SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Dec 5, 2005 14:34:17 GMT -5
I find this "liberal vs. conservative" professor talk amusing b/c Georgetown has a fairly balanced student body and faculty (again, relative to other universities).
There are a number of university faculties out there that are conservative, though. Wheaton, Washington and Lee, Liberty, Westmont, etc. They are outnumbered by liberal faculties at other universities, clearly, but like someone said, that may be a natural selection thing.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 5, 2005 16:32:33 GMT -5
Nice work by the conservatives in this thread, like a page out of the Rove playbook. I start it off mostly to draw comment on the inappropriate title for the program (who would you like to "take Georgetown back" from, perchance?), conservatives immediately turn it into the tired old debate about whether academia is too liberal, throwing in those favorite old saws about "liberal elitists" and "liberal arrogance." Liberals of course take the bait and try to debate things on your terms. Bravo, gents. Soon enough we will find out that this conference is actually necessary because of 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 5, 2005 16:35:28 GMT -5
Poor Jack: Another victim of the vast right wing conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 5, 2005 16:38:58 GMT -5
Oh, and your comment, Jack, about "maybe finding a conservative intellectual who is actually qualified to teach something" sort of begged for a comment about liberal arrogance. Plus liberals are so much fun to mess with.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 5, 2005 16:40:27 GMT -5
So who are you taking Georgetown back from?
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 5, 2005 16:41:59 GMT -5
I thought that was clear. In fact, you said it yourself: "liberal elitists"
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 5, 2005 16:54:39 GMT -5
OK, thanks for the warning. Now we will know to put down our clove cigarettes and don our Che Guevara beret's on 1/28/06. We will come prepared to hurl our favorite Al Frankenesque invective and generally heap scorn in your direction. Well, some of us will. Others will be too busy watching their Michael Moore boxed set or reading Chomsky. I will be at the Cincy game.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Dec 5, 2005 17:09:35 GMT -5
So that IS what you liberal types do! I thought so.
Anyway, while the minority-hating, gun-toting troglodytes whose idea of a "good time" is having their barefoot wives serving them the venison of a freshly slaughtered Bambi while they and their Confederacy-loving friends listen to Ted Nugent Albums and plot how they'll rise again gather at the Take Back GU event, I too will be at the Cincy game.
Ah, GU hoops -- bringing left and right together since 1906.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Dec 5, 2005 18:11:29 GMT -5
I'd skip the game for that party. Where's it being held? ;D
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Dec 9, 2005 13:52:42 GMT -5
December 9th 1:54PM EST - My post is still a joke.
|
|
|
Post by husaria1683 on Jan 7, 2006 12:43:30 GMT -5
Things have gotten so bad that Georgetown has accepted $20 million from Al-waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Arabian, for a Muslim Studies center to promote "Muslim-Christian understanding." This from a country in which the practice of Christianity is illegal and conversion to Christianity is punishable by death. In an recent (January) interview, bin Talal said matter-of-factly that Saudi Arabia has "zero Christians" in its population. That's what Hitler would have called "Christian-rein," "free of Christians."
So why is [this man] telling Georgetown that he wants to promote "Muslim-Christian understanding???" And why did GU accept money from this individual?
As Alexander the Great once said, no fortress is invincible if it has a postern gate big enough to admit a donkey laden with a few bags of gold. We (and I mean Euro-American Judeo-Christian Civilization) are at war with Islamofascist barbarism and chaos. Someone just opened the gates to the enemy at Georgetown, which is now to be used for anti-Christian fifth column activities.
Georgetown is also allowing its facilities to be used for the Palestine Solidarity Movement's anti-Israel conference in February despite the PSM's open advocacy of terrorism and facilitation of terroristic violence abroad. In addition, the Palestinian Authority is openly persecuting Christians in areas under its control. It seems very strange that a predominantly-Catholic university would allow its facilities to be used for these purposes.
I'll be contacting the Take Back Georgetown Day people to see if public and almuni pressure can make GU cancel this conference, and/or to embarrass the Palestine Solidarity Movement and its on-campus sponsors so badly (using legal and nonviolent methods like proof of the Palestinian Authority's oppression of Christians and women, violence against gay people, and wanton destruction of life and property, along with the PSM's possible complicity in setting up peace activist Rachel Corrie to be killed so they could make propaganda) that they will wish they had never had the divestment conference.
Edited.--Admin
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 7, 2006 14:03:04 GMT -5
Wow. Comparisons to Hitler. Calls to arms in some sort of Euro-American Judeo-Christian alliance against the "Islamofascist" barbarism and chaos. Good lord. I mean, I'm no expert, but I think the combatitive tone can be taken down a notch. It's a tad bit reactionary and kneejerk for my taste and I am uncomfortable with any rhetoric, no matter what creed, that appears to call for some sort of end of days religious war. While I am skeptical of the motivations of the prince and his money, I'm equally suspicious of those who are quick to label him Hitler and discount his stated (if suspect) motivations. How about we open a dialogue and actually discuss this important issue rather than bandy about accusations and hurtful rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by husaria1683 on Jan 7, 2006 21:07:04 GMT -5
Wow. Comparisons to Hitler. Calls to arms in some sort of Euro-American Judeo-Christian alliance against the "Islamofascist" barbarism and chaos. Good lord. I mean, I'm no expert, but I think the combatitive tone can be taken down a notch. It's a tad bit reactionary and kneejerk for my taste and I am uncomfortable with any rhetoric, no matter what creed, that appears to call for some sort of end of days religious war. While I am skeptical of the motivations of the prince and his money, I'm equally suspicious of those who are quick to label him Hitler and discount his stated (if suspect) motivations. How about we open a dialogue and actually discuss this important issue rather than bandy about accusations and hurtful rhetoric. Al-waleed bin Talal is, I believe, a member of the Saudi ruling family. The practice of Christianity is illegal in his country so his motives in setting up a Muslim center to "promote Muslim-Christian understanding" must indeed be questioned. The "understanding" in his country is that one does not display a Bible or a cross, or even recite a Christian prayer, if one does not want trouble with the religious police. The problem with any "dialogue" is that it is going to be one-way. We are not going to be allowed to question the treatment of Christians in Saudi Arabia, or the status of several female American citizens who are being held in white slavery in this country (as documented in the Wall Street Journal). Wall Street Journal, 13 June 2002, page A18, "Daughters of America." "As William McGurn reported Tuesday in an article on this page, Pat Roush's two daughters, Alia and Aisha, were kidnapped from America in 1986. On Monday she learned that her Saudi ex-husband has married off Aisha in what she believes is retribution for her participation in these hearings." "Unfortunately, the State Department has not yet recognized that when an American child is kidnapped, or when an American woman charged with no crime is held against her will, it's not just an affront to the individual. It's an affront to America." "Saudi law forbids women of any age from leaving their country without permission. Another way of stating those same facts would be to say that two adult U.S. citizens are trapped in a country where women are treated as the property of men..." All the President's Women" ( Wall Street Journal, 26 June 2002) "Amjad Radwan is 19 years old and, unlike her older brother, cannot leave Saudi Arabia because she is a woman and must have the permission of her Saudi father, who refuses to give it. In highly charged testimony delivered via videotape, Amjad's mom, Monica Stowers, told the House she remains in Saudi Arabia because she fears for her daughter's life; Miss Stowers further reported that both her son and daughter were raped by members of her former husband's family. The Roush sisters are also adults." As for a "religious war," the enemy-- and I mean militants who use Islam to justify their actions as opposed to people who relate to God through Muslim rituals and prayers, many of whom are themselves victimized by the militants-- has in fact openly defined all Jews and Christians, as well as the wrong "kinds" of Muslims, as enemies to be enslaved or killed. For example, and this also is from the Wall Street Journal: "If a kafir [non-Muslim] is going into a Muslim country and he is walking by, he is like a cow. Anyone can take him. That is the Islamic rule," Mr. Hamza says. "If Muslims cannot take them, you know, and sell them in the market, then kill them. It's OK." --"Inside a Major Mosque in London, Extremism Shows its Tenacity," Wall Street Journal, August 15 2005 www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true THE al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time. ...Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism. Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016. ... As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden. ...Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory." So to answer your concern about a "religious war," the enemy-- and again I mean specifically militants as opposed to millions of peaceful Muslims-- has already declared one. Given Saudi Arabia's track record of anti-Christian persecution, one cannot help but ask whether this "Muslim Studies Center" is an instrument in that war. It makes as much sense as, for example, Nero or Diocletian setting up a "Roman Deities Study Center" to promote "Roman-Christian understanding" while continuing to throw Christians to the lions in the Roman arena. But perhaps the best way to put the issue to rest is for President DeGioia to ask the donor in public about the treatment of Christians in Saudi Arabia and get unequivocal answers as to whether Christians are free to worship in that country and share their beliefs with others. If the donor shows proof that Saudi Arabia has in fact changed its policies toward Christians, that would indeed open a very meaningful dialogue between our society and theirs.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2006 23:16:58 GMT -5
husaria - i'm slightly confused how do you feel about the saudi donation and the palestinian talks?
|
|
|
Post by husaria1683 on Jan 8, 2006 0:08:24 GMT -5
husaria - i'm slightly confused how do you feel about the saudi donation and the palestinian talks? As stated above, I question the motive of the Saudi donation for a Muslim studies center to "promote Christian-Muslim understanding" (as I've heard it phrased) when the donor is a member of the ruling family of a country that does not allow the practice of Christianity. Amnesty International, in fact, says that apostasy (conversion from Islam to Christianity) is punishable by death. web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE230162000So it seems to me that the only "Muslim-Christian dialogue" in which the Saudis might be interested is in getting Christians to convert to Islam. Islam is, in fact, designed to make conversion easy and attractive. The Koran says that Jesus, along with Jewish figures like Abraham and Moses, were Muslims because they "submitted to the will of Allah." Whereas I certainly recognize the Saudis' First Amendment right (in the U.S.) to do this, I must exercise my own First Amendment right to expose their likely motives in setting up an Islamic studies center at Georgetown. The "Palestinian talks" are actually an anti-Israel divestment conference by the Palestine Solidarity Movement, an organization that is on record as advocating and facilitating terroristic violence. (More details at hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=bluegray&action=display&thread=1136491208). At best, allowing this event to take place can only harm GU's reputation. It is hard for me to understand why GU is allowing its facilities to be used for this purpose, unless (and this is quite likely) the PSM lied to GU's administrators and staff about its purposes and its background.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 8, 2006 0:23:34 GMT -5
Thanks, could you dumb it down just a bit?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 8, 2006 3:47:50 GMT -5
I still don't see why we should be opposed to a divestment strategy, which is an inherently peaceful and justifiable means of creating socio-economic and political pressure. Worked for the civil rights movement in the US and in South Africa. I think turning our backs on a peaceful and respectible protest such as divestment because others who share their views have used morally reprehensible means would send the wrong message. Shouldn't we be encouraging peaceful means of change?
|
|
|
Post by husaria1683 on Jan 8, 2006 12:28:33 GMT -5
I still don't see why we should be opposed to a divestment strategy, which is an inherently peaceful and justifiable means of creating socio-economic and political pressure. Worked for the civil rights movement in the US and in South Africa. I think turning our backs on a peaceful and respectible protest such as divestment because others who share their views have used morally reprehensible means would send the wrong message. Shouldn't we be encouraging peaceful means of change? Then why aren't you also arguing for divestments and boycotts of Palestinian economic interests until the Palestinians stop their terroristic violence? Since you propose sanctions only against Israel for its alleged abuses and not against the Palestinians for their own violent actions, it sounds like you are taking a side here.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 8, 2006 16:36:52 GMT -5
What investments are there in Palestine? I was under the impression there is a defacto divestment in Palestine...but if there isn't, I'm in.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 802
|
Post by tgo on Jan 12, 2006 11:47:40 GMT -5
back to the topic of this thread,
"Many education schools discourage, even disqualify, prospective teachers who lack the correct 'disposition,' meaning those who do not embrace today's 'progressive' political catechism. Karen Siegfried had a 3.75 grade-point average at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but after voicing conservative views, she was told by her education professors that she lacked the "professional disposition" teachers need. She is now studying to be an aviation technician."
- Columnist George Will
|
|