Wheaton College students back Christian professor who wore a hijab

FieldTheorist · Dec 18, 2015

Ahlevah said:
Let's back up for a second. [...] So it's not so much a case that I refuse to address your point as I just reject it outright as an attempt to move the goalpost.

Again, you're acting like the Bible == the doctrine of Christianity. That's just patently false, that's like saying the Tanakh, by itself, is the whole doctrine of Judaism. The doctrine of Christianity includes the Bible, the interpretation of the Bible (i.e. the life philosophy and moral code extracted from it), this usually is tied to a church heirarchy which gives (or suggests) the correct interpretations, and so forth. There's many different interpretations of Christianity and thus it may not be fair to lump them all together, if you want to refine my statement in that way, then fine. But then you have to do the following:

You can't refer to Islam as one unified doctrine and act like Wahhabism and Salafi Jihadism are "real Islam." You may not understand this point, but almost all religious clerics in Islam are very strongly against violence, and have been for a long time. If you're, e.g., a Sufi Muslim, then violence is completely unacceptable. In fact, even if we take Wuhhabism/Salafism, the philosophy from which radical Islam and Osama bin Laden stems, even then only a tiny number of them actually believe in violent Jihad, the vast majority are "quietists" who believe in following Islamism without violence or getting involved in politics past trying to instil Sharia law. Thus, the vast bulk of them only want to install a Sharia government. Appalling, against human rights (and yes, standard intepretations of Islam have unambiguously lead to awful human rights violations, but that's a separate topic because we're talking about global violence), but it's not a violent conquest of the world. But that group is still

But I think you'll agree with me that this is a rather banal argument. Yes, a straigthforward interpretation of the Qur'an endorses at least some level of violence, and historically early Islamic belief systems strongly reflected this violence --just like early Christian and Jewish states reflected the massive violence that a straightforward reading of their religious texts would seem to imply. However, all things being equal, I'd rather we had 1.6 billion pacifist Sufi Muslims that 1.6 billion Salafi Jihadist Muslims, so I'm willing to let the religious tradition of Islam catch up to the secular values of the West and let the interpretations of the Qur'an get more and more docile like Christianity has.

Ahlevah said:
Are we discussing Christianity or Judaism? [...]

I'll repeat the same homework for you as Ludin. Go talk to your local pastor --ask several, in fact-- if moral prescriptions of the Old Testament generally apply, unless specified otherwise by Jesus, to you as a Christian. You'll find out that I'm 100% correct about this very quickly.

You may not understand this point, I'm not sure, but the God of the Old Testament is the God that you worship. So go read those verses that in my post above to Ludin. I'll ask you the same question: How moral does that god sound to you?

Ahlevah said:
In other words, if you submit Borg-like to Islam, you can live a good, peaceful, loving life, but if you resist conversion you either become a slave or die. So where is ISIS running off the rails, assuming they are, when it comes to their interpretation of Islam?

That's an interpretation, although historically that's not entirely how it worked. Historically, Muslims weren't terribly different than Christians in this regard. Here's another inconvienent question for your "religion of peace" theory: How do you think that Christianity went from near extinction in ~300 AD to controlling nations over the course of about 800 years? Here's a hint: It didn't involve everyone willingly converting, and it wasn't by peaceful methods. It involved a lot of bloody regimes and oppression. And when Protestants tried to convert away from Catholicism? Yeah, that didn't end well, either. The worst thing a Christian came claim about Islam is that they are about 200 years behind Christianity in terms of secularizing. They were doing better before the West backed Salafists in order to keep control of the region, I'll tell you that much.

Ahlevah said:
Well, no, it's not hypocritical, because I've never seen a Christian claim that the Jews didn't kick some ass when it came to assembling their kingdoms. Once again, what are we talking about? Jesus and Christianity or ancient Jews?

Again, do your homework and ask your local pastor what he or she thinks about this. They'll set you straight better than I can, because you probably trust this person's perspective and understanding of the Bible.

Lursa · Dec 18, 2015

JC Callender said:
Why can't they have standards? That, imo, is the problem with churches all over our country and why most people don't respect Christianity in America, because most religious organizations don't set and uphold standards according to scripture. Good for Wheaton for doing that!

She wants to support fellow human beings that believe a faith somewhat different (not completely different) that are being persecuted....what Christian "standard" is that not upholding?

JC Callender · Dec 18, 2015

Lursa said:
She wants to support fellow human beings that believe a faith somewhat different (not completely different) that are being persecuted....what Christian "standard" is that not upholding?

She believes the Christian God and the Muslim God are the same, the school doesn't, and that's a huge difference.

Lursa · Dec 18, 2015

JC Callender said:
She believes the Christian God and the Muslim God are the same, the school doesn't, and that's a huge difference.

But she didnt say that while she was wearing the veil. She was wearing it to support Muslims. She could have been wearing a yarmulke to support Jews, even tho they dont believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the school does.

ludin · Dec 18, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
I love Christians who are so unfamiliar with their own book that they don't think the Old Testament applies to them, except for predicting Jesus. Please consult any religious scholar of your choosing --your local pastor, for instace. Ask him or her if the only function of the Old Testament applies to the modern day is the prediction of Jesus, and ask him or her if there are moral codes in the Old Testament that must apply to the modern age. You'll find out in about thirty seconds that I'm correct, or at least I'm not familiar with a single interpretation of the Bible that excludes the entire moral lessons of the OT.

I love people that like to project what they think they know about the bible and like to tell others they know more than them when in fact they don't.
I have and they will say the same thing that I or any other Christian will tell you. The old testament was meant for the sacrificial system. if you
want to live under that system as Paul got onto the early church about doing then you will be judged by the law.

However Christ fulfilled the old law and established a new one. Christ taught plenty on moral issues.

Again, you're displaying your ignorance of your own religious text and it's leading to outrageous hypocrisy. The Hebrews routinely performed forced marriages and converting conquered women into forced concubines. That might not have been rape (Because the men now "owned" those women) in their culture, but it is most certainly rape for any definition of rape that takes the immorality of the act seriously. And the Hebrews went around conquering quite a few lands, including committing genocide against Canaanites and several the other ethnic groups near modern day Israel. I mean, for god's sakes, read your own book. This is what your God tells people to do:

Again you are proving you don't know what you projecting on others.
Actually it is what God told the Jews to do because they were establishing a nation in a land that was not there's.

if you actually knew anything about their history or the times they were living then you would be as ignorant on this subject as you seem to be.
There are reasons they did the things they did. if you raped a women then you either took her for a wife or you were killed.
rape was very much a death offense in the bible. Not only that you had to pay her family money for your crime as well.

It would be instructive for you to read the whole of Deuteronomy 20, and related verses in the Old Testament. I'm not being unfair to your holy book. It's just as bad as Islam.

Only for those people that like to distort it to mean something else but only the intellectually dishonest people do that.

Agreed, the West is pretty morally bankrupt in its persuit of global capitalism and other vices, and yet we are still better than the moral "values" of bronze-age ethnic groups who slaughtered, raped, and stole from each other on a whim.

now I know I can't take you seriously. your lack of knowledge on ancient biblical history and ancient history in general is amazing.
there is nothing immoral about global capitalism at all.

LowDown · Dec 19, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
One, people don't use the word "generist" in academia, either. You might find them discussing "genderism," although the term preferred by most people is "sexist." Fine, it's word choice, but you don't get to tell me (quite literally, you have zero power) to tell me what kinds of words I get to use, but it amuses me that this is what you take offense to. Two, I'm sorry that you have to look up words when you talk to me. But I'll file that squarely under "your problem." Thirdly, it's not an academic term, it was popularized by feminist Hollywood writer Joss Whedon and I happened to agree with him. So unless we're relabeling Hollywood writers as being in "cloistered cracks and crannies of the academe," you're even wrong about that. Enjoy.

Fine. I'll just discount anything that anyone who uses that term says.

This isn't an argument against anything I've said, this is an emotional outburst against the fact that I dared called your religion false. Fine, you didn't like that, but there's nothing of any substance to really respond to here, as none of this comes within a solar system of anything that I said.

And you failed to address my argument. That's fine too. Yes, I did ignore your gratuitous and irrelevant comments.

JC Callender · Dec 19, 2015

Lursa said:
But she didnt say that while she was wearing the veil. She was wearing it to support Muslims. She could have been wearing a yarmulke to support Jews, even tho they dont believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the school does.

It looks like, according to the first paragraph in the OP, that she's wearing it because she believes Muslims and Christians are both a people of the book and worship the same God:

Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the private evangelical Christian college, announced last week that she would wear the veil to show support for Muslims who have been under greater scrutiny since mass shootings in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. "I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book," she posted on Facebook. "And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God."

Grant · Dec 19, 2015

Lursa said:
She wants to support fellow human beings that believe a faith somewhat different (not completely different) that are being persecuted....what Christian "standard" is that not upholding?

In fact it's Muslims who are often doing the persecuting. We know their attitudes towards Gays, for example, and Jews.

Ahlevah · Dec 19, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
Again, you're acting like the Bible == the doctrine of Christianity. That's just patently false, that's like saying the Tanakh, by itself, is the whole doctrine of Judaism. The doctrine of Christianity includes the Bible, the interpretation of the Bible (i.e. the life philosophy and moral code extracted from it), this usually is tied to a church heirarchy which gives (or suggests) the correct interpretations, and so forth.

If you want to say the doctrines of Roman Catholicism include the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas or the doctrines Methodism include works by John Wesley, then fine, I can live with that. But as soon as you lump all of Christianity into one giant bailiwick and say it's flawed and immoral I have to get off the bus and cut to the core of what Christianity is, and that's the message of hope and redemption Jesus delivered to his disciples in the Gospels. That's something Christians the world over generally agree upon. I see an irony in you doing with Christianity what you're accusing me of doing with Islam, i.e. lumping all Muslims together. The difference is I want to cut out the middle man and just get to the heart of what Jesus is saying, then compare it to Muhammad's message, mano a mano so to speak. When it comes to the Peace Sweepstakes I'll bet Jesus wins hands down.

FieldTheorist said:
I'll repeat the same homework for you as Ludin. Go talk to your local pastor --ask several, in fact-- if moral prescriptions of the Old Testament generally apply, unless specified otherwise by Jesus, to you as a Christian.

Of course they apply. And not just to Christians. Jewish Law has been an influence on Western Civilization about as long as there's been Western Civilization. That doesn't mean we support stoning people for adultery today, just as we don't support feeding Christians to lions, even though Roman law and customs also heavily influenced Western societies by virtue of Roman hegemony that existed for centuries.

But the core of Christianity is found in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. If ministers mention the Old Testament at all it's usually as a source of prophecy as it pertains to the coming of the Messiah, such Isaiah or Micah during Advent. Any pastor will tell you that.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

Grant said:
In fact it's Muslims who are often doing the persecuting. We know their attitudes towards Gays, for example, and Jews.

Yes, and we also know the Christians often do persecuting, too. You do realize that I've discussed this frequently, yes? You may not know the history of homosexuals in the West, but it would be instructive to educate yourself. Christianity stands poorly if we're discussing homosexuality (let alone Judaism), as do Muslims. But, again, one should avoid being a massive hypocrite.

Ahlevah said:
If you want to say the doctrines of Roman Catholicism include the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas or the doctrines Methodism include works by John Wesley, then fine, I can live with that.

Sure, but that is rather pointless. If we look from 300 AD - 1550 AD, there's only one major sect of Christianity, only one real church, and only one real perspective. And Protestantism during it's early days was nothing to write home about, the first thing it did was get involved in a war with the Catholic church that murdered 30% of the German population --the bloodiest war in history, based on relative population damage. And that's not even getting into the views of, say, particular sects like the Puritans and the Calvinists.

Ahlevah said:
But as soon as you lump all of Christianity into one giant bailiwick and say it's flawed and immoral I have to get off the bus and cut to the core of what Christianity is, and that's the message of hope and redemption Jesus delivered to his disciples in the Gospels. [...] I see an irony in you doing with Christianity what you're accusing me of doing with Islam, i.e. lumping all Muslims together.

That's basically just a strawman. Both Christianity and Islam are (collections of) doctrines centralized around religious texts. I never argued that we should just lump all Christians into one group; in fact, I literally said the opposite.

What I have said, and quite correctly, is that Christian doctrines (or pick whichever particular denomination/faction you wish) are immoral and have lead to immoral behavior in its adherents. I gave an extensive list previously of this behavior, and I've discussed how it relates back to the Bible and various church's interpretation of the Bible. It's fine if you don't like that interpretation, but those were interpretations (and indeed, they were the interpretations held for by far the longest amount of time). That's not an aspect of history that you can dispute. It's simply a fact. And if you've ever changed your mind on gay rights at any point in the last 30 years, you have your own shining, personal example of a bigotry born of religious causes.

Ahlevah said:
Of course they apply. And not just to Christians. Jewish Law has been an influence on Western Civilization about as long as there's been Western Civilization. That doesn't mean we support stoning people for adultery today, just as we don't support feeding Christians to lions, even though Roman law and customs also heavily influenced Western societies by virtue of Roman hegemony that existed for centuries. But the core of Christianity is found in the New Testament, especially the Gospels. If ministers mention the Old Testament at all it's usually as a source of prophecy as it pertains to the coming of the Messiah, such Isaiah or Micah during Advent. Any pastor will tell you that.

Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating thing. In other words, they apply... just not when you think they're unreasonable.

Of course, you're making my case here for me: Christians today now have secular values, and that informs their morality, not the Bible. And it's a great thing.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

LowDown said:
Fine. I'll just discount anything that anyone who uses that term says.

And I choose to summarily disregard people who bloviate and refuse to make a point that even merits my reading. Have fun debating someone else.

ludin said:
I love people that like to project what they think they know about the bible and like to tell others they know more than them when in fact they don't.
I have and they will say the same thing that I or any other Christian will tell you. The old testament was meant for the sacrificial system. if you
want to live under that system as Paul got onto the early church about doing then you will be judged by the law.

You're talking to a former Christian who read the entire Bible, is passably familiar with Christian history since the Roman empire, and rather familiar, from a past life, with Christian philosophies after the Reformation. So when I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about here, you can disregard me, but it doesn't make my statement any less false. I do not know of a single contemporary, widespread interpretation of Christianity which posits that the Old Testament, unless otherwise abrogated by the New Testament, simply does not apply to Christians. But I have zero hope that you'll actually provide me any evidence for your baseless assertions based on your own misunderstanding of your own religion.

Yes, there are some things -e.g. dietary prohibitions-- no longer apply based on statements by Jesus. But when Christians --and that's most prior to 2012-- decried homosexuality, they didn't hold themselves back for a second to point to the verses in Leviticus that prohibit homosexuality. And there's a reason for that: They still apply.

ludin said:
Again you are proving you don't know what you projecting on others.
Actually it is what God told the Jews to do because they were establishing a nation in a land that was not there's.

Yes, I know, just like Muhammad. Oh wait, is it okay to murder people, rape their women, and steal their lands if it's for the "Real God"? If so, then Muslims certainly believed they were morally justified, too.

ludin said:
if you actually knew anything about their history or the times they were living then you would be as ignorant on this subject as you seem to be.
There are reasons they did the things they did. if you raped a women then you either took her for a wife or you were killed.
rape was very much a death offense in the bible. Not only that you had to pay her family money for your crime as well.

Firstly, that's wrong, because they had concubines which weren't wives, they were literally sex slaves. But even so, what you just said is complete repellent moral reasoning. As I've already said, if you force a woman to marry you and have sex with you, there's a name for that and it's called "rape." Even if they legally married them, it's not okay for them to force them to have sex --and we can be certain that someone who just murdered all of your family and children are not people you'd willingly have sex with. Also, you needed to pay the families money because you literally stole their property, and they were owed compensation for the "damaged" property --another "enlightened" part of Biblical morality.

The rest of your post is just irrelevant deflections. I really don't see this conversation going anywhere. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone about their own religion when they don't actually understand what's contained in their own religious texts pages and instead insist that something completely the opposite of them are what's actually in their text, and worst still, won't even acknowledge verses of their religious text when brought up for them in quotes.

Van Basten · Dec 20, 2015

Her bull**** theology was enough to get her suspended if anything.

Almost threw up reading her quote Pope Francis' newest piece of unbiblical nonsense.

LowDown · Dec 20, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
And I choose to summarily disregard people who bloviate and refuse to make a point that even merits my reading. Have fun debating someone else.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way here. We'll just make rude comments behind your back.

You're talking to a former Christian who read the entire Bible, is passably familiar with Christian history since the Roman empire, and rather familiar, from a past life, with Christian philosophies after the Reformation. So when I tell you that you don't know what you're talking about here, you can disregard me, but it doesn't make my statement any less false.

Aye, truer words were never spoken.

I do not know of a single contemporary, widespread interpretation of Christianity which posits that the Old Testament, unless otherwise abrogated by the New Testament, simply does not apply to Christians. But I have zero hope that you'll actually provide me any evidence for your baseless assertions based on your own misunderstanding of your own religion.

We are familiar with non-believers who come in and tell us what Christians are supposed to believe based on their own understanding of what they've read in scripture. Because believers don't adhere to what non-believers think they ought to then the believers are being false to their own religion, the old line of reasoning goes.

On it's face it's about as silly as an argument can get. A religion is what the believers make of it. They are the sole arbiters of what their own scriptures mean. How could it be otherwise?

That Christ came into the world to serve as the one perfect sacrifice for us all means that the whole system that God Himself set up in the Old Testament account, that of a number of laws and rules the violation of any of which rendered us impure and repugnant to God, was set aside. This has huge implications for our understanding of the Old Testament, and I'm quite certain that you don't understand any of that. You have the whiff of a legalistic thinker who misses the whole point.

Let me tell you what the point is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Love one another. Therein is the fulfillment of the law. Be saved and from that point on you can't help yourself. You will be impelled to do God's works not because you need to earn God's favor but because you have God's favor and God is with you. It is no longer necessary to enumerate laws and rules or to sacrifice animals at the temple.

You also seem to miss the fact that the understanding of these things varies a great deal even among believing Christians. So there are those who think of homosexuality as a mere sin on par with eating too much pie and those for whom opposition to homosexuality is an obsession. We are all sinners, and too much emphasis on someone else's sin, particularly one that's not hurting anyone, is a sure sign of a lack of charity.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

LowDown said:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way here. We'll just make rude comments behind your back.

I'll just have to find some way to live with myself. Again, have fun "debating" other people.

Grant · Dec 20, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
Yes, and we also know the Christians often do persecuting, too.

There is nothing in recent history which compared to the Islamist atrocities being carried out around the world.

You do realize that I've discussed this frequently, yes?

In fact I had no idea. Dont happen to be a follower I suppose.

You may not know the history of homosexuals in the West, but it would be instructive to educate yourself. Christianity stands poorly if we're discussing homosexuality (let alone Judaism), as do Muslims. But, again, one should avoid being a massive hypocrite.

In fact I'm quite familiar with the history. You do realize I've discussed this frequently, non?

Do you realize that Gays in Islamic countries are being persecuted and murdered, being publicly hanged? Have you read the Pew polls in regard to Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality? if you had you wouldn't be so concerned about Christians (let alone Judaism).

You should familiarize yourself with what's going on in the Wacky World of Islam before being critical of Christians, or Jews, regarding homosexuality. Or their attitudes toward Jews for that matter.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

Grant said:
There is nothing in recent history which compared to the Islamist atrocities being carried out around the world. In fact I had no idea. Dont happen to be a follower I suppose.In fact I'm quite familiar with the history. You do realize I've discussed this frequently, non?

Don't really care if you have, although maybe on a different thread we may end up arguing for the same points, I'm discussing what you've discussed in the thread so far. I've been having this discussion way too many times over the past week, so let's see what we agree on before we start getting to what we disagree on:

1.) Christianity is a terrible doctrine.
2.) Islam is a terrible doctrine.
3.) As the doctrines currently stand, your average Muslim is more likely to believe things against human rights than your average Christian, but the more religious you get on either side, they basically believe the same kind of horrible things. Although, again, they'll tend to be worse beliefs on the followers of Islam in the most extreme factions. (Note: I'm not talking about terrorism right now, only beliefs about human rights and civil liberties, democracy, etc.)
4.) Muslims and Christians in the West tend to support more or less secular governments and tend to support civil liberties and human rights based off of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophy. They also tend to believe in evolution and not take literalist interpretations of their religious books.

Grant said:
Do you realize that Gays in Islamic countries are being persecuted and murdered, being publicly hanged? Have you read the Pew polls in regard to Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality? if you had you wouldn't be so concerned about Christians (let alone Judaism).

Fully aware, yes.

Grant said:
You should familiarize yourself with what's going on in the Wacky World of Islam before being critical of Christians, or Jews, regarding homosexuality. Or their attitudes toward Jews for that matter.

I'm sorry, but I feel like you've just openly misrepresented my views. What I identically did not say was that on human rights right now, Islam is equally as bad as Christianity and Judaism. I said that if we look at the history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we find extremely abhorrent violations of human rights and literalist textual readings of holy books that support such abuses of human rights and civil liberties of people.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

Sorry, to expand my reply since I can no longer edit it:

5.) The relationship that Islam holds to terrorism --which is related to the Qur'an and Islamic teachings, but is not entirely explained by them-- is an example of why the Qur'an is not a good text, although I find the human rights abuses under Sharia law is far more compelling. With that said, we don't just get to willfully ignore the massive and disgusting actions by, for instance, the Catholic church; a particularly good example of the needless, wasteful cost of human life and the contribution to human suffering and misery is the Catholic church's stance on condom use in Africa. It has/will lead to millions of deaths and has already lead to millions of orphans whose parents have died from AIDS. Is this a form of terrorism? No. But does the cost of lives from this absolutely dwarf the lives lost due to terrorism? Yes, by about a factor of ten. Is this real human suffering and misery caused by a reckless following of Christian doctrine? Yes, without a question.

Issue 7 will be raised in response to your following quote:

Grant said:
Do you realize that Gays in Islamic countries are being persecuted and murdered, being publicly hanged? Have you read the Pew polls in regard to Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality? if you had you wouldn't be so concerned about Christians (let alone Judaism).

7.) Fully aware, yes. But I'm also fully aware of modern Western Christianity's involvement in Uganda and Ghana, and the massive gay rights violations that have occurred there. Perhaps you remember the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda two years ago? You should. The world got very lucky, and the law was struck down in Ugandan courts, but make not mistake that this is a very popular bill in Christian Uganda, and it can be directly linked not merely to Christianity in South Africa, but to US Evangelical Christians who promoted anti-gay bigotry and Biblical literalism in South Africa (Pastor Warren being a particularly guilty party). Homosexuality is illegal in 38 out of 53 African countries, and not a small number of them are Christian. The rest are, yes, countries of Muslims, but it's absolutely intellectually bankrupt to the highest degree to think that Christianity is not, too, involved in a massive war against gay rights.

It's also a sobering fact that 57% of Republicans want to abolish the US constitution and "return" to Biblical law. And in Texas, Republicans are arguing intensely that we need to not merely get rid of gay rights, but make homosexuality illegal again.

Is Islam a force for not so good things in the world? Predominantly, I would argue "Yes." But you're deluding yourself if, for even half of a second, you think that Christianity is any better and that if tomorrow a second wave of Evangelical Christianity were to hit our shores, that the treatment of gays, women, and other religions wouldn't seriously take a nose dive. Christianity has fought against the battle for humanism, scientific progress, human rights, and secular governments since the Enlightenment, and pretending like it's not an active force of will to contain Christianity and the horrid views that it promotes is doing nothing is a complete falsehood.

Lursa · Dec 20, 2015

Grant said:
In fact it's Muslims who are often doing the persecuting. We know their attitudes towards Gays, for example, and Jews.

What does that have to do with what I wrote or what this professor is attempting to do (support Muslims)?

Lursa · Dec 20, 2015

JC Callender said:
It looks like, according to the first paragraph in the OP, that she's wearing it because she believes Muslims and Christians are both a people of the book and worship the same God:

Larycia Hawkins, a political science professor at the private evangelical Christian college, announced last week that she would wear the veil to show support for Muslims who have been under greater scrutiny since mass shootings in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. "I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book," she posted on Facebook. "And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God."

And the school disagrees with that? Well I stand corrected then but then the school is wrong, as factually wrong as you can be about a mythical being, since the main bodies of the relevant religions agree that it is the same being.

radcen · Dec 20, 2015

Ahlevah said:
For Chrissake, let her wear the friggin' scarf:

Frankly, the good professor's appearance reminds me of HER:

View attachment 67194233

I see nothing wrong with her statement, but I see nothing meaningful or significant in it, either.

Grant · Dec 20, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
Don't really care if you have, although maybe on a different thread we may end up arguing for the same points, I'm discussing what you've discussed in the thread so far. I've been having this discussion way too many times over the past week, so let's see what we agree on before we start getting to what we disagree on:

1.) Christianity is a terrible doctrine.

False. There is a New Testament which most Christians subscribe to.

2.) Islam is a terrible doctrine.

Clearly true.

3.) As the doctrines currently stand, your average Muslim is more likely to believe things against human rights than your average Christian, but the more religious you get on either side, they basically believe the same kind of horrible things. Although, again, they'll tend to be worse beliefs on the followers of Islam in the most extreme factions. (Note: I'm not talking about terrorism right now, only beliefs about human rights and civil liberties, democracy, etc.)

I'd need specifics.

4.) Muslims and Christians in the West tend to support more or less secular governments and tend to support civil liberties and human rights based off of the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophy. They also tend to believe in evolution and not take literalist interpretations of their religious books.

I don't care to relate Christians to Muslims.

I'm sorry, but I feel like you've just openly misrepresented my views. What I identically did not say was that on human rights right now, Islam is equally as bad as Christianity and Judaism. I said that if we look at the history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we find extremely abhorrent violations of human rights and literalist textual readings of holy books that support such abuses of human rights and civil liberties of people.

What you said was "You may not know the history of homosexuals in the West, but it would be instructive to educate yourself. Christianity stands poorly if we're discussing homosexuality (let alone Judaism), as do Muslims. But, again, one should avoid being a massive hypocrite".

I don't see where I misrepresented your views.

Yes, if we look at history we can find atrocities among any groups of people but we're in the modern world where Islamists are still acting out what was preached 1400 years ago and is still being taught, as is, in Islam today. That is the problem.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

Grant said:
False. There is a New Testament which most Christians subscribe to.

I'm tired of attacking this. Support or retract that bare assertion.

Grant said:
I don't care to relate Christians to Muslims.

Bull****. You're just being openly disingenuous now. I'll refer to yourself from a few posts ago, where you directly "related" them:

You: "Have you read the Pew polls in regard to Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality? if you had you wouldn't be so concerned about Christians (let alone Judaism)."

You: "You should familiarize yourself with what's going on in the Wacky World of Islam before being critical of Christians, or Jews, regarding homosexuality."

Grant said:
I don't see where I misrepresented your views.

You: "In fact it's Muslims who are often doing the persecuting. We know their attitudes towards Gays, for example, and Jews."

Me: "Yes, and we also know the Christians often do persecuting, too. You do realize that I've discussed this frequently, yes? You may not know the history of homosexuals in the West, but it would be instructive to educate yourself."

You: "There is nothing in recent history which compared to the Islamist atrocities being carried out around the world."

Of course that's completely false, as I gave two important examples in Africa. One was where the death toll for following Christian doctrine was massively more damaging that Islam. The second was that in countries that follow Biblical literalism, promulgated by contemporary US Evangelical Christians and missionaries, succeeded in passing law that gives homosexuals the death penalty --now they only give gays life in prison. After all, Christians are just so much more tolerant of gays than Muslims. Only 9 out of the 50 nations with majority Muslims murder gays (Well, one of the countries, Nigeria, is half Christian and half Muslim, but the murders are predominantly done in the Muslim region of the country).

But we can sweep those under the rug because they aren't evil, dirty Muslims who committed those crimes, am I right?

Grant said:
I'd need specifics.

They were given to you in the post that you failed to quote or discuss in any way. I discussed some of them above, but you will need to address my second post, or otherwise I'm just going to keep on quoting it to you until you address its contents.

Grant said:
Islam today. That is the problem.

Radical Salafist Islam is a problem today, but it is not the problem. Between Russia going around annexing whatever countries they like, the brutal dictatorships around the world, the completely insane amount of nuclear weapons that still exist, and the complete lack of substantial effort in preventing global warming --I think it's woefully naive to refer to radical Islam as "the problem." It's a problem. It needs to be solved. But it's not the most important thing on our plate right now.

Grant · Dec 20, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
I'm tired of attacking this. Support or retract that bare assertion.

All you have to is Google!! Most Christians do not follow the old Testament, and that should be common knowledge.
Bull****. You're just being openly disingenuous now. I'll refer to yourself from a few posts ago, where you directly "related" them:

You: "Have you read the Pew polls in regard to Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality? if you had you wouldn't be so concerned about Christians (let alone Judaism)."
You: "You should familiarize yourself with what's going on in the Wacky World of Islam before being critical of Christians, or Jews, regarding homosexuality."

That's right. There is little to compare between the two except that they are religions. I have no idea why you even mentioned Judaism

You: "In fact it's Muslims who are often doing the persecuting. We know their attitudes towards Gays, for example, and Jews."
Me: "Yes, and we also know the Christians often do persecuting, too. You do realize that I've discussed this frequently, yes? You may not know the history of homosexuals in the West, but it would be instructive to educate yourself." You: "There is nothing in recent history which compared to the Islamist atrocities being carried out around the world."Of course that's completely false, as I gave two important examples in Africa.

You gave two important examples in Africa??? Africa is not on the cutting edge of Christianity.

One was where the death toll for following Christian doctrine was massively more damaging that Islam. The second was that in countries that follow Biblical literalism, promulgated by contemporary US Evangelical Christians and missionaries, succeeded in passing law that gives homosexuals the death penalty --now they only give gays life in prison. After all, Christians are just so much more tolerant of gays than Muslims. Only 9 out of the 50 nations with majority Muslims murder gays (Well, one of the countries, Nigeria, is half Christian and half Muslim, but the murders are predominantly done in the Muslim region of the country).

Wow!! Comparing the craziness in Africa to what's happening with Islamic terrorism in the rest of the world is just silly. We all should know and understand the educational problems in Africa, and I wouldn't even blame Boco Harom for what's going on there, given that most of these people are so very poorly educated. But such should not be the case in the Middle East, where most of the international terrorism against Christians, Jews, and 'non-believers' originates.

But we can sweep those under the rug because they aren't evil, dirty Muslims who committed those crimes, am I right?

No.

They were given to you in the post that you failed to quote or discuss in any way. I discussed some of them above, but you will need to address my second post, or otherwise I'm just going to keep on quoting it to you until you address its contents.

I'll check it out, though your posts haven't really offered much of a challenge.

Radical Salafist Islam is a problem today, but it is not the problem. Between Russia going around annexing whatever countries they like, the brutal dictatorships around the world, the completely insane amount of nuclear weapons that still exist, and the complete lack of substantial effort in preventing global warming --I think it's woefully naive to refer to radical Islam as "the problem." It's a problem. It needs to be solved. But it's not the most important thing on our plate right now.

The modern world can multi task. I don't think we should ignore the Muslim problem because some claim the world is getting warmer, and Russia is as concerned with Islamic terrorism as anyone else. Recall what Muslims did to their kindergarten children, and parents, in Beslan.

FieldTheorist · Dec 20, 2015

Your arguments are the height of intellectual dishonesty and holding double standards for groups you like versus groups you dislike.

Grant said:
All you have to is Google!! Most Christians do not follow the old Testament, and that should be common knowledge.

All right, let's do a Google search. You can read about supercessionism, and when and why different theologies think about when and why you can ignore the Old Testament, but let's just quote Jesus now:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)

That's the baseline: The OT still applies. But there are various things that have changed in Jesus covenant with the gentiles, and a straightforward reading of the Bible will elucidate some of them. Others are iffy, and different theologies follow different interpretations of the applicability of specific sections of the OT Law to Christians.

Grant said:
That's right. There is little to compare between the two except that they are religions. I have no idea why you even mentioned Judaism

The penalty for homosexuality was death in Hebrew law...? Sure, Jews are usually pretty good on homosexuality (Just don't ask a Hasidic Jew, whatever you do), but that doesn't mean they are great on the subject, either:

1.) Western Jews have gay conversion therapy, which was deemed as "dangerous" by the American Psychological Association and as "fraud."

2.) They haven't been unilaterally good on homosexual marriages and their views of homosexuals (e.g. Orthodox Jews on gay marriage legalization).

These exist because they are in literal, 100% correspondence with the religious text and doctrine of the Talmud. That's why I bring up Judaism, even though most modern Jews take a very post-Enlightenment philosophy on homosexuality.

Grant said:
You gave two important examples in Africa??? Africa is not on the cutting edge of Christianity. Wow!! Comparing the craziness in Africa to what's happening with Islamic terrorism in the rest of the world is just silly. We all should know and understand the educational problems in Africa, and I wouldn't even blame Boco Harom for what's going on there, given that most of these people are so very poorly educated. But such should not be the case in the Middle East, where most of the international terrorism against Christians, Jews, and 'non-believers' originates.

Oh, I see. So if poor Muslims commit abhorrent crimes by taking their religious text literally, they do it because they're Muslim. If rich Muslims like Turkey don't commit crimes and have secular governments (even if the current president is a raging tool), it doesn't matter because they're Muslims. But if poor Christians do something awful because they take their Bible literally or follow the advice of Western religious leaders, it's because now we're allowed to entertain additional factors. The Western religious leaders are absolved of all guilt, and it's only because they're poor.

Ah. I've got you. This isn't a double standard in the slightest.

I'll check it out, though your posts haven't really offered much of a challenge.

That's because you're playing by a non-existent debating etiquette where deflection, refusal to read an opponent's claims, and a total lack of internal consistency within the post itself are never taken into consideration.

Grant · Dec 20, 2015

FieldTheorist said:
Your arguments are the height of intellectual dishonesty and holding double standards for groups you like versus groups you dislike.

There are groups i like and groups I have no reason to like. I'm not bothered at all by Christians but Muslims are doing a great deal of damage in the world, both to non-Muslims and each other. I see no reason to respect or like them.

All right, let's do a Google search. You can read about supercessionism, and when and why different theologies think about when and why you can ignore the Old Testament, but let's just quote Jesus now:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)

I'm not ignoring' the OT. What I said is that most Christians follow the NT, hence the name "Christian".

That's the baseline: The OT still applies. But there are various things that have changed in Jesus covenant with the gentiles, and a straightforward reading of the Bible will elucidate some of them. Others are iffy, and different theologies follow different interpretations of the applicability of specific sections of the OT Law to Christians.

Read very carefully please and it will save us both some time and typing. I never said the Bible does not apply. You seem to understand the quote system but haven't quite got the hang of using it properly.

The penalty for homosexuality was death in Hebrew law...? Sure, Jews are usually pretty good on homosexuality (Just don't ask a Hasidic Jew, whatever you do), but that doesn't mean they are great on the subject, either:
1.) Western Jews have gay conversion therapy, which was deemed as "dangerous" by the American Psychological Association and as "fraud."
2.) They haven't been unilaterally good on homosexual marriages and their views of homosexuals (e.g. Orthodox Jews on gay marriage legalization).
These exist because they are in literal, 100% correspondence with the religious text and doctrine of the Talmud. That's why I bring up Judaism, even though most modern Jews take a very post-Enlightenment philosophy on homosexuality.

And it is contemporary times under discussion.

Oh, I see. So if poor Muslims commit abhorrent crimes by taking their religious text literally, they do it because they're Muslim. If rich Muslims like Turkey don't commit crimes and have secular governments (even if the current president is a raging tool), it doesn't matter because they're Muslims. But if poor Christians do something awful because they take their Bible literally or follow the advice of Western religious leaders, it's because now we're allowed to entertain additional factors. The Western religious leaders are absolved of all guilt, and it's only because they're poor.

You clearly don't see and are guessing.

Ah. I've got you. This isn't a double standard in the slightest.

That's correct

That's because you're playing by a non-existent debating etiquette where deflection, refusal to read an opponent's claims, and a total lack of internal consistency within the post itself are never taken into consideration.

If that's your take then run with it.

Wheaton College students back Christian professor who wore a hijab

FieldTheorist

Lursa

Tenacious

JC Callender

Lursa

Tenacious

ludin

LowDown

Curmudgeon

JC Callender

Grant

Ahlevah

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

Van Basten

Black Is Smart

LowDown

Curmudgeon

FieldTheorist

Grant

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Grant

FieldTheorist

Grant

FieldTheorist

Grant