• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FAU Student Claims He Was Suspended For Refusing To Step On Jesus

I'm going to be replacing the carpet in my office soon. Anyone know where I can get something industrial in a Muhammad print?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Well, you can think what ever you like, doesn't change the facts we know.
Click to expand...


The origin of the present "failure to communicate" is the disagreement regarding the nature of the "facts we know"


What has been posted on this thread often seems to be the result of a failure to read more than the OP and/or comments from those who agree on certain "facts" and dispute the validity of other "facts"

At this time, all we have are stories from the student's side as the professor involved is not speaking to the media.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
a "fact" is something thing that is indisputably the case.

you don't seem to know that.
Click to expand...

So then, don't engage...As I said, you are free to think what ever you wish, but your snarky attitude, as noted in this case is unwelcome....good day.
 
Somerville said:
The origin of the present "failure to communicate" is the disagreement regarding the nature of the "facts we know"


What has been posted on this thread often seems to be the result of a failure to read more than the OP and/or comments from those who agree on certain "facts" and dispute the validity of other "facts"

At this time, all we have are stories from the student's side as the professor involved is not speaking to the media.
Click to expand...

It is true that the teacher was gagged by the school from speaking about this matter. However, we do have the actions of the school to observe, and those actions speak louder than rhetoric as far as I am concerned.
 
nota bene said:
Professor Poole has now given an interview: FAU "Jesus Stomp" Professor Physically Threatened by Student, Deandre Poole Says - Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach - News - The Daily Pulp
Click to expand...

Wow.. The kid may be belligerence. But his heart is in the right place and this teacher is a complete, passive-aggressive moron. The kid provided the perfect reaction to ensue a good discussion and this professor completely failed the students. "I was just following the book" lol.. "I never told them to stomp on it, I said 'lay it on the ground and step on it' it was up to them and their choice."

Thats like walking up to every student and whispering "Your mom was a stupid whore" and then chastising the kid who's mom died early in life when he explodes. The point was to show how symbolic gestures can affect some more than others and figure out why. And this idiot used his disdain of the kids belligerency in his punishment instead of accepting what he did. "It was in the book" isnt a good enough reason not fully subvert blame when purposely instigating.

He should have told the kid "Thank you for your position would you care to please explain more to the class to they can perhaps understand this lesson better?" and tried to calm him down instead of instantly punishing him for his "extreme" belief.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Wow.. The kid may be belligerence. But his heart is in the right place and this teacher is a complete, passive-aggressive moron. The kid provided the perfect reaction to ensue a good discussion and this professor completely failed the students. "I was just following the book" lol.. "I never told them to stomp on it, I said 'lay it on the ground and step on it' it was up to them and their choice."

Thats like walking up to every student and whispering "Your mom was a stupid whore" and then chastising the kid who's mom died early in life when he explodes. The point was to show how symbolic gestures can affect some more than others and figure out why. And this idiot used his disdain of the kids belligerency in his punishment instead of accepting what he did. "It was in the book" isnt a good enough reason not fully subvert blame when purposely instigating.

He should have told the kid "Thank you for your position would you care to please explain more to the class to they can perhaps understand this lesson better?" and tried to calm him down instead of instantly punishing him for his "extreme" belief.
Click to expand...


Wow! You must have read some other article than the one linked to, because I didn't get the same impressions that you mention in your comment.

also - quote mining doesn't work that well when the text is there for all to read.
Your clipped quote -"I never told them to stomp on it, I said 'lay it on the ground and step on it' it was up to them and their choice." leaving off the last few words, "Now let's discuss it."

Pray tell the readers: How is asking students to step on a piece of paper with a name written on it, the same as telling students that their mothers were "stupid whores"?

You call ignoring the student's disrespectful words in the classroom, instant punishment? A tad sensitive are you? Explanation by students as to why they stepped on the paper or refused was the purpose of the exercise. Apparently Mr Rotela's reaction was purely emotional and he lacked the intellectual capacity for explaining just why he would not step on a piece of paper with the word "Jesus" written on it. Without rational explanation he fell back on the always 'best' move - threats.

Anyway, that is what I got from the article.

Oh yeah, why are modern American Christians so often belligerent toward those they see as casting aspersions upon their faith? What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Matthew 5:39, KJV I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
 
Somerville said:
Wow! You must have read some other article than the one linked to, because I didn't get the same impressions that you mention in your comment.

also - quote mining doesn't work that well when the text is there for all to read.
Your clipped quote -"I never told them to stomp on it, I said 'lay it on the ground and step on it' it was up to them and their choice." leaving off the last few words, "Now let's discuss it."

Pray tell the readers: How is asking students to step on a piece of paper with a name written on it, the same as telling students that their mothers were "stupid whores"?

You call ignoring the student's disrespectful words in the classroom, instant punishment? A tad sensitive are you? Explanation by students as to why they stepped on the paper or refused was the purpose of the exercise. Apparently Mr Rotela's reaction was purely emotional and he lacked the intellectual capacity for explaining just why he would not step on a piece of paper with the word "Jesus" written on it. Without rational explanation he fell back on the always 'best' move - threats.

Anyway, that is what I got from the article.

Oh yeah, why are modern American Christians so often belligerent toward those they see as casting aspersions upon their faith? What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Matthew 5:39, KJV I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Click to expand...
You may believe that only mouths can speak. But that would be wrong. Just because dont hold a specific thing dear to you doesn't mean someone else doesn't. If you believe there is a god who deserves respect and you ask me to step on him knowiningly then you are asking me to lie. Some people are not comfortable with this. The exercise was designed to provoke yet when a student was provoked he was treated with the air of "Ba-dum, dum dum dum. Another one bites the dust" Humiliated after being baited and then treated as an outcast instead of solving this issue. Hence providing a fruitful lesson. Instead the proffesor's lesson ended up being "Religion is stupid, there goes that crazy. We did this by the books and which said this is a sensitive topic."

Is the exercise "figure out the struggles of non-tangible symbolic things and discuss" or "bait a person with extreme respect for religion and try to get him to ostracize himself". Well... We have what everyone said and we have what happened. Kid was removed for shaking his fist and saying "I'm telling on you".

Obviously the professor and kid hated each other and they both used this as an excuse to strike at each other. The teacher should have been wiser IMO.
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
Wow.. The kid may be belligerence. But his heart is in the right place and this teacher is a complete, passive-aggressive moron. The kid provided the perfect reaction to ensue a good discussion and this professor completely failed the students. "I was just following the book" lol.. "I never told them to stomp on it, I said 'lay it on the ground and step on it' it was up to them and their choice."

Thats like walking up to every student and whispering "Your mom was a stupid whore" and then chastising the kid who's mom died early in life when he explodes. The point was to show how symbolic gestures can affect some more than others and figure out why. And this idiot used his disdain of the kids belligerency in his punishment instead of accepting what he did. "It was in the book" isnt a good enough reason not fully subvert blame when purposely instigating.

He should have told the kid "Thank you for your position would you care to please explain more to the class to they can perhaps understand this lesson better?" and tried to calm him down instead of instantly punishing him for his "extreme" belief.
Click to expand...

I didn't read that from the article.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
You may believe that only mouths can speak. But that would be wrong. Just because dont hold a specific thing dear to you doesn't mean someone else doesn't. If you believe there is a god who deserves respect and you ask me to step on him knowiningly then you are asking me to lie. Some people are not comfortable with this. The exercise was designed to provoke yet when a student was provoked he was treated with the air of "Ba-dum, dum dum dum. Another one bites the dust" Humiliated after being baited and then treated as an outcast instead of solving this issue. Hence providing a fruitful lesson. Instead the proffesor's lesson ended up being "Religion is stupid, there goes that crazy. We did this by the books and which said this is a sensitive topic."

Is the exercise "figure out the struggles of non-tangible symbolic things and discuss" or "bait a person with extreme respect for religion and try to get him to ostracize himself". Well... We have what everyone said and we have what happened. Kid was removed for shaking his fist and saying "I'm telling on you".

Obviously the professor and kid hated each other and they both used this as an excuse to strike at each other. The teacher should have been wiser IMO.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't believe "that only mouths can speak" nor did the the professor who is being attacked and threatened because of what was apparently a pre-planned action by the student and others, nor did the professor who created the exercise and included it in the textbook. The whole purpose of the "step on Jesus (or don't) exercise is to illustrate to a class the importance of symbols.

Those with the intellectual capacity to understand this would be able to respond appropriately, it is rather evident, at least to me, that Mr Rotela either didn't have that capacity or his reaction was pre-planned. This was not something new at FAU, the class has been taught for several years using the Intercultural Communications textbook. As the majority of students are Christian, one could easily assume that the exercise has been discussed outside of the class room.

Please note exactly where the writer of the textbook teaches
‘Step on Jesus’ creator: Activity intended to appreciate, not... | www.palmbeachpost.com

It has become known as Florida Atlantic University’s “stomp-on-Jesus” exercise, cited by critics from Gov. Rick Scott to TV commentators to blog posters as an example of a secular university belittling traditional faith.

But the textbook author who came up with the idea of asking students to write “Jesus” on a piece of paper and then step on it says the activity was never intended to denigrate Christianity and usually bolsters the faith of his own students.

“I don’t know what happened at FAU,” said James Neuliep, a professor of communication and media studies at St. Norbert College, a 2,200-student Catholic school near Green Bay, Wis.

“In my classroom, when I use it, it’s done respectfully. The students walk away having reaffirmed their faith. It’s not an attack, it’s a reaffirmation,” Neuliep said.
<snip>
“This exercise is a bit sensitive,” the manual says, “but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings.”
Click to expand...

Here's the quote that leads me to believe, not know, that the controversy was ginned-up as a deliberate attack on not only the professor but also the school.
Neuliep said the exercise has been part of the instructor’s manual for at least 10 years and he’s never heard of it causing any controversy until the case at FAU.
Click to expand...

dirtpoorchris wrote: "We have what everyone said and we have what happened." Only the first part is correct - at this time we do not know what happened in the classroom on the day in question.
 
nota bene said:
Professor Poole has now given an interview: FAU "Jesus Stomp" Professor Physically Threatened by Student, Deandre Poole Says - Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach - News - The Daily Pulp
Click to expand...

The facts of the case are quite different from the "liberal teacher throws student out of class for refusing to stomp on Jesus" story, aren't they?

I found this interesting:

"They've been very supportive of me," he said. "They've been praying for me. They put me in the middle of a circle and the pastor anointed me with oil and placed his hands on me while they prayed for me. It's been part of my life since I was a child."
Click to expand...

Wasn't it reported that Rotella was a Mormon?

That describes what Mormons do when someone is sick. Was Rotella sick?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The facts of the case are quite different from the "liberal teacher throws student out of class for refusing to stomp on Jesus" story, aren't they?

I found this interesting:



Wasn't it reported that Rotella was a Mormon?

That describes what Mormons do when someone is sick. Was Rotella sick?
Click to expand...

More like, student kicked out of class by school for reporting offensive lesson. But, the larger question is, although many religions lay hands on those being prayed for, why are you trying to make it seem like some fringe thing?
 
j-mac said:
More like, student kicked out of class by school for reporting offensive lesson. But, the larger question is, although many religions lay hands on those being prayed for, why are you trying to make it seem like some fringe thing?
Click to expand...

It's not a fringe thing. What I'm implying is that the elders of the church thought this young man was sick.

And I don't think "reporting offensive lesson" is the right phrase, either, based on the links above.
 
The name of Jesus is considered sacred, when most Christians pray they start or finish or both, in the name of Jesus. The lesson, whatever it may have been was inflammatory and inciteful. I doubt the teacher would have had the stones to give the class a few pages of the Quran and tell them to use the loo and wipe their backsides with those pages.

That's just as symbolic.

The fact that this has become the issue it has only shows that people really aren't all that mature when dealing with and showing respect for other people.
 
ChezC3 said:
The name of Jesus is considered sacred, when most Christians pray they start or finish or both, in the name of Jesus. The lesson, whatever it may have been was inflammatory and inciteful. I doubt the teacher would have had the stones to give the class a few pages of the Quran and tell them to use the loo and wipe their backsides with those pages.

That's just as symbolic.

The fact that this has become the issue it has only shows that people really aren't all that mature when dealing with and showing respect for other people.
Click to expand...


The idea that desecrating a symbol of a divinity is equivalent to desecrating the actual divinity is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one...............
 
Bonzai said:
The idea that desecrating a symbol of a divinity is equivalent to desecrating the actual divinity is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one...............
Click to expand...


You miss the point, which is be respectful to people's beliefs.
 
Somerville said:
and like many others on this forum - YOU miss the point of the exercise and have obviously not read the explanation for the exercise.
Click to expand...

I did read it thank you very much...

The explanation was as lame as the exercise. stomping on a piece of paper has what intellectual merit?

Exactly... None.
 
ChezC3 said:
I did read it thank you very much...

The explanation was as lame as the exercise. stomping on a piece of paper has what intellectual merit?

Exactly... None.
Click to expand...


If you read the explanation, then you would not have posted the words you put here - or maybe you just don't comprehend those words. "stomping" is a word only used by those who claim this is some desecration of a sacred object.

Would you step on a piece of paper that had Исус written on it? How about İsa? or यीशु?

Would you step on the word, शैतान? How about şeytan or сатаната?
 
Somerville said:
If you read the explanation, then you would not have posted the words you put here - or maybe you just don't comprehend those words. "stomping" is a word only used by those who claim this is some desecration of a sacred object.

Would you step on a piece of paper that had Исус written on it? How about İsa? or यीशु?

Would you step on the word, शैतान? How about şeytan or сатаната?
Click to expand...

Step, stomp, tap, tippy toe, don't mean a damn thing. To answer your question NO, I wouldn't, I'd say why am I wasting my time on this silly crap, TEACH you over paid, under worked, panty waste of a pseudo-intellectual!

Your lack of comportment reveals much, to you I say good day!
 
ChezC3 said:
Step, stomp, tap, tippy toe, don't mean a damn thing. To answer your question NO, I wouldn't, I'd say why am I wasting my time on this silly crap, TEACH you over paid, under worked, panty waste of a pseudo-intellectual!

Your lack of comportment reveals much, to you I say good day!
Click to expand...



Yet more proof that you didn't read the explanation or lesson plan is this reply you offer. I'm the one asking questions that you can't, or are unable to answer, questions that were stated in a straight-forward manner with zero denigration.


So you are a student in a class that you have been taking for two and a half months, January to March, and when asked to participate in an exercise - your response is a non-rational attack on the subject and the teacher. Such behaviour would seem to indicate that you have failed to comprehend the purpose of the class.

I wonder what Mr Rotela's grades for the course were up to the day of the incident.
 
Somerville said:
Yet more proof that you didn't read the explanation or lesson plan is this reply you offer. I'm the one asking questions that you can't, or are unable to answer, questions that were stated in a straight-forward manner with zero denigration.


So you are a student in a class that you have been taking for two and a half months, January to March, and when asked to participate in an exercise - your response is a non-rational attack on the subject and the teacher. Such behaviour would seem to indicate that you have failed to comprehend the purpose of the class.

I wonder what Mr Rotela's grades for the course were up to the day of the incident.
Click to expand...

The student excelled, even though belligerent. He provided the perfect backdrop for the lesson. The professor failed horribly by excluding him because the student got angry (thus providing a "successful" social experiement which ended up failing. And ostracizing extreme religion instead of providing a mechanism for 2 way communication between the 2 realms of thought.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
The student excelled, even though belligerent. He provided the perfect backdrop for the lesson. The professor failed horribly by excluding him because the student got angry (thus providing a "successful" social experiement which ended up failing. And ostracizing extreme religion instead of providing a mechanism for 2 way communication between the 2 realms of thought.
Click to expand...


None of us know if the student excelled on an academic level; was he passing or failing the class before the incident under discussion?

For those who think Christians are being persecuted in this country, Mr Rotela is a fine example validating their beliefs. For others, it is looking more and more like a pre-planned incident aimed at a political opponent.

The faculty at FAU is not happy over the actions of the school's administration. Then there is the small matter that the one person receiving death threats is the professor - how do Christians justify such threats? For some appear to be interpreting "Turn the other cheek" as "Turn my head so I can't see what those guys are doing when they make threats"


When one side refuses to "communicate" in a rational manner, there can be no communication.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
He provided the perfect backdrop for the lesson. The professor failed horribly by excluding him because the student got angry
Click to expand...
Why are people still so ignorant of the very short list of actual facts in the public domain about this case despite multiple links and quotes directly stating them?

The professor didn't exclude the student from anything. The suspension (from that class only) was imposed by the school administatiors. The stated explaination for that suspension was the standard procedure when a complaint is being investigated and I see no evidence to doubt that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom