• 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!

University Tells Student to Remove Cross Necklace

Oh I am very calm, always am. Don't get hysterical.

The larger point is how this petty little university jerk, as you call him, got in the position as to what religious symbols people could or could not wear. Who gave the authorization.

I'm starting a petition to go all the way to the white house. Obama will hear the thundrous roar of 7.2 million angry conservatives from the bowels of hell to the pearly gates we demand justice and a full investigation of this unprecedented attack on our dear bald eagle.
 
And now everyone knows he's a petty little jerk. Why do you care who "gave the authorization?"

The authorization came from very high up the food chain. Now we know that there is a petty little jerk who has a lot of power and a high level job in the university system. Maybe someone even higher up the chain will fix that.
 
The authorization came from very high up the food chain. Now we know that there is a petty little jerk who has a lot of power and a high level job in the university system. Maybe someone even higher up the chain will fix that.

I think you may be getting caught up in all the excitement manufactured by Christian persecution complex syndrome. This isn't the Iran Contra Scandal.
 
I think you may be getting caught up in all the excitement manufactured by Christian persecution complex syndrome. This isn't the Iran Contra Scandal.

I'm not sure I understand that one.
Are you contending that the university officials were right to ban a student from wearing a cross?
 
Of course Fox news is reporting this. Any time there is a slight incursion on a religious person in America, they're the first to make it headline news... unless of course they're Muslim.

Obviously the university was out of line and the student should be allowed to wear the cross, but these salacious "gotcha" stories are getting old. If these so-called "journalists" spent half the time monitoring the activities of our politicians as they do looking for minor intolerances against the privileged religious class, our country would probably be in a much better state of affairs.
 
I'm not sure I understand that one.
Are you contending that the university officials were right to ban a student from wearing a cross?

What the what now? How did you get there?
 
What the what now? How did you get there?

from the statement about getting caught up in the "Christian persecution complex".
I'm not trying to debate your point, just understand what you're saying.
 
from the statement about getting caught up in the "Christian persecution complex".
I'm not trying to debate your point, just understand what you're saying.

Every post I've made in this thread has been to the point that the chancellor who made the rule was a despotic little jerk who made a petty rule (and I extend that to anyone who actually enforced it as well). I thought I had made that clear by now. I just refuse to swallow the idiocy that this is an example of a shot fired in some imaginary war against Christians.
 
Last edited:
Every post I've made in this thread has been to the point that the chancellor who made the rule was a despotic little jerk who made a petty rule (and I extend that to anyone who actually enforced it as well). I thought I had made that clear by now. I just refuse to swallow the idiocy that this is an example of a shot fired in some imaginary war against Christians.

OK, understood, and agreed. Now, what I said originally was that, now that it is clear that there is a petty little jerk in a high position within the university system, perhaps someone even higher up might do something about it.
 
OK, understood, and agreed. Now, what I said originally was that, now that it is clear that there is a petty little jerk in a high position within the university system, perhaps someone even higher up might do something about it.

Here's what's going to happen: the higher ups are going to review any more rules that may embarrass the university in the future and amend or eliminate them. That's it. I would be utterly shocked if anybody's job was affected by this incident, and here's why: despite many people's assumptions, the no-religious-accessory rule wasn't actually anti-religious in origin. Anybody who's been to more than a few educational institutions know that the administrations of each and every one of them is infested by small minded bureaucrats, and each of them has the problem solving process: a) Thing may offend people/cause some problem, therefore b) Ban that thing outright. And why do they think that way? Because they all have brains the size of chick peas. So there's no grand agenda at the top, just more small-mindedness bureaucrats.
 
JMAC....you are being ridiculous. You have such a chip on your shoulder that it makes you quick to knee-jerk without taking it in context. The point being that a student is free to pray anywhere and anytime they want so long as it is not disruptive. A better choice of word would have been "Quietly" not "silently'...however if you use a little bit of context you would have understood. However, I think sometimes people want to jump into attack mode so quick that they lose complete focus of the conversation.

Define "disruptive"....
 
Every post I've made in this thread has been to the point that the chancellor who made the rule was a despotic little jerk who made a petty rule (and I extend that to anyone who actually enforced it as well). I thought I had made that clear by now. I just refuse to swallow the idiocy that this is an example of a shot fired in some imaginary war against Christians.


All fine, except that you don't care to find out and expose the "despotic little jerk" who made the rule, which in turn would leave this person in place to make more stupid rules.
 
All fine, except that you don't care to find out and expose the "despotic little jerk" who made the rule, which in turn would leave this person in place to make more stupid rules.

It's a university. The number of people in the administration who will make stupid rules are legion.

And the person was exposed. According to the story the university's chancellor made the rule.
 
Replace "praying" with, say, "playing a radio at a high volume," and it'll be clear.

ok, But we aren't talking about that. In fact someone would have to be using a bull horn, or shouting to reach the same level of disruption of loud music right?
 
It's a university. The number of people in the administration who will make stupid rules are legion.

And the person was exposed. According to the story the university's chancellor made the rule.

And then what will come of this idiot trying to enforce such a rule? Anything you think? Or will he give some non apology like "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"?
 
ok, But we aren't talking about that. In fact someone would have to be using a bull horn, or shouting to reach the same level of disruption of loud music right?

That depends on the situation. Is it at a park on Fourth of July? Then the standard for being disruptive is pretty high. In a classroom or library? Not so high. What places or situations would you consider a sufficiently loud radio disruptive? You don't need to answer that -- it's rhetorical. The point is for some people (it seems you're one of them) the fact of that noise being the sound of praying makes the question of disruptiveness more complicated than it really is.
 
And then what will come of this idiot trying to enforce such a rule? Anything you think? Or will he give some non apology like "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"?

I already mostly answered this here. And yes, someone will make a bland apology, most likely.
 
Last edited:
Here's what's going to happen: the higher ups are going to review any more rules that may embarrass the university in the future and amend or eliminate them. That's it. I would be utterly shocked if anybody's job was affected by this incident, and here's why: despite many people's assumptions, the no-religious-accessory rule wasn't actually anti-religious in origin. Anybody who's been to more than a few educational institutions know that the administrations of each and every one of them is infested by small minded bureaucrats, and each of them has the problem solving process: a) Thing may offend people/cause some problem, therefore b) Ban that thing outright. And why do they think that way? Because they all have brains the size of chick peas. So there's no grand agenda at the top, just more small-mindedness bureaucrats.
\
I think you just put your finger on the larger problem.
 
Seriously. Have you been to any university? There are thousands of rules put in place for stupid reasons that will inconvenience you where ever you go. The no-religious-accessory rule is just one of them. It's not personal. It's just really dumb.
 
Ones with brains the size of chickpeas, yes.

Yeah, double-fudge-on-top have fun with that. The chickpea bureaucrats are hired for extremely simple tasks (the white collar equivalent of "pick up that box and put it over there"). They're never going to think outside the box very well, so the thought "Religious accessories might offend someone? Ban them all!" is a very natural conclusion for them to arrive at.
 
Last edited:
Bizarre and petty rules like this are like roaches: everywhere but they tend to scatter when you shine a light on them, as was the case here. I love though that the university fell over itself to apologize and correct the situation but we still get quotes like "I know Christianity is being attacked. Now, I know it first-hand and it sickens me and saddens me" and “We need to band together as Christians and fight back." which are words more suitable for religion being banned outright or Christians being rounded up into concentration camps rather than because of some little idiot banning religious accessories. Typical Christian hysteria.
The "Christian hysteria" (as you have labeled their reaction) isn't simply about a student wearing one little cross_

"Christian hysteria" is actually the result of decades of relentless attacks by the far-left on anything remotely Christian in an effort to eradicate it from as much of western civilization as possible_

The Progressive/Socialist/Marxist/Communist ideology considers religion its enemy and an obstacle to its Utopian Dream, particularly Christianity since the rise of the American Progressive Movement_
 
Back
Top Bottom