Fundamentalist Christian Universities/Colleges.

[MikeMcK]

I wouldn't want my kids to go there, but ultimately it's not my business. Presumably students at these institutions are 18 and over, so they can go to Harvard...

You mean you'd actually let your children attend a university that was founded by Puritans for the purpose of training those big, bad, mean fundamentalists to preach the Gospel?

 

[cantata]

You mean you'd actually let your children attend a university that was founded by Puritans for the purpose of training those big, bad, mean fundamentalists to preach the Gospel?

Oh, for goodness' sake.

The principles on which something was founded frequently have little bearing on its current behaviour, as anyone can see from the state of the United States.

 

[stan1980]

If my kids turned out to be fundamentalists and wanted to go to a university like that, I'd be wondering where I went wrong.

Then I'd have them put down.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Indeed times have changed. Many colleges founded for the high purposes of studying theology have shifted their focus and other colleges reputed for their radicalism have contrarily become more religious.

There's nothing wrong with fundamentalism per say. But fundamental to what? To the gospel that brings eternal life or to legalism? To a new creation or to tyranny? To humility or to self-righteousness? To forgiveness or to condemnation? To vengeance or to meekness? To compassion or to callousness? To generosity or to greed?

For everyone that throws themselves at God in fear and trembling there are also those who seek to be holy so that they may be the first to throw stones.

John 3:16 is the only fundamental we need.

 

[TheManeki]

You mean you'd actually let your children attend a university that was founded by Puritans for the purpose of training those big, bad, mean fundamentalists to preach the Gospel?

You mean like Harvard? Sure, but they'd have to pay for at least some of the tuition.

 

[levi501]

If my kids turned out to be fundamentalists and wanted to go to a university like that, I'd be wondering where I went wrong.

Then I'd have them put down.

Good. It's best not to let them breed.

Reverse that vasectomy and try again.

 

[Futuwwa]

Say what now?

Allowing private universities to operate outside governmental supervision provides for checks and balances, ensuring plurality and preventing ideological homogenization.

Imagine that some of the most theocratic Republicans would get their hands on, well, whatever governmental branch it is that decides about public education over there. I think you would be rather grateful over the fact that there would still be universities outside their control, universities that would be able to make a stand against the BS.

 

[stan1980]

Good. It's best not to let them breed.

It's your duty to do your bit

 

[SallyNow]

A University is made up of many colleges. Check most undergrad degrees from a University and you will see they are from "The college of Letters, Arts and Sciences".

I became aware of this reading an autibiographical piece by Asimov where he expressed some bitterness about the scholarship he received to Columbia. It wasn't until he was actually there that he discovered the divverence between the very Elite Columbia College and just Columbia University.

Ah! I think there's a bit of cultural difference going on. In Canada universities focus on research and a huge range of B.A.s, BFAs, BSc, Master's, PhD's, etc, while colleges focus on career training and a limited number of career-specific diplomas, university transfer programs, trades training, and the like. University-colleges focus a bit on research, but mainly on career-specific degrees, university-transfer programs, and diploma programs.

Universities have faculties and schools (ie, school of nursing, school of teaching), which is, it seems, comparable to what in the USA is termed a "college" in a university. I think?

Anyways, back to the topic at hand... one of these so-called American, um, post-secondary institutions actually has a degree in homemaking, for women only. I suppose if it actually focused on economics, advanced textile construction, history, early childhood education, literature, a second language, home business laws, etc it would be a viable degree... but it seems less than that, by far: http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=737

 

[Baggins]

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? ... Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so ------ respectful!." Richard Dawkins

Let's see, nope, no anti-freedom rhetoric in that one.

He is not asking to ban anyones freedom, he is telling people that you don't have to automatically respect someones beliefs just because they are religious, you wouldn't automatically respect someone's beliefs if they were political would you so why should religious beliefs command automatic respect.

Totally agree with him on that one, and nothing promoting the curtailing of freedom in that one.

NEXT!

"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth." Richard Dawkins

What the heck! How could that possibly be considered ant-freedom rhetoric? It is a simple truth, most peoples religion is that of their parents.

Good grief your clutching at straws here to try and retain some credibility aren't you?

""I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. " Richard Dawkins

Can't see him advocating the curtailing of anyone's freedoms in that one. I can't see anything that any Humanist or atheist in general would disagree with; the bible is important as literature and it is difficult to understand Western thought and literature without a knowledge of it. But trying to suggest that theology is anything other than the literary criticism and philosophy of one book is a bit silly.

"My last vestige of 'hands off religion' respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the 'National Day of Prayer,' when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place." Richard Dawkins

No anti-freedom rhetoric there, simply a personal story of when he lost his last vestiges of automatic respect for religions and the religious. He probably wasn't alone in having that happen in the aftermath of 9/11

Richard Dawkings also signed a petition urging the BANNING of religious upbringing of children.

petitions . pm . gov . uk / freethinking /

So you don't think human beings should be allowed to make up there own minds about religion when they are old enough to understand it and that they shouldn't be forcibly indoctrinated into religions they don't understand as children?

I think it is you who has the problem with allowing people freedom of thought buddy

He later removed his support (only after promoting the petition on his website) after he was called on his anti-freedom bigotry.

here is the pertition, let's see if it is anti-freedom rhetoric:

"In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought."

Nope it seems to be a call to allow British subjects freedom of thought in their education.

How can asking for people to be allowed to make up their own minds whether they follow a religion or not as consenting adults be called anti-freedom rhetoric?

The only "freedom" being curtailed here is the freedom to indoctrinate children.

Luckily I had parents confident enough to allow me to go my own way in life. Others are not so lucky.

I could bring out a number of other examples, but it would be pointless.

It would considering that none of the examples you have posted so far have anything to do with anti-freedom rhetoric

BTW: Falsely accusing someone of libel is libel itself.

I think you libelled Richard Dawkins. Nothing you have posted here in your poor attempt at justification has persuaded otherwise.

Not a single quote could be termed anti-freedom rhetoric. Th epetition is a call for freedom of thought and protection of children

Dawkins believes religion is dangerous, delusional, and that bringing up children in a religion should be banned.

He is correct that religion is both delusional and dangerous. And he no longer appears to support the petition calling for freedom of thought, although I don't know why seems innocuous enough. Here is the important part of the petition:

children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians.

It doesn't say that you shouldn't be able to bring up a child in a religion, just that they shouldn't be subject to regular religious instruction until they are old enough to decide whether they want it or not ( 16 in this case ) and that they should not be defined as belonging to a religion until they have made an informed choice to do so.

Of course it will never happen, most people in the UK couldn't give a fig for religion, so this is all a bit of a pointless exercise and a bit of atheist sabre rattling.

But you can see why it put the wind up organised religions, childhood indoctrination is their last last ace in the hole.

My comments stand. Like it or not.[

I couldn't care less, I think I have shown the board what you are and I am happy enough with that.

 

[wpa997]

Let's see, nope, no anti-freedom rhetoric in that one.

He is not asking to ban anyones freedom, he is telling people that you don't have to automatically respect someones beliefs just because they are religious, you wouldn't automatically respect someone's beliefs if they were political would you so why should religious beliefs command automatic respect.

Totally agree with him on that one, and nothing promoting the curtailing of freedom in that one.

NEXT!

If you believe something is dangerous, then it follows that you work to eradicate the danger. In essence by labeling religion "dangerous" instead of "harmless nonsense", he outlines that he must work to end religious belief. In other words, instead of "living and let live" or allowing people the freedom to believe as they will, he labels the beliefs of others as dangerous and outlines that he will not give others that respect that all individuals deserve. Instead he wants to work to eradicate religion. (As we see below, that include the use of governmental force to deny parents the right to raise their children.)

NEXT!

What the heck! How could that possibly be considered ant-freedom rhetoric? It is a simple truth, most peoples religion is that of their parents. Good grief your clutching at straws here to try and retain some credibility aren't you?

You miss the important link between Dawkins' belief involving the education of children and the governmental force he wants to use. (See below.)

Can't see him advocating the curtailing of anyone's freedoms in that one. I can't see anything that any Humanist or atheist in general would disagree with; the bible is important as literature and it is difficult to understand Western thought and literature without a knowledge of it. But trying to suggest that theology is anything other than the literary criticism and philosophy of one book is a bit silly.

Of course you don't, just like you don't see it in the others. Nevermind that comparing theology to the study of "fairies and unicorns" is bigoted and anti-freedom.

No anti-freedom rhetoric there, simply a personal story of when he lost his last vestiges of automatic respect for religions and the religious. He probably wasn't alone in having that happen in the aftermath of 9/11

Absolute nonsense. He makes clear that after 9-11 he will actively engage in the destruction of the faith of others. When he says he will no longer be "hands off religion" that implies he will not be "hands on religion". In essence he will seek to impose his godless worldview on others. (And as demonstrated with the petition, he is willing to use governmental force to do so.)

So you don't think human beings should be allowed to make up there own minds about religion when they are old enough to understand it and that they shouldn't be forcibly indoctrinated into religions they don't understand as children?

You don't think parents have the right to bring their children up as they see fit? You want to dictate to other parents how they raise their own children? Interesting, you are as bigoted and anti-freedom as Dawkins.

FYI: "[T]he values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"We must not forget that in the Middle Ages important values of the civilization of the Western World were preserved by members of religious orders who isolated themselves from all worldly influences against great obstacles. There can be no assumption that today's majority is "right" and the Amish and others like them are "wrong." A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"[T]he Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of Parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

I think it is you who has the problem with allowing people freedom of thought buddy

I ain't your buddy. And as I said, you apparently have the problem with freedoms outlined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which include the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. You want control over other people's kids.

How "tolerant" of you.

Nope it seems to be a call to allow British subjects freedom of thought in their education.

How can asking for people to be allowed to make up their own minds whether they follow a religion or not as consenting adults be called anti-freedom rhetoric?

The only "freedom" being curtailed here is the freedom to indoctrinate children.

Luckily I had parents confident enough to allow me to go my own way in life. Others are not so lucky.

"[T]he values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"We must not forget that in the Middle Ages important values of the civilization of the Western World were preserved by members of religious orders who isolated themselves from all worldly influences against great obstacles. There can be no assumption that today's majority is "right" and the Amish and others like them are "wrong." A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"[T]he Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of Parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Amendment I U.S. Const: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It would considering that none of the examples you have posted so far have anything to do with anti-freedom rhetoric

So says you, however, you are wrong.

I think you libelled Richard Dawkins. Nothing you have posted here in your poor attempt at justification has persuaded otherwise.

What you think and what is fact diverge extensively.

Not a single quote could be termed anti-freedom rhetoric. Th epetition is a call for freedom of thought and protection of children.

I already demonstrated that you are wrong.

He is correct that religion is both delusional and dangerous. And he no longer appears to support the petition calling for freedom of thought, although I don't know why seems innocuous enough. Here is the important part of the petition:

He is no longer supporting the petition because he got called on its anti-freedom nature. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, no matter if you like it or not.

It doesn't say that you shouldn't be able to bring up a child in a religion, just that they shouldn't be subject to regular religious instruction until they are old enough to decide whether they want it or not ( 16 in this case ) and that they should not be defined as belonging to a religion until they have made an informed choice to do so.

Of course it will never happen, most people in the UK couldn't give a fig for religion, so this is all a bit of a pointless exercise and a bit of atheist sabre rattling.

But you can see why it put the wind up organised religions, childhood indoctrination is their last last ace in the hole.

Again, parents have an inherent fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Attempting to erode that right is anti-freedom, bigoted and Unconstitutional.

I couldn't care less, I think I have shown the board what you are and I am happy enough with that.

That's right. You've shown that I am correct. Thank you!

 

[cantata]

How do you know that parents have an inherent fundamental right to indoctrinate their children, wpa997?

 

[lawtonfogle]

How do you know that parents have an inherent fundamental right to indoctrinate their children, wpa997?

Upon birth, one is not ready to enter the society. Therefore, someone must indoctrinate, brainwash, teach, whatever you want to call it, these 'new ones' so that they can enter society. We have, except in extreme cases, left this as a combination between the state and the parent, where the 'facts of life' (math, laws, English) teaching is the job of the state while the 'unknowns of life' (right/wrong (or morality), being able to communicate though vocals, walking, manners) are left as the job of the parent. Since some of these facts are learned from the parents and some of the unknowns are learned at school, they do cross over, but to forcefully remove an unknown from a parent, to turn it into a fact, and to give it to the school cannot be done, at least not without fully stating that that unknown is a fact. Thus, to take away parents rights to teach their children religious beliefs needs to have attached the removal of religion as an unknown and changing into a fact, in this case, that it is wrong.

Basically, if parents do not have the right to bring up their kids with their religious values, it will turn to imposing laws on the practice of a religion.

Really, I think Dawkin's problem is that he misses the fact that 'Christians' who are dangerous are those who misinterpret Christianity, and that alone can not make Christianity bad. Otherwise, so many other things (like science) would quickly be considered just as bad because people will misinterpret it.

But, I have class soon. Ja mata.

 

[wpa997]

How do you know that parents have an inherent fundamental right to indoctrinate their children, wpa997?

What you call "indoctrination" is actually called "parental direction of religious upbringing".

As for the fundamental right, fundamental rights are those expressly outlined in the text of the Constitution (1st Amendment) or those which are deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of the American people and/or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. (See Washington v. Glucksberg).

Thus, the Supreme Court has directly outlined that parents possess such a fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

"[T]he values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"We must not forget that in the Middle Ages important values of the civilization of the Western World were preserved by members of religious orders who isolated themselves from all worldly influences against great obstacles. There can be no assumption that today's majority is "right" and the Amish and others like them are "wrong." A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

"[T]he Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of Parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Amendment I U.S. Const: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


You are going to have to learn to live with it. You have no right to direct the religious upbringing of other people's children. No matter how much Dawkins et el want to stomp their feet and throw a tantrum about it.

The fact that Dawkins would like to do such a thing, establishes that he is anti-freedom as it stands in American law. (Which IMO is all that matters.)

 

[wpa997]

Basically, if parents do not have the right to bring up their kids with their religious values, it will turn to imposing laws on the practice of a religion.

Hence, Anti-Freedom.

 

[cantata]

What you call "indoctrination" is actually called "parental direction of religious upbringing".

As for the fundamental right, fundamental rights are those expressly outlined in the text of the Constitution (1st Amendment) or those which are deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of the American people and/or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. (See Washington v. Glucksberg).

Why in the world would this apply to British people?

 

[Baggins]

If you believe something is dangerous, then it follows that you work to eradicate the danger. In essence by labeling religion "dangerous" instead of "harmless nonsense", he outlines that he must work to end religious belief. In other words, instead of "living and let live" or allowing people the freedom to believe as they will, he labels the beliefs of others as dangerous and outlines that he will not give others that respect that all individuals deserve. Instead he wants to work to eradicate religion. (As we see below, that include the use of governmental force to deny parents the right to raise their children.)

NEXT!

Your claim was anti-freedom rhetoric, the quote you posted contained no anti-freedom rhetoric.

You fail.

Now to try and justify yourself you are ascribing to Dawkins ideas that you can't possibly know that he holds, thus compounding your original egregiuos falsehood.

Epic Fail

You miss the important link between Dawkins' belief involving the education of children and the governmental force he wants to use. (See below.)

I do no such thing. I just see a quote which contains no anti-freedom rhetoric in despite what you claimed..

Again a fail

Of course you don't, just like you don't see it in the others. Nevermind that comparing theology to the study of "fairies and unicorns" is bigoted and anti-freedom.

In what way is comparing your beliefs in god with other peoples beliefs in faeries anti-freedom rhetoric?

Once again massive fail from you.

Remember your original premis was that Dawkins indulged in anti-freedom rhetoric.

You completely failed to back that up.

Absolute nonsense. He makes clear that after 9-11 he will actively engage in the destruction of the faith of others. When he says he will no longer be "hands off religion" that implies he will not be "hands on religion". In essence he will seek to impose his godless worldview on others. (And as demonstrated with the petition, he is willing to use governmental force to do so.)

All he implies is that he will no longer give religion and the religious the automatic respect. Again you are ascribing to Dawkins positions that you have no idea whether he holds or not unless you are a mind reader.

Are you a mind reader.

Once again your wriggiling is only impaling you harder on to the hook.

You are compounding your original flasehood by trying to twist passages that are obviously not "anti-freedom rhetoric" into something that is by ascribing positions to Dawkins that are not evident from the quote.

You pile mis-representation upon falsehood.

When you are in an hole it usually best to stop digging

You don't think parents have the right to bring their children up as they see fit? You want to dictate to other parents how they raise their own children? Interesting, you are as bigoted and anti-freedom as Dawkins.

The question here is a balance of freedoms. The parents have a partial freedom to bring up children as they see fit, it is not an absolute freedom even now. The child has freedoms that may conflict with that, freedom of thought and expression that a parents attempt to indoctrinate a child may curb.

The petitionseeks to redress the balance so the freedom is skewed more towards the individual, in this case the child.

It says no one should be indoctrinated into a religion until they are old enough to understand the tenets of that religion.

If you disagree with that I would suggest that it it is you who has problems with freedoms.

What are you scared of? Are you scared that id children were left alone until they were 16 before they made a decision about whether to follow their parents religion or not then your religion would die out? If not what is the problem.

I will also point out that signing ( and then removing your name from ) someone elses petition is not rhetoric, so it fails in your original attempt to ascribe "anti-freedom rhetoric" to Dawkins.

FYI: "[T]he values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

The petition is in the UK, I don't see what possible relevance this has to your original falsehood that Dawkins engages in "anti-freedom rhetoric "

"We must not forget that in the Middle Ages important values of the civilization of the Western World were preserved by members of religious orders who isolated themselves from all worldly influences against great obstacles. There can be no assumption that today's majority is "right" and the Amish and others like them are "wrong." A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Completely besodes the point to your original point that Dawkins engages in "anti-freedom rhetoric", not only that but Dawkins is a UK citizen so laws passed in Wisconsin have no importance to him.

And finally this is also a point that Dawkins explicitly supported in one of the quotes you laughably called "anti-freedom rhetoric". He stated explicitly the central importance of thebible in understanding British history, culture and literature.

"[T]he Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of Parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

The petition was to teh UK government it had nothing to do with the USA. The UK is a post-religious country. Most people would still claim to be Christian but they don't go to church or do anything overtly religious, most peopel probably don't think about religion from month to month.

In that situation is that right that schools continue to attempt to indoctrinate British children into christianity? It is an anachronism and the petition was an attempt to pointthis out. It wasn't a serious attempt to stop religious education, it wasn't any sort of attempt to stop parents raising their children within a religion should they so wish. It was an argument agaisnt state religious education, something you don't have in the US, and the labelling of children to young to understand as being of a certain religion.

I ain't your buddy.

<staff edit> Often in the UK we use the term mate in a sarcastic manner in respect to someone who is obviously not our mate. I was putting this into the American vernacular, but I forgot how literal some of you Americans can be.

Next time you wish to attack Richard Dawkins you could try doing so in a truthful manner. However much you hate the man ascribing actions to him that he does not undertake doesn't make him look bad it makes you look bad.

And as I said, you apparently have the problem with freedoms outlined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which include the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. You want control over other people's kids.

I'm British you just carry on as you wish. But I generally think that humans being should be allowed to make up there own minds about important parts of their philosophical make up. We don't expect children to slavishly follow their parents politics so I can't see why we should expect them to do just that when it comes to religion.

How "tolerant" of you.

And how intolerant of you not to even think about letting children get to the age of majority before making important decisions like that.

You see it is a balance of freedoms here. Parents have rights but so do children. We don't let parents physically abuse their children anymore, that "freedom" was taken away from them many years ago.

It is all about where the rights of the child are superceeded by the rights of the parent.

I happen to think that a parent should be allowed to bring up a child in a religion. I was brought up a Christian, but I don't think I ever took Sunday School or religious instruction at school seriously once I had developed critical thinking abilities in my mid teens. I think thet Dawkins may have come around to that point as well judging by his removal of his signature.

But I don't think the petition, that Dawkins didn't author, is anti-freedom, it is about the balance of freedoms.

Starting a debate on that point as it pertains to religious instruction is not anti-freedom rhetoric, it is a debate about relative freedoms.

I doubt you will be able to see that distinction heavily invested as you are in trying to muddy the waters so peopel forget about your original calumny of Richard Dawkins.

"[T]he values of .. snip pointless screeds of American law....ands as a charter of the rights of Parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children." WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

All pointless water muddying this has no bearing on you point that Dawkins engages in "anti-freedom rhetoric". Neither he nor I are American citizens, I can only assume that you are posting screeds of American law as a smokescreen to try and hide the fact that your original premis is devoid of merit and libellous.

Amendment I U.S. Const: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

How can children who don't even know what religion is be having their rights to exercise curtailed?

Anyway nice attempt at trying to derail the debate but lets not forget the reason I got involved was not to discuss the rights and wrongs of teaching children religion it was to take you to task for your, since unsubstantiated, claims that Dawkins engages in " anti-freedom rhetoric".

I think I have comprehensively demolished your position, expecting an apology from someone like you would be pointless because you will never admit your error and what would it mean Dawkins anyway?

But I take comfort that anybody reading this thread will have enjoyed watching your attempts at self-justification as much as I have.

So says you, however, you are wrong.

Anybody with the reading and comprehension ability of a schoolchild will be quite able to see that there wasn't a single bit of "anti-freedom rhetoric" in the quotes you posted.

Your attempts to mind read Dawkins to get them to read that way were, however, most amusing.

What you think and what is fact diverge extensively.

You posted no facts beyond the bare quotes, and they don't support you, hence your embarrasing attempts to make up things about Richard Dawkins subsequently.

I already demonstrated that you are wrong.

Of course you did. That is why you have ended up pasting huge screeds of pointless American Law and making up fantasies about Dawkins instead of trying to point the anti-freedom rhetoric in your original quotes.

He is no longer supporting the petition because he got called on its anti-freedom nature. Parents have a fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, no matter if you like it or not.

That isn't true at all, parents rights as to how they bring up their children are circumscribed already, the rights of the child are becoming more important. That debate is about how far the freedoms of the parents should circumscribe the rights of the child.

It is no more anti-freedom to say that he freedoms of the child should come first than it is to say the rights of the parents should have primacy.

To explain otherwise is pointlessly ignoring the facts of the debate.

Again, parents have an inherent fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. Attempting to erode that right is anti-freedom, bigoted and Unconstitutional.

We don't have a constitution but:

Again, Children have an inherent fundamental right to decide on their own religious upbringing. Attempting to erode that right is anti-freedom, bigoted and Unconstitutional

See what I did there?

How can you espouse such anti-freedom rhetoric, deny children their rights.

That is why it is about the balance of freedoms in this case not about being anti-freedom.

Can you understand that?

That's right. You've shown that I am correct. Thank you!

That's not what the reps I am getting for debating you are saying, My rep count has gone up a couple of hundred since this started, you are my rep cow and I am milking you.

But I think you may be dry

 

[Morcova]

I cannot speak for BJU or PCC, but I will not let your attempt to smear Liberty University slide.

Liberty University is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, thus it must meet the standards set by the agency for accreditation.

You mean it finally got re-accrredited right?

Liberty was founded in 1971 and received Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation in 1980.[11] In 2006, Liberty successfully completed re-accreditation, and remains currently accredited by SACS and TRACS.[12] The law school, which opened in 2003, gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association in 2006, which enables its graduates to sit for any bar examination in the United States.[13]
In 1991 Liberty University applied for additional accreditation with the newly recognized Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) gave "immediate accreditation" to the university

Now what do we find out about TRACS?

TRACS's first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991, U.S. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition."[4][5]
In 1993, Steve Levicoff self-published a book-length critical discussion of TRACS, When the TRACS Stop Short: An Evaluation and Critique of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.[5] Levicoff criticized TRACS's expedited accreditation of Liberty University and its creation of a category for schools which it called associate schools. While this category "was not considered an official accreditation," Levicoff argued that TRACS lent its name to a number of "blatantly fraudulent institutions."[6]
Another source of criticism was the 1991 granting of accreditation to the Institute for Creation Research. One of TRACS' board members was Henry M. Morris, founder of ICR. Timothy Sandefur, a fellow at the Claremont Institute, called Morris's position on the board "highly questionable".[7] Levicoff states, "Morris' influence is so strong that TRACS attaches a two page defense of the young earth position (written by Morris) to their doctrinal statement."[8] In 2007 Morris' son asked TRACS to terminate ICR' accredited status.[9] The reason was, in part, that the ICR moved to Texas[10] and the state does not recognize TRACS.[11]
Due to Levicoff's book TRACS instituted positive changes.[5] In 1995, a federal review was conducted and resulted in probation. Improvements were made, including eliminating the "associate schools" category and changing chairmen.[6] In 2004, the USDE reauthorized TRACS without conditions

Funny the only way some of these "school" can manage to get accredited in the first place is by begging other christians to get their accredation.

Many of the textbooks used at Liberty are the same textbooks that one would use at any secular university in the United States.

Don't believe me? Go to MBSdirect Liberty's online bookstore and search through the textbooks for courses such as psychology, sociology, criminal justice, accounting, math ect...

You will find that they are exactly the same books used by university students all over the country.

And yet they can't manage to get accredited the same way other schools do. Funny that.

For narcissistic bigots like Richard Dawkins to spout off at the mouth and engage in the type of anti-freedom rhetoric that they do, is beyond despicable.

<<staff edit>>

Found this quite funny.

As reported by ABC News[28] and the Associated Press[29] the Liberty Debate team accumulates points by sending lots of teams to small tournaments, debating almost exclusively in their district, while not engaging known debate champions like Michigan State, Berkeley, Dartmouth, Emory and Harvard.
Criticism of the debate program extends to the Christian community as well. John Lofton of The American View Christian radio show accused Liberty University of not being "a truly Christian college" when Jerry Falwell gave permission for the debate team to debate in favor of abortion when required.[30] The issue arose when the team was faced with the need to argue for abortion rights or give up the debate program for that year.

They want to play like the big boys but not with the big boys... what are they afraid of?

 

[Lynden1000]

You mean you'd actually let your children attend a university that was founded by Puritans for the purpose of training those big, bad, mean fundamentalists to preach the Gospel?

Of course. If they're over 18, it's their decision to make, not mine. Nor should it be mine.

 

[wanderingone]

You mean you'd actually let your children attend a university that was founded by Puritans for the purpose of training those big, bad, mean fundamentalists to preach the Gospel?

Besides finances I'm not sure how it is a parent has control over where a child pursues their education.