as progressive when they are in fact against nature and a fallacy.

What are these ideas that are dangerous and must be quashed as they will only lead to our own destruction as a human race?

"Do unto others as you would have done to you." Is a good rule unless one is a masochist. :lol:

Drea, I've missed you! Where have you been?

We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but I've missed your comments just the same. You usually say something interesting and intelligent.

As for your questions, I think we both know as to what issues I'm referring.

Are all liberal ideas dangerous? Of course not and some are indeed brilliant, just not lately.

Edited by Mr.Canada
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christmas is my busiest season. I lurk but don't have much time for participating these days ;)

Most everything we do was once labelled "dangerously progressive" by someone.

Providing the opportunity for two people who love one another to declare it publicly (ie; marriage) is a progressive idea that some think is dangerous.

We have already progressed in this area... years ago interracial marriage was illegal. Many believed allowing two people of different races to marry would bring about the destruction of society.

Two generations ago a woman earned less than 60% of what a man did. It was assumed that she had a husband supporting her and therefor did not need to a living wage.

We have progressed in so many incredibly good ways. I cannot think of any progress in the past 30 or so years that has been a detriment to society.

Edited by Drea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Drea, when you talk and say things like that it makes me want to rip up my CPC card and join you because you tie things that are obviously right to things that may not be.

I'm not patronizing you either but my problem is where does it end?

I used to support he left when I was younger and many of thier ideas are reasonable but they never seem to end in wanting to change our country.

That is my problem. I don't think everything need change and there is something to be said for tradition. Tradition of gay-bashing? No, please don't go there.

People can do as they wish, live and let live I say, but is it really on the same level as pay equity? It seems like opportunism at its finest to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A public wedding is about two people declaring their love and commitment to one another to their families, community and the world.

And a marriage is about sharing your life with another person. Why should any people be denied this public declaration? This celebrating of their joining to share life as one?

I think (I don't know) that gay couples just want to declare their love publicly to one another in the accepted manner of our culture. To declare their love openly and publicly in a ceremony just like everyone else. And to be accepted as a couple who have vowed to commit to one another.

Really what difference does the gender of one's spouse make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you be more specific Mr. Canada?

Canada as many civilized nations seem to be on a suicide mission for political correctness no matter the cost.

I long for the days when men were men and women were women, everyone celebrated Christmas and the other holidays and no questions were asked. Everyone recited the Lord's Prayer in public school and if I messed up I may get the strap. The men drank beer on Friday after a hard days work and cut the lawn on Saturday, talking over the fence and having a combined family BBQ that evening. "Gays weren't in the military" and people went to Church on Sunday. That's my dream life.

I was going to say you were naive but perhaps it's I who is being naive. My wife thinks so, lol. She thinks I want a Stepford life that doesn't exist anymore but I still have hope :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your honesty.

There's a new show on TV called "Life on Mars". It's about a guy (detective) that gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973.

ACK! The lack of technology! The lack of rights for women! The attitudes of the men towards themselves! -- it's amazing to see how far we've come. I was 9 in 1973 and I remember. The show is quite accurate.

I suggest having a peek at it, Mr. Canada. To see how far we've come.

Then look around you, at your wife today, at your daughters and your sons; and realize just how wonderfully far we've come.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your honesty.

There's a new show on TV called "Life on Mars". It's about a guy (detective) that gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973.

ACK! The lack of technology! The lack of rights for women! The attitudes of the men towards themselves! -- it's amazing to see how far we've come. I was 9 in 1973 and I remember. The show is quite accurate.

I suggest having a peek at it, Mr. Canada. To see how far we've come.

Then look around you, at your wife today, at your daughters and your sons; and realize just how wonderfully far we've come.;)

LOL, ah Drea. I will look into that show btw, sounds good.

Do I want women to not have the vote or not make the same money as men? Of coarse not!

I'm 33 so I wasn't alive in those days but it sounds good to me. They say that a conservative longs for the days of his or her parents which can never be achieved.

"Life on Mars" yeah, sounds accurate. I'll check it out. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 33 so I wasn't alive in those days but it sounds good to me. They say that a conservative longs for the days of his or her parents which can never be achieved.

Goes to show you... I thought you were in your 60's or later from your posts. Most conservatives long for fiscal conservatism, most social conservatives long for what you do. I think you'd be surprised, despite labels, who is truely conservative here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,766
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CouchPotato
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...