Should the public subsidize Left-wing curriculum at colleges

Post Reply New Topic

When I was in German class at college, a Jewish GA taught it and she had some business to attend so a Muslim GA filled in for her a few days. It was clear when they interacted she did not like him because he was Muslim. You could see the hostility in her face, could tell by the way she talked to him, and felt the hostile energy oozing from every pore. He, on the other hand, was friendly to everybody and very down to earth. This was prior to the OKC Bombing and 9/11 before there was so much tension in the air.

That link you posted sounds slanted toward the right and Israel. A lot of what is listed as "leftist" is actual truth in history. There are numerous inhabitants of other nations who do see America as quite imperialistic. Christians have tried to dominate and oppress in the past and could still do it now. They try to do it already, they just can't go as far as they would like politically. People who don't believe in science and evolution do think the universe was designed - by God. As far as humans being an animal just with a bigger brain - completely disagree. Humans have taken themselves out of the ecosystem and are currently in undergoing the process of utterly controlling it, for better or worse. Only time will tell. No other animal does that without suffering dire consequences. They usually do it when they experience a significant surge in their population, as in, a plague, but it doesn't last very long. Nature corrects it.

What is so difficult about accepting reality?

Thanks for helping me make sense of what is going down with our children.

Regards
DL

I am not sure how what you wrote applies to what I put so I hope you were talking to another.

Many in a religion will always hate those in another.

Everyone knows that.

Regards
DL

The Muslim GA didn't appear to hate the Jewish GA at all. He was professional and kind to everyone. They say Islam is a peaceful religion. At the time, this man appeared to exemplify that. So it's not true two people must hate each other just because they are different religions.
The Jewish GA seemed kind of insecure and would compensate for that feeling in strange ways, as in, subtly embarrassing people.

Christianity and Islam are both violent religions. All were created for long life and growth.

Of course "slaughtering large numbers of rival religious people has often been acceptable", because the Talmud/Old Testament and Koran are all concerned with the long-term survival only of those accepting/practicing Jehovah/Allah's Word; just as the Scripture below makes clear:-

"And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. ... " - Deuteronomy 28:1-68.

Like a good farmer intent on preserving the quality of his stock, 'God' cares little for the gentiles/heathens/kuffahs etc.... who (by their own lifestyle choices) put themselves outside of his protection, thus bringing down his wrath upon themselves:-

"But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. He will judge everyone according to what they have done. " - Romans 2:5-6.

What many here fail to recognise is that 'Traditional Religion' is actually a Darwinian small group survival manual, packed full of good practical advice.
But
it also makes clear that words are not enough, only by living by the instructions given, avoiding the sins (sloth, gluttony, greed, lust etc....), caring for one's wife/wives, raising one's children as instructed, driving out evil from amongst the clan, etc....; can the benefits of a 'religious' lifestyle be gained.

As to the 'value' of mankind as a whole?

Didn't God send the Flood of Noah to cleanse the world of a humanity grown decadent/depraved and become a stench in his nostrils ?

Quote:-

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah..."

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org

Regards
DL

Again, at public funding near 20%, i think we can't truly think of this as the state teaching useless classes in order to indoctrinate the youth.

The state may be partially sibsidizing it, but to a lesser extent than federally backed student loans.

The colleges are behaving like businesses - selling the products and services their customers - idiot college kids - are demanding.

If anything, this is an argument for returning state college systems to the more like 80% public funding model, and using the public good as a justification for paring down the course catalog to subjects that will actually benefit the future workforce.

it messed with me head

It's a better investment than the current k-12 curriculum that's only purpose is to teach kids to be obedient to their corporate overlords.

I have an idea: keep politics out of school unless the subject is political theory (which should be in the upper stages of high school, not earlier).

Keep it out of subjects that don't require it too (most other than history).

I had teachers using typical Green talking points in biology and religious studies, and I was the only one to bring up counterpoints. That is downright wrong and pretty much indoctrination.

Mine as well but if religions are to continue to discriminate without a just cause against all those that their God creates, the secular has to fight it somehow.

I do not mind equality training but wonder if the left has moved too far. Whoever the right winger was who found that penis slide and that strange thinking couple to film really found the bottom of leftish thinking and idiocy.

I just hope those schools boards have competent child psychiatrists on their side.

Years ago I had a drug education program pulled from schools in Canada because it did the opposite of what it was meant to do. I do not discriminate against gays and doubt that we can create them but am not interested in experimenting with children to prove that wrong.

Regards
DL

It's not that nothing is true unless it is scientifically provable, it's that claims require evidence to convince me they are true.

General consensuses can be wrong, that's exactly why you fact check them... for example, 42% of graduates are Republican supporters, compared to 49% for the Democrats. source If four in ten students emerge from college convinced that everything they've been told is wrong, then the brainwashing isn't very good. Or perhaps it doesn't exist to the same extent Mr Brightmind thinks it does? It seems utterly unbelievable that a college wouldn't teach students about Adam Smith.


The most prominent feminist news outlet is Jezebel. They have a tag dedicated to FGM: http://jezebel.com/tag/female-genital-mutilation


I find that hard to believe. See my earlier comments in this post.


I can't remember the context of this remark, but I think you're misinterpreting the point of both trigger warnings and safe spaces. Trigger warnings allow for controversy. They say "we're gonna be talking about x, if you don't like it then get out now".


No it isn't. Many theists are leftist. For example, on my campus, the most vocal leftists are religious groups.

Many prominent atheists are right wing. Sam Harris, or Peter Hitchens, taking prominent examples. Daniel Dennett is a centrist and anti-Marxist. Richard Dawkins is probably best described as a liberal, being widely criticised by hard leftists. Christopher Hitchens was left wing once, but went on to take a centre-right position, supporting Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and George Bush.

Death Of The Author is a concept, not a literal death. That's the idea that once a text is written, it doesn't matter what the author meant, only how the reader perceives it. It might be popular with leftist thinkers, but it isn't a leftist idea by any means.


So you dispute that poor people are more likely to commit crime? Have a look at this or this. Sure, it's not simple, you have to take a range of factors into account including opportunity to commit crime, but generally richer countries and richer areas have lower crime rates, and increased wealth means lower crime rates. There's a reason prisons are filled with poor people.

America being worse than other countries in any way is a tenant of faith? It's easy to produce a raft of statistics showing America is not the best at something. You yourself have spent this thread complaining about how America is worse than Europe. But on GDP per capita, on crime rates, on the size of the prison population, on literacy, on obesity, on cricketing skill, on a whole host of objective factors, America is not a world leader. The same is true for every country.


Wrong, right, wrong, wrong, right.


Really? The most vocal advocates for the forever war are neoconservatives, who are broadly left wing, supporting government programs and the welfare state. Many on the left would probably support war with ISIS if they considered it winnable. By the same notion, there are many right wing non-interventionalists, such as Ron and Rand Paul.

I think you've probably got that the wrong way around - "not only the settlements in the West Bank, but also Israel".

The left has a range of views on Israel-Palestine. I think the reason people perceive the opposite is because it is very rare for a right winger to express any support for Palestine (except for far-right anti-Semites). As for the West Bank settlements, they're illegal. Right wingers are not incapable of respecting international law.


I was being somewhat flippant. Point being, they're not left wing ideas. If you had said "same sex marriage should be legal" or something then I could see where you were coming from.


Fair enough, but extra military spending is hardly the main goal of the radical left, is it?


Right, but how could Romney get elected governor in a state with a huge college-educated population? Unless, of course, a large portion of college graduates are Republican supporters...


Just looked this up and it isn't true, at least not the bit about UCLA. UCLA no longer teaches a 15 week course dedicated solely to Shakespeare (or Chaucer or Milton), partly because they're boring, partly because they're hard to teach. However, they do have compulsory unit for English majors which is 75% Shakespeare, 25% early American literature.

Sure. I am fairly sure that happens at most reputable colleges, and even many community colleges. There definitely seems to be a lot of room for improvement, particularly regarding hiring discrimination against conservatives.

In any University worthy of the name, no curriculum or professorial bias will survive ten minutes in the face of a group of intelligent, articulate students. It is no coincidence that ever revolution since the Industrial Revolution has featured students at its vanguard.

The same universities that gave us Keynes gave us Friedman. The ideologies of both the left and the right had their origins in the crucibles of universities.

The greatest threat to universities comes, I suggest, from this woefully misguided emphasis on STEM, and the resultant diminishment of focus on the Liberal Arts. If universities are to be anything more than glorified technical school, that tide must reverse.

^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

With little respect for American students, they are just as shallow in their thinking today as their parents are.

When they finish their studies, they will enter a slave working world and are just as self-centered as their parents who only want to be a house slave instead of a field slave.

That kind of thinking is what our oligarch owners have worked really hard to accomplish.

The American heart stopped beating a long time ago and the American spirit of hating tyranny is no more.

That condition has been handed down to the students. They, like their parents, will just compete to be house slaves.

Regards
DL