Urging that Christian schools lose accreditation

[Danthemailman]

Someone who accepted the existence of the God of Abrahamic traditions, and the claim that around 2000 years ago part of the triune God was incarnated on earth, held a ministry and gathered a group of followers in a small part of the Levant and was then sacrificed in an act of vicarious redemption.

Was I a biblical literalist? Not in the slightest. For either the Old or the New testaments.

Was I an active believer? Yes. I was genuinely convinced that a God existed and sincerely believed.

What changed was an informal process of educating myself in the areas of philosophy, logic and skepticism/critical thinking. That led me to a place where I realised that I had no justifications for accepting the things that I did concerning my religious beliefs. On examination, I couldn't support them so I dropped them.

And I always though "faith" was a terrible reason to believe anything. Even as a young schoolboy, that struck me as entirely the wrong way of going about things.

Even the demons believe in God (James 2:19) but did you previously believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead to provide for us eternal life? Did you ever actually believe in/have faith in/trust in Jesus Christ for salvation? (John 3:16; Acts 16:31)

 

[FireDragon76]

Someone who accepted the existence of the God of Abrahamic traditions, and the claim that around 2000 years ago part of the triune God was incarnated on earth, held a ministry and gathered a group of followers in a small part of the Levant and was then sacrificed in an act of vicarious redemption.

Was I a biblical literalist? Not in the slightest. For either the Old or the New testaments.

Was I an active believer? Yes. I was genuinely convinced that a God existed and sincerely believed.

What changed was an informal process of educating myself in the areas of philosophy, logic and skepticism/critical thinking. That led me to a place where I realised that I had no justifications for accepting the things that I did concerning my religious beliefs. On examination, I couldn't support them so I dropped them.

And I always though "faith" was a terrible reason to believe anything. Even as a young schoolboy, that struck me as entirely the wrong way of going about things.

While skepticism is hardly the worst vice, the notion that Aristotilian logic is the only metric one can use to determine the veracity of something is very much not a universal human value. It is also very limiting intellectually. Some of us have found acceptance of dialectic to account for a broader variety of human experiences.

 

[Albion]

Do you think her family giving millions to POTUS and other Republican politicos was not a factor in her appointment?

Betsy DeVos also had a long history in Republican leadership positions as well as in a number of Education organizations.

But to your point, do you think that that payback is not at least a partial motive in the appointment of most Cabinet members regardless of political party? As former VP Biden would say, "C'mon man." But here's some more specific info about Biden repaying people he owes:

The four MSNBC contributors leaving the network to join the Biden Administration | Daily Mail Online

 

[gaara4158]

Meaning that you prefer the bigoted message of the public schools, then?

What bigoted message would that be?

 

[TLK Valentine]

National level accreditation governing bodies -

National accreditors
The national accreditors get their name from their common (but not universal) practice of accrediting schools nationwide or even worldwide. National accreditation has a weaker reputation than regional accreditation and some regionally-accredited institutions may not recognize transfer credits from nationally-accredited institutions. However, both regional and national accreditors are subject to the same recognition criteria from the Department of Education.[84][85] Many for-profit (proprietary) colleges are nationally accredited.

• Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES) (recognized by USDE[86])
• Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC) (recognized by USDE[86])
• Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training (ACCET) (recognized by USDE[86])
• Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) (recognized by USDE[Note 1])
• Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC) (recognized by USDE and CHEA[86][90])
• Council on Occupational Education (COE) (recognized by USDE[86])

List of recognized higher education accreditation organizations - Wikipedia

Thank you; I stand corrected. It would seem that the federal government does have a small amount of influence in these matters.

That said, President Biden would have to exert a great level of influence in order to marginally inconvenience these institutions... I don't see him as being so petty or vindictive; after all, he's not his predecessor.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Betsy DeVos also had a long history in Republican leadership positions as well as in a number of Education organizations.

But to your point, do you think that that payback is not at least a partial motive in the appointment of most Cabinet members regardless of political party? As former VP Biden would say, "C'mon man." But here's some more specific info about Biden repaying people he owes:

The four MSNBC contributors leaving the network to join the Biden Administration | Daily Mail Online

We have the best government money can buy. And it has.

 

[Albion]

We have the best government money can buy. And it has.

I won't contest that, my friend, but the singling out of this woman, Betsy DeVos, for especially savage treatment by the other party is disturbing to me. And somewhat surprising, even after what was done to other Republican women such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

Why should the Secretary of Education (!), of all the Cabinet members, be the favorite target that she became even before she did anything, good or bad, in that position? And a mild-mannered woman at that.

Why such misogyny from political opponents who spend so much time accusing other people of being misogynistic?

 

[Speedwell]

I won't contest that, my friend, but the singling out of this woman, Betsy DeVos, for especially savage treatment by the other party is disturbing to me. And somewhat surprising, even after what was done to other Republican women such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

Why should the Secretary of Education (!), of all the Cabinet members, be the favorite target that she became even before she did anything, good or bad, in that position? And a mild-mannered woman at that.

Why such misogyny from political opponents who spend so much time accusing other people of being misogynistic?

What evidence do you have that criticisms of DeVos are are based on her womanhood?

 

[FireDragon76]

What evidence do you have that criticisms of DeVos are are based on her womanhood?

I don't get it, either... DeVos has been handled with relative kid gloves, and she's been criticized for her lack of expertise, not her gender.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The world views of a Christian and an atheist are polar opposites. Moving on from this part of the forum...

Not necessarily. Christianity is not a monolithic belief. There are Christians that will disagree with their fellow Christians on some issues and agree with atheists. Atheists are not the enemy. If anything atheists are more interested in the truth than many if not most Christians are.

 

[Danthemailman]

You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Your next stop, the Twilght Zone! Now exiting the Twilight Zone.

 

[Gene2memE]

Even the demons believe in God (James 2:19) but did you previously believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins, was buried and rose again from the dead to provide for us eternal life? Did you ever actually believe in/have faith in/trust in Jesus Christ for salvation? (John 3:16; Acts 16:31)

Yes.

And, now I don't.

 

[Gene2memE]

While skepticism is hardly the worst vice, the notion that Aristotilian logic is the only metric one can use to determine the veracity of something is very much not a universal human value. It is also very limiting intellectually. Some of us have found acceptance of dialectic to account for a broader variety of human experiences.

I find dialectics unsatisfactory, as it doesn't necessarily lead to the truth and can often result in contradictory answers. Socratic dialectics are preferable to Hegalian (or Marxist, shudder), but even that I find wanting.

By education, experience and preference, I favour Kantian critique over dialectic discourse.

 

[FireDragon76]

I find dialectics unsatisfactory, as it doesn't necessarily lead to the truth and can often result in contradictory answers. Socratic dialectics are preferable to Hegalian (or Marxist, shudder), but even that I find wanting.

By education, experience and preference, I favour Kantian critique over dialectic discourse.

This is the same Kant that believed much of the world were lazy imbeciles simply because they had the wrong skin color.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the same Kant that believed much of the world were lazy imbeciles simply because they had the wrong skin color.

This is a bit of an ad hominem fallacy. Kant lived during a much more racist time and his racism has very little if anything to do with Kantian critique.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is a bit of an ad hominem fallacy. Kant lived during a much more racist time and his racism has very little if anything to do with Kantian critique.

Character and virtue has everything to do with truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Character and virtue has everything to do with truth.

Not in the way that you are attempting to reason. If you don't like Kant's logic then attack it on its merits. Frankly I know very little of it, but I can recognize an actual ad hom fallacy (creationists almost always get that one wrong) when I see it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not in the way that you are attempting to reason. If you don't like Kant's logic then attack it on its merits. Frankly I know very little of it, but I can recognize an actual ad hom fallacy (creationists almost always get that one wrong) when I see it.

Owing to Kant's bigotry, I have no reason to take Kant's teachings as authoritative. Truth must be demonstrated through ethical character and conduct.

FYI, I'm not wedded to western analytical thinking, if that clarifies anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Owing to Kant's bigotry, I have no reason to take Kant's teachings as authoritative. Truth must be demonstrated through ethical character and conduct.

Still an ad hom fallacy.

FYI, I'm not wedded to western analytical thinking, if that clarifies anything.

That may be the basis of your problem since there is no "western analytical thinking" there is only analytical thinking. In fact your attitude might be said to be racist itself. Oh noessss!!!!

 

[FireDragon76]

Still an ad hom fallacy.



That may be the basis of your problem since there is no "western analytical thinking" there is only analytical thinking. In fact your attitude might be said to be racist itself. Oh noessss!!!!

Racist? I'm not the one confining myself to only the logic of dead white men.