This is unacceptable- but our silence permits it.

[selek]

Pam cited (without attribution) the following statement in this thread:

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life" (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

This is no idle warning, as the following demonstrates:

Professor Makes Students “Stomp on Jesus†- Todd Starnes - Page 1

Unless we stand up and resist this particular tide, this is the future: a society in which religious belief and religious integrity are mocked, belittled, and dismissed simply because they are religious in nature.

While it masquerades under the banners of "reason" and "tolerance", it is- at its core- the very epitome of unreasoning intolerance and bigotry.

Faith and religion are being redefined as the unacceptable "other"- the alien and foreign which are acceptable targets for mockery, derision, scorn, and abuse.

This new movement does not seek to evaluate ideas based on their merits, but to reject and dismiss them based solely upon their origin. It seeks not to judge ideas by their results, but by their ideological purity.

Although it is championed by those who profess love and tolerance, this is exactly the same strain of intolerance and derision which leads to book-bannings and book-burnings.

It is the same vein of intolerance and self-righteous tribalism that saw Mormons, Native Americans, African-Americans, and a hundred host of others disenfranchised, deprived of their rights, and driven and abused by torchlight and at the hands of mobocrats and demagogues.

This is the battle we face, and the choice that we make.

When we tolerate the intolerable, and look the other way at the unacceptable, we become agents in its spread.

[pam]

Speeches

This is where it came from. :)

[MorningStar]

Would this professor stomp on his mother's head stone? It's just a symbol. Just a name.

[Maureen]

Look who's back. selek did you have a nice vacation? :)

M.

[Guest]

I don't remember selek talking about a vacation. did I miss something?

[Gwen]

Speaking about the article linked only....

I have an issue with the student being suspended but not the lesson plan. It seems the teacher didn't know how to follow a lesson plan or to manage a class room. Should have proven to be a wonderful lesson.

Let's start with the fact that it was an "Intercultural Communications class". This alone says some of the lesson material will be different from your own thinking. That's the point of the class. Which means they will teach things you personally don't espouse. That's ok. It won't be saying you have to, just to understand how culture impacts communications. That is an important skill to learn when we live in such a world society.

The lesson plan the teacher was supposedly following was.....

“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

The bolded is mine, that is the crux of the lesson. The lesson is a failure if someone does not refuse to step on it. In education it is taught and encouraged for instructors to use "attention getting activities" to facilitate discussion. The older the students the more provocative the activity can be. The class (in this case communications) can also dictate more provocative activities. If the professor had managed the class discussion properly then there would have been no hard feelings when the class was over, it wasn't personal, it was to make a point about symbols in culture. From what it says he didn't threaten to fail the student for not stomping on it, in fact he should have thanked the student and then taken the discussion from there. That's how it was supposed to go.

When the student went higher up to complain the teaching method should have been explained and then the student has the same choices as everyone, take the class or don't. There should not have been any discipline to the student or the instructor.

“Gee, I wonder if the instructor would dare do this with the name of Mohammed,” Kengor wondered.

It wasn't a lesson on bashing christ, it was a lesson on cultural symbolism. The book didn't suggest Mohammed because the target audience was probably christian. To do a good attention getting activity you have to use examples that will hit close to home, if it's not personal ppl won't discuss it.

“Any time you stomp on something it shows you believe that it has no value,” he told the television station. “If you were to stomp on the word Jesus – it says the word has no value.”

Even this alone is a cultural symbol (more for class discussion?), not every culture sees stomping on something the same. This is true for many things; spitting, how you shake hands, breast exposure, etc.

Yes I can see where one could take offense but really I think it's a waste of time. Spend your energy being offended by something worth it. The student did the right thing by not stomping the paper. The next step is to participate in lively discussion about it and intelligently communicate your views. Don't go getting your panties in a bunch and trying to get instructors disciplined for doing their job.

[Traveler]

Would this professor stomp on his mother's head stone? It's just a symbol. Just a name.

You obviously have no understanding of academia - of course they would stomp on their mother's whatever - but would they stomp on their own tenure or funding? How about their diploma or their most recent research or publication contract?

The Traveler

[Roseslipper]

Speaking about the article linked only....

I have an issue with the student being suspended but not the lesson plan. It seems the teacher didn't know how to follow a lesson plan or to manage a class room. Should have proven to be a wonderful lesson.

Let's start with the fact that it was an "Intercultural Communications class". This alone says some of the lesson material will be different from your own thinking. That's the point of the class. Which means they will teach things you personally don't espouse. That's ok. It won't be saying you have to, just to understand how culture impacts communications. That is an important skill to learn when we live in such a world society.

The lesson plan the teacher was supposedly following was.....

The bolded is mine, that is the crux of the lesson. The lesson is a failure if someone does not refuse to step on it. In education it is taught and encouraged for instructors to use "attention getting activities" to facilitate discussion. The older the students the more provocative the activity can be. The class (in this case communications) can also dictate more provocative activities. If the professor had managed the class discussion properly then there would have been no hard feelings when the class was over, it wasn't personal, it was to make a point about symbols in culture. From what it says he didn't threaten to fail the student for not stomping on it, in fact he should have thanked the student and then taken the discussion from there. That's how it was supposed to go.

When the student went higher up to complain the teaching method should have been explained and then the student has the same choices as everyone, take the class or don't. There should not have been any discipline to the student or the instructor.

It wasn't a lesson on bashing christ, it was a lesson on cultural symbolism. The book didn't suggest Mohammed because the target audience was probably christian. To do a good attention getting activity you have to use examples that will hit close to home, if it's not personal ppl won't discuss it.

Even this alone is a cultural symbol (more for class discussion?), not every culture sees stomping on something the same. This is true for many things; spitting, how you shake hands, breast exposure, etc.

Yes I can see where one could take offense but really I think it's a waste of time. Spend your energy being offended by something worth it. The student did the right thing by not stomping the paper. The next step is to participate in lively discussion about it and intelligently communicate your views. Don't go getting your panties in a bunch and trying to get instructors disciplined for doing their job.

I agree the lesson book said most would not step, or stoop on it. We need to prepair ourselves, our families To stand for the right. Times are changing things are harder, many things will happen we are in the last days, the final hours.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Roseslipper

[Maureen]

I don't remember selek talking about a vacation. did I miss something?

From what I could tell it was a discreet vacation for just a week. :)

M.

[pam]

From what I could tell it was a discreet vacation for just a week. :)

M.

Doesn't seem so discreet now.

[Maureen]

Doesn't seem so discreet now.

I'm supposing the vacation itself was discreet, but my mentioning it now is obviously not discreet. :)

But nevermind my OTness, back to the discussion at hand.

M.

[LittleWyvern]

The bolded is mine, that is the crux of the lesson. The lesson is a failure if someone does not refuse to step on it. In education it is taught and encouraged for instructors to use "attention getting activities" to facilitate discussion. The older the students the more provocative the activity can be. The class (in this case communications) can also dictate more provocative activities. If the professor had managed the class discussion properly then there would have been no hard feelings when the class was over, it wasn't personal, it was to make a point about symbols in culture. From what it says he didn't threaten to fail the student for not stomping on it, in fact he should have thanked the student and then taken the discussion from there. That's how it was supposed to go.

Oh, I see. Thanks for getting the actual lecture, I tried to get it myself but Google Books doesn't have a preview of that book. In that case, I think the professor is in the wrong here, and I don't think assuming some vast anti-Mormonism conspiracy is the right thing.

[selek]

Maureen,

I would remind you, ever so gently, of Rule #6 of the forum guidelines, and ask that you not attempt to tempt me more than I can bear.

The moderators made their decision, I will leave it at that.

Gwen,

I flatly disagree with your argument.

While I, too, understand what the lesson plan was meant to convey and the sort of "thought processes" it was intended to stir up, the bottom line is the inescapable fact that the authors went straight for the nuclear option- insisting that the students face and perhaps commit what is widely considered an act of blasphemy.

There were no half-measures here- no middle ground. Their "opening act" was a gesture guaranteed to be offensive to a specific segment of the population: believing Christians.

By your own admission (and theirs), this was a deliberate, premeditated provocation. It is not excused because they "hoped it would fail".

The fact is that it was targeted at a specific audience for one reason only: because that audience is an acceptable target.

Imagine- if only for a moment, the howls of outrage that would have erupted had the students been instead asked to write and then stomp on the words "Gay Marriage".

There would be protests in the streets, riots, destruction of property and violent assaults.

The press would be having a field day and the school would be falling all over itself to apologize..and no one would care a whit that the point of the lesson was to make people "stop and think".

The same thing would be true if the students had written "Muhammed", "Obama", "Martin Luther King" or any of a host of other protected a/o politically correct slogans and names.

No- whatever the author's "intent"- this was a lesson in acceptable prejudices and in who constitutes legitimate targets for mockery and bigotry.

Your idea that this lesson was somehow intended to get the students to think outside the box is given the lie by the fact that this student was punished for his lack of conformity and his failure to genuflect upon command.

[selek]

In that case, I think the professor is in the wrong here, and I don't think assuming some vast anti-Mormonism conspiracy is the right thing.

No one is assuming a "vast anti-Mormonism conspiracy", Little. Kindly resist the urge to beat up on strawmen.

No conspiracy has been suggested- nor is one required. Trends and fads do not require leadership or direction to take hold of the popular imagination: only the sense that such things are fashionable.

The fact remains that anti-Christian dogma and prejudices are on the rise in our society, and that we, as Christians, represent an easy and acceptable target for prejudice.

Unless we resist this particularly noxious tide (and perhaps whether or not we resist it) we shall see more of it- to the detriment of our faith, our society, and our personal liberties.

[LittleWyvern]

Well, the point I was trying to make was this. You see this happen and you conclude:

Unless we stand up and resist this particular tide, this is the future: a society in which religious belief and religious integrity are mocked, belittled, and dismissed simply because they are religious in nature.

While it masquerades under the banners of "reason" and "tolerance", it is- at its core- the very epitome of unreasoning intolerance and bigotry.

[snip]

Although it is championed by those who profess love and tolerance, this is exactly the same strain of intolerance and derision which leads to book-bannings and book-burnings.

It is the same vein of intolerance and self-righteous tribalism that saw Mormons, Native Americans, African-Americans, and a hundred host of others disenfranchised, deprived of their rights, and driven and abused by torchlight and at the hands of mobocrats and demagogues.

This is the battle we face, and the choice that we make.

I think the simpler and more correct conclusion to these kind of events is:

Man' date=' that professor is kinda a jerk to people.[/quote']

In other words, I don't ascribe an entire movement to this one professor, who (perhaps unintendedly) has become the generic face of Anti-Mormonism everywhere. The professor was a jerk (and maybe the professor's supervisor, although I have a suspicion that the decision to suspend the student from the class was a mutual one) who didn't teach his lesson right and disrespected Christian beliefs. There's not much more that needs to be said: anything beyond that is a stretch, I think. So, sure, I oppose such disrespect but I'm not going to turn around and assume there's entire tribe of "mobocrats and demagogues" who have taken this event as an excuse to go to war against Christians and/or Mormons.

[selek]

So, sure, I oppose such disrespect but I'm not going to turn around and assume there's entire tribe of "mobocrats and demagogues" who have taken this event as an excuse to go to war against Christians and/or Mormons.

Taking this event in isolation, I would agree.

Unfortunately, this event does not exist "in isolation"- it is part of a far larger pattern.

[MorningStar]

I see what the professor was going for, but I still don't think it's appropriate.

[Gwen]

insisting that the students face and perhaps commit what is widely considered an act of blasphemy.

Widely considered blasphemy? So you've never tossed an old set of scriptures? Ever thrown away a pamphlet given to you by another church? I bet you "Jesus" was written in there somewhere. I'm sorry but I disagree that writing a word (no matter the word) on a piece of paper and then throwing it away (no matter the method) could ever be seen as blasphemy. Yes stomping on it was taking it to a next level. But again that was the point of the exercise.

As for the student being suspended I agree that was totally wrong. The student did exactly what the lesson wanted him to do, resist and speak his mind. Successful lesson, can't punish the kid for doing what you set him up for.

I think the whole issue here is a huge failure of intercultural communication.... ironic huh? lol Maybe the instructor needs to listen to some of his own lectures (share them with his higher ups while at it).

[MorningStar]

Considering there are people who write "G-d" instead of God, I think it's extremely disrespectful to ask anyone to stomp on the name of our Lord, even if it's to make a point. They might just be letters on paper to some, but really, really offensive to others.

[Dravin]

Widely considered blasphemy? So you've never tossed an old set of scriptures? Ever thrown away a pamphlet given to you by another church? I bet you "Jesus" was written in there somewhere. I'm sorry but I disagree that writing a word (no matter the word) on a piece of paper and then throwing it away (no matter the method) could ever be seen as blasphemy.

It's moving the goalposts to remove stomping from the equation, as that is not what the students were asked to do, they were asked to stomp on it as well.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Dravin

[BadWolf]

Imagine- if only for a moment, the howls of outrage that would have erupted had the students been instead asked to write and then stomp on the words "Gay Marriage".

There would be protests in the streets, riots, destruction of property and violent assaults.

Actually, professors do this every quarter. The specifics of which change with each discipline. One would expect to find Gay Marriage in eithe polysci/ psych/ health sciences / sociology/ anthropology in the undergrad world. MLKjr in polysci/ history/ psych/ sociology/ etc. Conspicuous targets (lauded, derided, or controversial) are the norm depending on the desired outcome.

Cricket cricket.

No riots, yet.

Your idea that this lesson was somehow intended to get the students to think outside the box is given the lie by the fact that this student was punished for his lack of conformity and his failure to genuflect upon command.

Again, apparently you're not over familiar with academia. Aproximatly 1/3 of professors demand genuflection on command, along with strict adherence to the gospel of their lecture, opinions, and attitudes. Part of being a student is learning how to

- Recite rubbish regardless of personal view

- Ask around to learn which are the most obnoxious professors so one can subsequently avoid them.

[MarginOfError]

Actually, professors do this every quarter. The specifics of which change with each discipline. One would expect to find Gay Marriage in eithe polysci/ psych/ health sciences / sociology/ anthropology in the undergrad world. MLKjr in polysci/ history/ psych/ sociology/ etc. Conspicuous targets (lauded, derided, or controversial) are the norm depending on the desired outcome.

Cricket cricket.

No riots, yet.

Again, apparently you're not over familiar with academia. Aproximatly 1/3 of professors demand genuflection on command, along with strict adherence to the gospel of their lecture, opinions, and attitudes. Part of being a student is learning how to

- Recite rubbish regardless of personal view

- Ask around to learn which are the most obnoxious professors so one can subsequently avoid them.

Reminds me of this exchange one of my friends had with a student in a lecture recently. He is a professor of religion and has one of the strongest testimonies I've come to hear.

Conversation from class today:

Me: "During the Second Temple Period, Jewish lore came to include a figure that represented evil. This figure was not present in the Hebrew Bible, he was an invention of later thinkers"

Student: Well, Jesus wouldn't have believed in the devil if the devil wasn't real

Me: You're working from a premise that isn't appropriate for an academic inquiry

Student: There is [sic] documents that aren't from Christians that attest to Jesus's power and miracle working

Me: What documents

Student: Well, I don't know. You would know.

Me: Yes, I would know. But I don't. Because no such documents exist.

Student: Jesus was a special being, won't you grant that

Me: For the purposes of this course, absolutely not.

Just another day at the office

[dahlia]

From reading the actual lesson, I'm don't know why it got as far as it has. The professor is supposed to ask students to step on the name, not demand that they do so. When students hesitate, then the door is open for discussion. No stomping on Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha's name was necessary. So unless the prof actually asked for the stomping, I don't know how the student gets so offended over the request to do so. I'd like more clarity on what actually went on in class and if the student believed he needed to stomp on the paper to participate/be graded in the class.

As a professor and with experience in 3 R1 schools (highest level research institutions), I can't think why a student would be suspended for complaining. Students complain all the time. It's part of the job description. There should be consequences for refusing to do an assignment, but the consequences are in the grade, not in a suspension.

Something smells fishy, but I'm not sure where the smell is coming from. While I don't think this a big anti-Mormon conspiracy, I betcha dollars to donuts the prof would never have used Mohammed's name, or the word 'gay,' Talk about your real backlash! There is a strong anti-Christian element in American society today, especially amongst the libs, and this guy was a Democrat office holder. Painting with a broad brush here, but these types often get their kicks out of harassing Christians and then blaming them for being intolerant.

I'm reserving my anger for more details.

[selek]

Actually, professors do this every quarter. The specifics of which change with each discipline. One would expect to find Gay Marriage in eithe polysci/ psych/ health sciences / sociology/ anthropology in the undergrad world. MLKjr in polysci/ history/ psych/ sociology/ etc. Conspicuous targets (lauded, derided, or controversial) are the norm depending on the desired outcome.

Call For References, please.

Please provide a citation, course guideline, or lesson plan in which students are asked/taught/required to mock belittle or denigrate "Gay Marriage", "Martin Luther King" or any of the other leftist hobby horses in a comparable manner.

I don't believe for a moment that you can.

Your say-so isn't good enough.

The article which I cited in the OP not only references and quotes from the specific lesson plan, we also have a statement from the University confirming and reaffirming it.

Only an equivalent source will be sufficient to affirm your claims.

[selek]

From reading the actual lesson, I'm don't know why it got as far as it has. The professor is supposed to ask students to step on the name, not demand that they do so. When students hesitate, then the door is open for discussion. No stomping on Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha's name was necessary. So unless the prof actually asked for the stomping, I don't know how the student gets so offended over the request to do so.

Dahlia, the problem is that the request itself is a deliberate and inappropriate provocation.

There are a thousand ways in which they could have triggered this sort of discussion- none of which involve blaspheming or profaning the name of Christ.

Despite BadWolf's claims to the contrary (and until he provides references for his claims they remain speculation), it is simply unthinkable that modern Academia would perform a similar thought experiment using the name "Mohammed", "Obama", or even "Sotomayor".

By their own admission, this was a deliberate attempt to get "a rise out of people"- supposedly with the intent of "fostering discussion".

They were looking for a reaction- and are now they are unhappy with the reaction they got.

They claimed to have been "fostering discussion"- but when the student opened one, he was arbitrarily shut down and summarily suspended from the class.

This is prima facia evidence that- if they ever DID want a discussion- they only wanted a specific outcome.

One has to ask: what is the point of having "a conversation" if only one conclusion is acceptable?

Is it really "a dialogue", if only one opinion can be held as "valid"?

I'd like more clarity on what actually went on in class and if the student believed he needed to stomp on the paper to participate/be graded in the class.

As would I. I am a firm believer in the old axiom that sunlight is the best disinfectant.

It would be interesting to turn a spotlight on this course and this methodology and see what- and who- goes scurrying for the cracks and the dark spaces.

As a professor and with experience in 3 R1 schools (highest level research institutions), I can't think why a student would be suspended for complaining. Students complain all the time. It's part of the job description. There should be consequences for refusing to do an assignment, but the consequences are in the grade, not in a suspension.

I agree. But to me this is a binary solution set:

1) either the student was suspended because he engaged in (heretofore unreported) disruptive, violent, or abusive behavior as a result of the lesson.

--OR--

2) he was suspended in a deliberate act of viewpoint censorship, which gives the lie to the university's professed interest in diversity and academic freedom.

It is possible that the reality lies somewhere between the two, but I'm not holding my breath.

Something smells fishy, but I'm not sure where the smell is coming from. While I don't think this a big anti-Mormon conspiracy, I betcha dollars to donuts the prof would never have used Mohammed's name, or the word 'gay,' Talk about your real backlash! There is a strong anti-Christian element in American society today, especially amongst the libs, and this guy was a Democrat office holder. Painting with a broad brush here, but these types often get their kicks out of harassing Christians and then blaming them for being intolerant.

I'm reserving my anger for more details.

I agree- but in the interim, it never hurts to make people aware of the incident, of the trend, and of the danger.

Martin Niemöller was a very sharp cookie.

Also for the record (and I've already stated this clearly once before), I do not believe that this is part of "a big anti-Mormon conspiracy".

That particular phrase was introduced into this thread as a bit of well-poisoning; an attempt to dismiss a serious incident and a serious discussion as a bit of "Chicken-little, the-sky-is-falling-hysteria".

When one has no recourse to facts, mockery and derision are easy (if somewhat more cumbersome) substitutes.