Not proud of CU
My wife, two of our sons and I are University of Colorado graduates.
We are not proud of that institution. I cannot believe that there are very many Colorado parents that would like their children to be influenced by Ward Churchill, this so called academic.
I do not believe that you can teach culture and respect. It is learned in the home, in the family, in the Boy or Girl Scouts, in the neighborhood, in the church, in the shopping center, etc., and in the humanities.
Freedom is gained with respect for other people’s freedom, not by disdain.
How do the courses that Churchill was teaching add anything meaningful to our knowledge base as a society or prepare anyone to be more productive, contributing in the competitive world we live in?
Bob Stamp, Littleton
I will steer my future college students away from CU because "academic" examples such as Churchill. Churchill epitomizes the term academic charlatan. Look at his credentials, yet CU hires the likes of him.
Posted by Dad on July 27, 2007 08:00 AMDad,Good luck finding any University or college that are not filled with "little churchills"
Our colleges and universities are filled with like minded professors. I'm hoping by the time my children are ready to go to college that it will finally be cleaned out of "little churchills.
I can hope can't I ?.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 27, 2007 08:09 AMCIgaAMEN,
What would you prefer: little Pat Robertsons? little Dobsons? little Falwells? little Ted Haggards? little Bob Joneses?
There are dozens of "bible universities", and and hole-in-the-wall "colleges", all over the United States - we even have a couple in Cowlorado - where you can send your children. They can learn all about how the earth is really flat, and only about 5000 years old. And, best of all, they will be taught the rest of the right wingnut "conservative ideas"; such as, blind obedience to superstition; and how to always follow the current "great leader", as he and his political gang work to "enlighten the world". And of course, they'll learn the good old, "War is Wonderful and Shooting People is Fun" policies, and politics, so beloved of today's critics of genuine education, intelligent thought, and good judgment .
You won't find any "little churchills" there. And that should please you quite well. Just pick up your Yellow Pages; look under the heading of "Schools"; and take your pick. They'll all gladly "give you an AMEN".
I would not send my children to a religious school. I don't have any faith in them either.
I don't believe in organized religion.I just want my children to get a balanced education not a indoctrination by phoney,hate filled,unbalanced,mentally ill Professors.
Right on Amen...Church-ill and the other"little Church-ills" must be a perfect fit for OG's liberal views.
Did you ever notice that Ward needs an orthodontist? But, then, he is missing more than some of his teeth it's called, brains!
Posted by A on July 27, 2007 09:09 AMEver noticed how it's almost a certainty that in any conversation that broaches on the political the word"hate" will generally not appear until some wingnut totally bereft of any other means to express their dislike of any dissent and disagreement with their authoritarian viewpoint, or that of their current demigod, must employ it?Of course this post will probably be immediately classified by those same wingnuts as "hateful".
Posted by patrick on July 27, 2007 09:45 AMAh, don't lump "religious schools" all together. There happens to be some very good "religious schools." As examples:
The University of Notre Dame
Boston College
Marquette University
Holy Cross
DePaul University
Fordham University
Gonzaga University
and of course our own Regis University
As usual, Old Grouch, you don't get it. Which of those religious schools that you despise so much are PUBLICALLY FUNDED?
Why should the public finance a lying, dishonest professor?
Posted by B on July 27, 2007 10:47 AMFirst, Mr. Churchill made some valid points in the essay titled "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens (you can find it at http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=print&article=9). Please note that article was published in 9/2001 - and that the proverbial stuff didn't hit the fan until 3 years later. The opinion that the victims in the Trade Center buildings were "Little Eichmann's", while distasteful to say the least, are protected speech. He also quoted some distasteful language used US citizens when fighting Arabs - didn't hear anybody screaming about that, although perhaps it is because he was quoting. If you can get past the language, it is a fairly good review of US involvement in other countries which has earned the US some enemies.
Unfortunately for Mr. Churchill, it also embarassed CU - which had neglected to follow up on accusations about both his plagiarizing others & his ancestry (which had a lot to do with his getting the job in the first place). I am certain that the re-emergence of the essay prompted the investigation into those allegations, and used those accusations & apparently their proof duing the CU's investigation into Mr Churchill that officially cost him his job - and to me, that appears to be legal. It's too bad CU chose not to do its 'due diligence' when hiring - perhaps Mr. Churchill would have embarassed some other university instead.
Posted by Churchill issues on July 27, 2007 10:55 AMCI: Good assessment from start to finish. Regardless of the validity of WC's analysis of the US in world opinion, he brought about the investigation and subsequent discovery of his academic follies himself. And I do agree that it's pathetic that CU hired and promoted him for factors not based on performance; and, that when rumors of academic discrepancies first arose they didn't act at the time.
Posted by Trinity on July 27, 2007 11:19 AMCI: Thank you for the one of the first honest assessments of the whole situation without getting overly emotional about it. Churchill's ramblings about 9/11 were protected speech, as unsettling or offensive as one may find it. What isn't protected is his complete fraud that he perpetrated to get where he was to begin with, and he opened the door when he drew attention to himself. Much like the escaped con that gets pulled over for speeding, it isn't the speeding that's the issue, but how he got in the car in the first place!
Posted by CU Grad on July 27, 2007 11:26 AMchurchill did not get dismissed for what he said, he lost his job for lying, falsifying documents, and plagarism.
how many students got dismissed from cu for plagarism? I'm sure a whole lot more than one professor.
maybe cu should change it's name to ccd (continual cash drain)
Posted by not here on July 27, 2007 11:37 AMOnce upon a time, there was a rather old joke going round - even in the academic community: "If you steal from one, it's called plagiarism. If you steal from many, it's called scholarship."
Anyone want to consdier that "scholarship" is just what Churchill did; and that "scholarship" is exactly what good old U of Cowlorado fired him for?
10:47 Anonymous,
The original questioner did not mention "public funding". Since it was not part of the question, I did not address it in the answer.
I think you might find that a goodly number of religious groups have taken advantage of something called "Faith Based" grants, of TAXPAYER MONIES, to support their efforts to dumb down America to the level of those cited earlier. If memory serves, there's a case concerning Bob Jones University currently in the Courts that deals with that.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 12:01 PMOld Grouch our public schools are wasting our tax money and are hell bent on dumbing our children down from the first day they go to kindergarten.All on the publics dime.
Every year they cry ,"we are underfunded"
They are not underfunded. They are mismanaged,wasteful and hire stupid teachers that only know how to teach our children an " out of the box education." Which is mediocre at best.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 27, 2007 12:15 PMOld Grouch,
Public funding has everything to do with this Ward Churchhill issue. If a parents chooses to send their children to a "religious institution" they do so full knowing the level of education they will receive and the bias in which it will be presented.
Students in a public funded university are entitled to receive an well rounded education based on facts and not be subjected to any professor slanting "facts" to support their radical thinking or ideas. Open debate and critical thinking are important factors in our higher education system and should be embraced. However brainwashing by some "off the wall" professor who chooses to invent facts and fabricate research sources it totally unacceptable and could hardly qualify as "higher education"
If a professor is not intelligent or willing enough to present both sides of any issue, then that professor needs to be gone. We owe that to every student in our universities.
They are UNIVERSITIES not political indoctrination facilities
jgd777-AMEN! AMEN!! AMEN!!
That's what I want for my children. Let's hope our Universities stop this madness they call education.
Here's a novel idea--
Maybe instead of bitching about the "liberals", you so-called conservatives should get off your arses, get a teaching degree and help educate our kids. Yeah, I'm looking at you Amen and 777.
You know, actually give something back to this great country of ours instead of just whining about everything.
How dare a public university employ all of those nobel prize winning professors with their damn radical agendas. For shame, for shame.
Posted by I'll Say it Again on July 27, 2007 01:36 PMI'll Say it Again,
I find it very difficult to get a degree in teaching, criminal investigation, political science, and law just so I can get off my arse and try to correct everything you liberal jerks have done to destroy this country. In fact I am doing something, that is posting the other side of the story in an attempt to let all of the students that have been brainwashed that there is another side to all of the garbage that has been pushed on them in our universities.
I have an idea why don't you get off your arse and help our young adults get a well rounded education, by giving them an opportunity to hear and understand both sides of issues instead of this one sided radical BS being taught them at our universities. Of course that would go against your personal thoughts and most likely conflict with you narrow-minded attitude.
Why do you liberals fear the idea of people hearing both sides of issues?
The shame for this falls directly on the shoulders of our universities and people like you.
Posted by jgd777 on July 27, 2007 02:32 PMjgd777,
Well, as to the matter of public funding, it is a part of the entire area of education as a whole, true. The earlier question and answer were, simply, limited to their own context, which did not include the matter at that time.
The problem I have with your final paragraph however, comes from the idea that not always dealing with what you call "both sides" of any issue makes it necessary for a professor to be "gone".
To begin with, you seem to have no idea of the almost boundless complexity of the area of Social Studies, where many issues have almost as many "sides" - or viewpoints - as a faceted diamond. And, even in areas that are relatively simple - such as that of a date for a particular Treaty for instance - there are wider matters of educational policy that might need to be considered than mere rote memorization.
Do you, as an individual outside the academic world always recognize "the other side", to anything? In the course of a normal day, how much time do you devote to researching all the "other sides" of potential issues? When the "other side" of an issue conflicts with all the known facts in evidence, how much time should it be given?
Now, take this into a classroom - as some of us have done in our lives, on several levels - and multiply the possible "other sides" by . . . oh, let's say 25, shall we? . . .25 students in a 60 Minute class 3 times a week.
Does this now raise some questions about your idea of "willingness"? Or are you still insistent on the "need to be gone", when - according to YOUR VIEW - there has not been the "intelligence" necessary to make it happen?
Now, in 1st Grade, 2+2 = 4 is a constant. I do not know of "another side". And, throughout the whole educational process as well, there are constants. But . . . ! At what level do you propose to deal with the square root of minus 1?; or with Aleph Numbers; or with Chaos Theory?; or with String Theory? and "the other side"?
Do you teach "evolution"; or do you insist that "creationism" is an equally valid "science"? Are the dinosaurs merely the bones of those animals who didn't manage to get into the Ark - some few thousand years ago - while at least a pair of each did, and lived peacefully with all the other animals,since even Tyranosaurus Rex was an herbivore, whose teeth were there for "cracking coconuts"?
And, if you don't present the "other side", you are therefore unintelligent? Or unwilling?
O.K. Have it your way. And the whole idea of a University becomes nothing more than a chimera. And a totally fantastic imagination, where the opportunity to learn how to THINK, and make distinctions and discriminations for one's self, is subordinate to the endless, and useless, wrangle about "sides", and their importance of presentation.
Which, in the end, is - at least apparently from what you write - exactly what you seem to want "higher education" to be.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 02:49 PMWC is a jerkface. Seriously, have you ever really looked at the look on his face? I bet OG has the same look on his face because he always has something jerk-like to say.
Posted by urawnkr on July 27, 2007 03:29 PMOld Grouch,
How eloquent!!
There are indeed many "givens" in the learning process such as 2+2=4. However the point of my objections are highlighted in your question:
"
When the "other side" of an issue conflicts with all the known facts in evidence, how much time should it be given?"
Ward Churchhill was promoting the "known facts" regarding the spread of smallpox to the American Indians by our soldiers. These were in "known facts" only in his distorted imagination. Had he given the "other side" of the story then his students would have been given the opportunity to further investigate the issue and come to their own conclusions.
"Known facts" are in the eyes of the beholder based on their own political views and prejudges. I can prove second hand smoke has little danger or I could prove it is very dangerous, all based on "known facts' or I could prove the 14th Amendment does not give a child born in the US automatic citizenship based on "known facts" or I could prove it does. Those conclusions would be based on what results I was looking for.
I could prove Democrats are weak in defending this country and want to raise taxes, with "known facts' on the other hand I could prove they are strong on defense and don't want to raise taxes. It would all depend on my political position on these issues.
These are the types of issues that I believe our students should be given the opportunity to hear both sides and not just the political opinions of the professors, which by "known facts" are largely liberal thinkers.
Posted by jgd777 on July 27, 2007 03:34 PMAs a CU Alum myself, I gotta say, you can't trash the school just Churchill was there. Good grief, the campus has over 36,000 students alone. How many Nobel Prize winners come out of CU? How many of them need to balance out the assyness that is Churchill?
What about CU's top notch Aerospace and Environmental programs?
Seems a bit excessive and over-the-top to paint CU as an institution of Ward wannabes.
Yes, he's a bad egg. That's one bad egg vs 35,999.
Posted by jonny vegas on July 27, 2007 03:44 PMI'll say it again said - "You know, actually give something back to this great country of ours instead of just whining about everything."
What a joke. Churchill was making around $95,000 per year of taxpayer money. "Giving something back" implies that he is charitably working for no salary.
Posted by B on July 27, 2007 03:49 PMjonny vegas
It is not the idea of one bad egg, it is the idea of people defending this bad egg that bothers me. If they can defend this one, I have to ask myself how many more of them are they choosing to ignore. And how many more Churchhills are there in our universities teaching our students.
Churchhill will go away and never be heard from again, but the professors that think like him will still be around and will continue "educating" our children.
That is a serious problem!
Posted by jgd777 on July 27, 2007 03:55 PMI'm a CU alum. The administration was a nightmare. Remember anyone the lines wrapping around just to register? WC is like the fungus that grows on food left in the fridge. Poor management is pervasive there.
Posted by DNA on July 27, 2007 03:58 PMjgd
I appreciate your concerns, but I think you are chasing shadows. Besides, if that is truly the case, you're not giving students enough credit to ultimately decide for themselves.
I should think people have a right to defend themselves and bad people. People defend Bush and I think he's scummier than Ward, but I have a grandmother who still believes Il Duce was a good leader. Shoot, there are some Russians who think Stalin was a great leader.
The point is, Ward has right to think whatever he wants. He was fired for being an academic fraud. (As he should have been)
If you contend that universities are full of frauds, then the burden of proof is on you to back that statement up with facts.
So, I ask you: Suppose one professor was fabulous at teaching you quantuum physics, made you understand it like it was the easiest thing to learn, but that same Prof was a hard-core socialist.
Does he/she have a right to be a teacher?
Can you truly say, 'there is only one kind of 'right' thinking'. If that is what you believe, then I may consider you more of threat to the ideals of freedom and liberty than 20 ward churchills.
jgd777,
Seems as if you are giving an excellent illustration of just what you want education to be. Nothing more than a constant series of ranting diatribes about what YOU dislike, what YOU think - or think you think, what YOU feel to be the "right" thoughts and or positions, etc., etc.
Accompanied, of course, by a whole lot of BS about us "liberals" wanting to prevent you from blowing off. And, I guess that's your idea of how a college, or university, classroom should also function.
I do want to thank you for presenting this as you have. And I also want to thank you for your inclusion of me among those you feel should feel shame for not having the university system be the way you want it, those of us who YOU claim "fear the idea of hearing both sides".
Since you do not choose to answer questions concerning how your ideas of "hearing both sides" might be implemented in a classroom; preferring to just rant away about peripherals, endlessly and pointlessly, you clearly demonstrate that there is no truth in your claims about anyone - liberal or otherwise - "fearing to hear". That's just a fanasy of your own making, to cover the emptiness of your argument.
The simple fact is, YOU - and your ilk - can't stand to have anyone point out just how pointless, and empty of thought, your blather is. In reality, there is nothing there worth being heard. And when this is mentioned, you do nothing but shout all the louder, without any additional sense.
Respond with some form of content, when a position, or proposition, or question meets your disapproval. You'll find that it is the liberals who will be the first to LISTEN AND HEAR. And, the first as well to, in turn, elicit development of ideas, thought, and substantive debate - i.e., educe - draw forth, that which is the knowledge you acquire by applying your faculties to gaining it, and confirm you in that knowlege, as being able to THINK, not just rant and blather.
As to your paragraph on "known facts": What are you trying to say? That there are items of writing, or other methods of communication, that state things differently from what is being stated elsewhere? If so, how do you differentiate? How do you distinguish the real from the false? Is it your position that every time someone offers a disagreement to what is being presented, this disagreement is ALWAYS of equal value to the primary subject? Why?
In a college, or university, classroom, there are times when the known facts are at issue, true. But, is it your contention that every one of the 25 individuals in the classroom posited earlier must have equal standing concerning his/her position as to what is "fact" on EVERY issue?
Do you know the difference between a lecture and a seminar? And do you know when either is more appropriate to the subject?
Why no answers? I'm listening. I actually do NOT HEAR anything even remotely resembling a substantive "side", much less an issue. Rant as you please about Ward Churchill. So What?
Our college and university system does a very good job, overall, when it comes to at least providing the opportunity to learn how to THINK. But, I have said it before, and I'll say it again: Those who don't want to learn, won't.
And, the learning process includes the discipline of sticking to the point, Try that sometime, and see if anyone - liberal or otherwise - fears to hear.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 05:13 PMAnd since I have an appointment this evening, and have to be elsewhere, I'll leave you with this:
Remember the old joke: "If you steal from one it's plagiarism. If you steal from several - or many - it's scholarship"?
Anyone want to consider that "scholarship" is exactly the offense that Churchill "committed"; and that it is "scholarship" for which good old U of Cowlorado fired him?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 27, 2007 05:22 PMjgd is sure a whiny little redumbliturd
Posted by on July 27, 2007 08:49 PMjonny vegas,
No I do not believe there is only one right way to think. I am simply saying our children should not be subjected to only hearing one side of any issue. This is the entire problem with this country today. Everyone thinks their way is the only "right' way. I am truly sorry that everyone seems to believe that independent thinking based on hearing both sides of the story is such a tragedy.
jonny ask:
"So, I ask you: Suppose one professor was fabulous at teaching you quantum physics, made you understand it like it was the easiest thing to learn, but that same Prof was a hard-core socialist."
As long as during his quantum physics class his political opinions on the many benefits of socialism isn't being presented, then I could care less. And if he was a baptist minister I don't care as long as he is not discussing the benefits of religion.
If you are a professor and choose to bring your own personal or political agenda into the classroom, then you need to be gone.
The liberals seem intend on pushing for this "Fairness Doctrine" giving liberals and conservatives equal time on the public airwaves, why am I being unreasonable for asking our universities to do the same thing?
Posted by jgd777 on July 27, 2007 10:03 PMFrankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
All you people that refuse to send you children to CU will save me a fortune in taxes!
Maybe you will stop using public education and save me another thousand or so in taxes.
Oh, I know, only the socialists want to redistribgute earning. You would never use a free education, becaquse that would be socialism! The right is against redistribution of wealth!
Liars, all the right you are!
Posted by rick on July 27, 2007 11:14 PMOld Grouch,
Your posting from a different thread
"06:02AM - anonymous,
A college, or university, should be a place where one can learn to THINK: That is, to see and hear any and all sides of a matter, and then differentiate among them as to their veracity or lack thereof..
Posted by Old Grouch on July 26, 2007 08:01 AM"
How is does your previous statement, differ from the exact point I have been suggesting.
An opportunity for the students attending our universities to hear "all and any side of an matter?"
I'll say it again- I have 2 elementary students . I teach them every school year at home because the school refuses to teach them at their level. I am doing something, I'm teaching my children so the will be prepared for college when they get older. The schools are dumbing down and only want stugent in their little small minded box. The ones above it are dumbed down, the ones below gets more money for the school for tutoring.
That leaves my husband and I sending our children to school and then keeping them exceeding at home.
No I don't want to home school my children love to go to school. They are bored.
I was told by my child's teacher this coming school year ,that since she is passed her 2nd grade math. I would have to teach her at home on her level because she only teaches the book,
I am trying to transfer them to a different school. This school is infested with people who go in ,do the minimum and go home.
That's not acceptable to me.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 28, 2007 09:04 AMAll these liberals definding churchill by continually saying he was fired over what he said seem to not understand one FACT of life that I have seen demonstrated maney times on shows like "Cops". If your a low life and have a warrent out for you, dont call the cops if someone attacks you, don't drink an drive, don't drive a car with only one head or tail light. In other words DONT DRAW ATTENTION TO YOURSELF by doing exactly what dip stick churchill did.
BTW OG you sir are a riligious bigit of the first order. I belive you would have christians in death camps in a New York minute if you had the power. Your one hatefull son of a gun
Higaba,
Sonny, you got it just backwards.
It's your so-called "christian" religious nuts, freaks, screwballs, kooks, preachers, and popes that have set up the death camps; the torture chambers; and who burned people at the stake - among other ways in which they enforced their own religious rule over others.
That's bigotry, sonny, in concrete form.
Do read a little history - perhaps about Aushwitz, for instance - before you hie off on your great white charger to support your idea of "christian".
I think the website that may be reached by the hyperlink of my signature here has some recommended texts on the subject, if memory serves.
But, of course, if you don't want to learn, you won't..
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 11:09 AMOld Grouch,
Given your stance on how all Christians should be put into the same classification as Hitler, I believe he opened Auschwitz, then that would place all of you liberal socialists in the same category as Stalin and Chairman Mao. and the Islamic fascist in with all of the peaceful, moderate Islamics.
That's bigotry, you old fart, in concrete form.
Posted by on July 29, 2007 12:18 PM
"Given your stance on how all Christians should be put into the same classification as Hitler"
A faulty premise if there ever was one...
Posted by Charles B on July 29, 2007 01:18 PMCharles B
You can read the following statements and not believe OG was not implying that "Christians" were responsible for what happened Auschwitz?
It's your so-called "Christian" religious nuts, freaks, screwballs, kooks, preachers, and popes that have set up the death camps; the torture chambers; and who burned people at the stake - among other ways in which they enforced their own religious rule over others.
Do read a little history - perhaps about Aushwitz, for instance - before you hie off on your great white charger to support your idea of "christian".
Posted by on July 29, 2007 01:54 PM12:18 PM Anonymous,
Quite obviuosly you have great difficulty comprehending English. The example of Auschwitz was given as a single example - a "for instance", where "instance" means single example among many. I did refer you to the opportunity to read of other instances - examples - as well.
Yes, "christians" were responsible for what happened at Auschwitz. At least insofar as that designation might be applied to those who - as with Eichmann and others - regularly went to Church on Sunday, and outwardly identified themselves as being "christian". And, as the Book, "Hitler's Pope" presents, it was that "christian" who put Hitler in power in the first place.
Then, you might want to read Henry C Lea's work, "The History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages", where you will find quite a good deal of evidence relating to the "christian" practice of burning people at the stake for disagreement in thought with the then reigning Pontifex Maximus (Pope) in Rome - another one who certainly asserts that HE is Christian, even today claiming that HIS is the only "true religion" - which you might have read read in the newspapers of a week or so ago.
I don't acvocate anything even remotely resembling "death camps" - as the writer mentioned. Those things are already a large part of "christian" history.
And, the evidence is quite readily available in whatever language you do understand, if you just go to a library and look it up.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 02:35 PMSo let me sum up, you back Churchhill's right to brainwash the students at CU, believe "Christians" are responsible for most of the evil in the world, advocate for an open border policy, allowing anyone who can sneak in the right to citizenship and believe a socialist form of government is superior to our present system. You also stated that you taught at a university at one time.
If you represent the level of the professors teaching in our universities and that does not frighten the hell out of anyone sending their children to a university, than I don't what will.
Posted by jgd777 on July 29, 2007 03:22 PMjgd77offered:
"So let me sum up..."
Uh oh.
Posted by Charles B on July 29, 2007 03:36 PMCharles B
You had to have been one of OG's students!
And they say insanity is not contagious!!!
Posted by jgd777 on July 29, 2007 04:05 PMSo OG ya old bigot, your foolish enough to think that just because someone like eichmann "went to church" that he was tipical of the average Christain or was indeed even a Christain at all? Do you even know or understand what the average Christain gose to Church or follows the teachings of Christ for? What, do you think they all set around in their churches on sunday morning and plan on how to kill and or distroy as many people world wide in the coming week as posible? What kind of sick worped view of these people do you have? As far as your sugjested reading, I figure that the stuff you think people should read is the very same crap that has poisend your mind toward a whole class of people who have every right to be in this world as anyone else. And to answer the main questain I asked you, for your information they are just trying to be the best people thay can be and hopefully get to a place called Heaven some day. Thats all.....Thats it....no "control of the world or other peoples lives. All that crap about the Spanish Inqiusition and other examples of the Middle Ages have absolutly nothing to do with the Christainity you see being practiced by your fellow human beings today. I too have read many books and things about those terible times in history. And this is what I found. Given the FACT that there was nothing close to any forum of democratic government any whare in the world and the Church, as it was at that time a Very Powerfull World Power in conflict with Islaum and a few monarcys, what the so called "Church" was doing, in any example you might care to mention, had nothing to do with peoples "Spirtual lives" or well beening. It was in fact ALL ABOUT POLITICAL POWER just covered up in Official Church buissness. It might suprise you to know that if you were to ask the average Christain of today what they think of those so called church leaders of that time you would find that they don't think very much of them and in fact don't think they were "Christains" in the true sence of the word. They were just greedey evel men who had gained control of "The Church" for their own advancement, for the most part. If you don't believe that than think about this. What do you think Martain Luther and the whole Refformation thing was about. Has that ever crossed your bigoted mind? Was every thing fine and good after Martin Luther? No of course not. But Christainity was for ever changed back closer to what it was ment to be way back at the very begianing. And are all Christains today fine and good? No of course not. But for (if I may say it this way) GODS SAKE MAN LIGHTEN THE HELL UP ON THESE PEOPLE WILL YOU? And as for that rediculas nonsence about Christainity and Asuchwitz IT WAS THE NATIONAL SOCALIST PARTY you dope! Jeezzers I can't believe people like you need to have that explained to you. But of course you love Ward Churchill. BTW what do you have to say about what I said about Ward Churchill beinging attention to himself like some one bringing the attention of the cops to them selve when they have a warrent out on them selves.......sence that was my origanal point. Sorry if my pointing out that your a dangurous religious bigot got you off topic. Hope I did'nt hurt your feelings of supiriority and self import over all of us "Little Eichmanns" out here in the real world....doing nasty, evel things like going to church on sunday morning. Sorry bout dat
Posted by Higaba on July 29, 2007 08:45 PMjgd777,
It might be nice if somewhere in your "summing up", you included a few facts; but, I long ago gave up seeking any such consideration, or understanding, when I rather repeatedly asked some questions to clarify positions you asserted, and you wouldn't answer.
However, I don't "defend" Churchill - or anybody else - in "brainwashing". That's YOUR shtick, "brainwashing" - insisting upon having everything YOUR WAY, or not at all - and then accusing others of your own behavior.
And, if you had the slightest ability to comprehend what you read, you would know I don't "defend" Churchill at all - other than defending his right of free speech, just as I uphold and "defend" YOURS, boy, whatever be the content of that speech from either of you.
I do ask a rather akward question, based upon a somewhat obscure "definition" of the charges. But then again, you have never shown much ability to comprehend satire, or anything else even slightly humorous. The level of this whole Churchill business is below that of a ridiculous tempest in a teapot, kept boiling among little kids who have nothing better to do with their time.
I was accused of wanting "death camps" for "christians". That is one of the most stupid remarks I've read to date. I make no secret of my complete contempt for both Protestantism and Romanism as organizations, true. But, as to the matter of, "Christians being responsible for most of the evil in the world"? That's YOUR evaluation; not mine. "Christians" have certainly given enough evidence of their own responsibilities for evils throughout history to warrant presentaton of the facts. And I'll go right on presenting them, whenever I hear someone claiming that "evils" are always the result of acts by those other than "christians" - or those who loudly proclaim themselves to be "christian/christian-leaders", while actually loading the trains for Auschwitz, for instance.
Yes, I do believe in open borders. What may follow from the situation of open borders is far more complex that your simplistic assertions about how to gain citizenship. Do some research into the actuality and reality of the immigration problem, before you just run off at the mouth with the standard no-brain anti-immigrant rant.
And the second supremely stupid statement in your drivel comes with your remark about my "believing that a socialist form of government is better than our present system". You certainly prove that you obviously know nothing about either "socialism" or our governmental system with that one.
But, that's not surprising. You parrot the stupid rant and cant that equates "socialism" with the Democratic Party as if it were some kind of deity-given revelation, rather than the blather of a lazy fool who has never taken the time, or made the effort, to learn about either entity.
As to your evaluation of teaching at the university level, I have often wondered if your own obvious dislike of, and inability to deal with, ideas comes from having been flunked in basics before. You would certainly flunk an elementary logic course with your "summary" posting.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 09:15 PMHigaba,
My, my, my. Aren't you all het up. You stated earlier: "I believe you would have chistians in death camps in a New York minute if you had the power."
And, I guess I am supposed to just let a stupid remark such as that go by.
When it comes to Chrisitanity, sonny, I've had a good many years in which to learn how to differentiate between what is taught and what is done, under that label, or with that title, or by those who most loudly and vociferously proclaim themselves to be members in good standing.
Your stupid remark about my wanting "death camps" isn't expunged, or relieved, by your impassioned justification of your idea of what "christians/christianity" supposedly are, or "ought to be". I don't advocate "death camps", "in a New York minute" or any other way, for either those who do, or have done, evil under the title, or for fools who feel the need to defend them.
Go get someone to read you a reference book - even one I mentioned, if you can find someone able to translate it into whatever language you really do understand - and then deal with the matter of what I do write, rather than what you are unable to aprehend in my writings.
Oh, just by the way, do make some attempt to learn basic English grammar, and even a bit of spelling, when you set out to write an essay on a major topic. As Charles B has earlier pointed out, most of us don't speak, or read, idiot. (And you might even have someone explain to you the use of quotation marks when they are present surrounding a label, title, or designation.)
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 09:40 PMOld Grouch,
Wow! Nine paragraphs to say you are right and I am wrong, and not much else. Now I know you are truly a former professor and possibly even a former politician. Sounds like you are the only one who understands what is happening in the world and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
Just curious, is that the same attitude you had when you were teaching at the university? How many students failed your class because they disagreed with you?
Posted by jgd777 on July 29, 2007 10:28 PMjgd777,
Well, son, when you're wrong, you're wrong.
Disagreement has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of deliberately - and somewhat insultingly - mis-stating, mis-quoting, and otherwise distorting what has been posted, written, or said.
No one ever fails on disagreement. Again, see the paragraph above.
A single example; and then I'm off to the rest of what I have to do this evening.
I said, in answer, "Yes; I am for open borders." That part of your "summing up" was accurate and correct. THAT PART! But you went on to add someting about "sneaking in, etc.", that was not a part of anything I have ever said; nor is it something I have ever indicated to be a consequence of open borders.
For you to disagree with me, by saying that you do not believe in open borders, is a fair expression of your opinion; and becomes a point on which to agree to disagree. To state, seperately, that one of YOUR reasons for not wanting open borders is that of the possibility of "sneaking in, etc.", is something open to a return statement on my part, that I disagree with YOUR statement. And again, we have a place at which there is honest difference of opinion.
But, to insist that I have expressed YOUR idea of consequences of open borders as part of my own position is deliberate mis-statement on your part; which is wrong - as you well know. YOUR "reasons" for disagreement are not of my making.
When you stick with the level of simple disagreement, I will - as I have said many times before - defend and support YOUR right of free speech and expression. There is nothing there that would serve as a reason to "fail" you. (I might ask for some further clarification of your reasons, were the topic to actually be under discussion; but that's another matter.)
Keep your facts straight. Keep your "summing up" in line with what has been presented; and don't include spurious material as "reasons", or consequences (set up straw-men) just to attempt to refute the original. It's that simple.
In closing to Higaba,
Earlier, I quoted Charles B a having mentioned "not speaking idiot". Sorry. My error. It was the individual posting as, "dmz", on another line, who made that excellent appraisal of the presentation.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 29, 2007 11:25 PMOG you ole bigot
Oh my goodness you done pointed out that my spealun aint wats it pose to be un I done use quotatun marks da right way. I feels so chasstigized I done no what Ima guna do.
Well you may be right about that. But just as Winston Churchill once said to a woman who said to him, "Sir your drunk" Yes Mam I am. But in the morning I'll be sober, but you'll still be ugly!
Dude your still an overeducated religious bigot who would put people in death camps in a New York Minute. But of course you whould never admit that. Even the ones who did such things in the past would not admit they did. But you see OG your unreasonable hatred for the average Christain show in what you say. You can not hide it in your fancy words. It still shins through. Your just like your hero churchill. your so full of hate you can't even see just how screwed up you mind is.
You still have not said any thing about what I said about churchill bringing attention to himself and there by loseing his job over being a fool.
OG
I am a deep Christian but those who think they are Christians merely because they go to church and say the words annoy me. A dear friend is fond of saying that if you think that makes you a Christian you probably also believe that sleeping in a garage and Simonizing your forehead makes you a Rolls Royce.
Faith is a gift not a weapon. Live and let live!!!
May you be well. Looks like I need to run a roto rooter on my screen to get rid of the nonsense some of the postings put there.
Posted by momma y on July 31, 2007 02:07 AMMy Very Dear Higaba,
As a judge of someone else's intentions, you are a ridiculously ignorant fantasist. And, aside from the fact that, generally speaking, you are otherwise a lousy liar as well, I have only one real question about your postings.
How in the world do you come up with the idea that I would want you and your fellow "christians" in death camps"? Especially when I have posted, time and again, my position of freedom of speech and expression?
Certainly, rather than contributing to your psychotic martyr complex, it is much more in my interest - and the best interests of all and sundry - to have you, and your poor, abused, picked on, fellow "christians" as well, right out in the open; ranting your superstitious ignorance, and bellowing your noxious stupidity for all to hear, and consider.
The very thought that I would even slightly consider making martyrs out of you, and your "christian" ilk, is merely illustrative of your absolute lack of mental acuity, and the worthless emptiness of your fantastic position.
Besides which, sir, you are such an outstanding - one might even say, premier - spokseman for your cause, that your fellow "christians" really cannot do without you. Have you looked into replacing Falwell, or Haggard, in the pulpit? You certainly exhibit all the qualifications for the job.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 31, 2007 12:17 PM