NationStates Jolt Archive

Going to UNC-Wonderland (Please note the sarcasm) has taught me a lot of things about liberal attitudes and actions.

First off, Diversity:
It strikes me that you can have every imaginable ethnic group, skin color, and sexual orientation represented in the administration and faculty and still not have real diversity. At UNCW there is not one Republican of 33 full and part time professors in the English Department , not one Republican of 16 professors in the Political Science Department, and not one Republican of 19 professors in the Philosophy and Religion Department. A little scary come to think of it. Not only that since liberals control all of those departments they turn down all applications of those who disagree with them. Criminal Justice Professor Mike Adams told a story of how a man seeking employment as an associate professor was turned down b/c "he seemed too much like a family man". This is not diversity, this is exclusion based on political ideology.

I say again, what is the point of cultural diversity if you do not have a diversity of ideas. I've seen it on this forum as well especially since the election where conservative voices are shouted down or outright banned, decent Americans called hicks and ignorant because Bush was re-elected. If this is your idea of diversity, then I beg to differ.

Second, Tolerance:
Liberals are always asking me to be tolerant. It depends on your definition of the word. I see tolerance as an attitude of accepting you and dealing with it. However it seems the definition of tolerance has shifted so that not only must I accept you, I must accept your way of life and say that it is ok. Otherwise you are labeled a racist, homophope, and a bigot. Its ok to be tolerant but the minute I disagree with on the issue of homosexuality, tolerance is thrown out the window and I become all epithets listed above. In other words tolerant for everything but Christians who stand on a definite moral code.

Together these two topics form the biggest examples of hypocrisy in the liberal movement today.

I agree that there is a very startling liberal slant to university faculty. However, I have to say that is more due to a mindset. If you look throughout history, educators have almost always been intellectual liberals. It goes back 500 years.

As for tolerance, most liberals, (at least the moderate ones that you don't hear the ranting from) believe that everyone has the right to believe what they want not just the minority or majority. Every side has their hypocrites, it's just that you don't remember the ones who aren't hypocritical. Also liberals are much more likely to stand up for the views of the minorities as the majority needs no help in expressing and defending their views.

In other words tolerant for everything but Christians who stand on a definite moral code.

Stand on or conveniently abuse to dictate such "morality" in others?

Going to UNC-Wonderland (Please note the sarcasm) has taught me a lot of things about liberal attitudes and actions.

First off, Diversity:
It strikes me that you can have every imaginable ethnic group, skin color, and sexual orientation represented in the administration and faculty and still not have real diversity. At UNCW there is not one Republican of 33 full and part time professors in the English Department , not one Republican of 16 professors in the Political Science Department, and not one Republican of 19 professors in the Philosophy and Religion Department. A little scary come to think of it. Not only that since liberals control all of those departments they turn down all applications of those who disagree with them. Criminal Justice Professor Mike Adams told a story of how a man seeking employment as an associate professor was turned down b/c "he seemed too much like a family man". This is not diversity, this is exclusion based on political ideology.

I say again, what is the point of cultural diversity if you do not have a diversity of ideas. I've seen it on this forum as well especially since the election where conservative voices are shouted down or outright banned, decent Americans called hicks and ignorant because Bush was re-elected. If this is your idea of diversity, then I beg to differ.

Second, Tolerance:
Liberals are always asking me to be tolerant. It depends on your definition of the word. I see tolerance as an attitude of accepting you and dealing with it. However it seems the definition of tolerance has shifted so that not only must I accept you, I must accept your way of life and say that it is ok. Otherwise you are labeled a racist, homophope, and a bigot. Its ok to be tolerant but the minute I disagree with on the issue of homosexuality, tolerance is thrown out the window and I become all epithets listed above. In other words tolerant for everything but Christians who stand on a definite moral code.

Together these two topics form the biggest examples of hypocrisy in the liberal movement today.
´

This one topic forms maybe not the biggest, but a really big example of hypocrisy of your part. So, you see tolerance as an attitude of accepting you and dealing with it. Yet, you do not accept homossexuals, the liberal thinking (so much you have to call it hypocritical). And I assure you, at least from Europe, many right wingers (and some of my best friends are from the right) consider voting for Bush a stupid thing to do. Its not about political views, its a practical standpoint.

This one topic forms maybe not the biggest, but a really big example of hypocrisy of your part. So, you see tolerance as an attitude of accepting you and dealing with it. Yet, you do not accept homossexuals, the liberal thinking (so much you have to call it hypocritical).

He's not being a hypocrite. His religion teaches him that homosexuality is a sin. You can't expect him to accept a sin.

This isn't my position but his is defendable.

This is how I handle diversity/tolerance. I have my personal, religious beliefs that I live by. I am a Christian, and I do my best to live by the standards set by my faith (though none of us are perfect, right?). I openly share my beliefs and reasons with others. BUT - I don't shove it down their throats. They are just as free to live their lifestyle of preference as I am. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yes, in my personal life, I am - but who am I to judge anyone else? Let them have the freedom to live their lives and let God do the judging/separating of people in the end. I know homosexual people that I would deem more honorable than some "holier-than-thou Christians".
I agree with Bush's religious standpoints, and agree with his practices - in my own home. But, I voted for Kerry. You can't force a country to live by your personal religion - they have their own personal beliefs to live by, and shold be free to do so. So I guess my practicing of tolerance comes down to "live and let live."

He's not being a hypocrite. His religion teaches him that homosexuality is a sin. You can't expect him to accept a sin.

This isn't my position but his is defendable.

Agreed. But then, he cannot preach tolerance. As a religious, his beliefs are absolute, and cannot be wrong, so he cannot tolerate or accept other views, that will be necessarily wrong, from his standpoint.


(note: I am being extreme to illustrate my view, there are many religious people that show quite a big deal of tolerance)

thhen you realise the entire NATIONAL government is run by fundamentalists and all your complaints should go away

This is how I handle diversity/tolerance. I have my personal, religious beliefs that I live by. I am a Christian, and I do my best to live by the standards set by my faith (though none of us are perfect, right?). I openly share my beliefs and reasons with others. BUT - I don't shove it down their throats. They are just as free to live their lifestyle of preference as I am. Am I opposed to homosexuality? Yes, in my personal life, I am - but who am I to judge anyone else? Let them have the freedom to live their lives and let God do the judging/separating of people in the end. I know homosexual people that I would deem more honorable than some "holier-than-thou Christians".
I agree with Bush's religious standpoints, and agree with his practices - in my own home. But, I voted for Kerry. You can't force a country to live by your personal religion - they have their own personal beliefs to live by, and shold be free to do so. So I guess my practicing of tolerance comes down to "live and let live."

And so far as I can ascertain in doing so, you do your Christian duty more so than those who are intolerant to others. As a Christian you must do what you can to 'save' others, (ie testifying). Clearly you can more effectively do this by living a life others like and being a person others like. If people cant relate to you, you are not going to be any 'force of change' or persuasion in their life. If you are someone who they can respect (because you respect them) people will at least hear you out and consider what you offer them, something no one is likely to do if they are on the defensive and know you cannot 'tolerate' them. No one listens to people who hate them.

To be honest the way you describe yourself is much more familiar to me than the other 'christian' attitudes I have come across on this board. In real life, most christians I know are loving people who want to share what they consider to be a gift, as opposed to being control freaks who dont have faith enough to not be threatened by those they should be seeking to reach out to (ie according to Chrisitian doctrine - everyone).

And so far as I can ascertain in doing so, you do your Christian duty more so than those who are intolerant to others. As a Christian you must do what you can to 'save' others, (ie testifying). Clearly you can more effectively do this by living a life others like and being a person others like. If people cant relate to you, you are not going to be any 'force of change' or persuasion in their life. If you are someone who they can respect (because you respect them) people will at least hear you out and consider what you offer them, something no one is likely to do if they are on the defensive and know you cannot 'tolerate' them. No one listens to people who hate them.

To be honest the way you describe yourself is much more familiar to me than the other 'christian' attitudes I have come across on this board. In real life, most christians I know are loving people who want to share what they consider to be a gift, as opposed to being control freaks who dont have faith enough to not be threatened by those they should be seeking to reach out to (ie according to Chrisitian doctrine - everyone).

Thanks :) That is exactly what I strive for, and wish more people (not only, but especially, Christians) would.

Wow. Maybe I don't understand your thinking.

You talk about accepting others?

Well accepting others means accepting them and dealing with them and their lifestyle. Ever have a friend that is a drunk, a slut, an addict, had a disability, or a mental disorder?

Accepting a person is accepting the whole package. You may not like certain aspects of their life but tollarence is the ability to look past all that and look for the goodness in a person.

I have a friend that is a little too slutty IMHO. But I know if I died she would do whatever she could to help my wife and child.

I kind of think you are a little homophobic. Why do they bother you?

Oh and for the diversity thing?

Well your example seems to violate employment laws and that is wrong. It's not a very good school if they limit it to one one line of thinking.

However, it goes both ways.

In a certain biotech company the HR director is a Christian. She seems to be only able to hire people in the HR department that come from her Chruch.

She even tried to pass a policy that forbade pictures on workspaces. Why? Because one employee was gay and had a picture of his boyfriend. The CEO put her in her place over that one.

He's not being a hypocrite. His religion teaches him that homosexuality is a sin. You can't expect him to accept a sin.

This isn't my position but his is defendable.
No, a strict interpretation of some passages in the book his religion is based on says sodomy is a sin. This not only isn't fully supported by said book (is it just me or was Jesus's message love and peace - not judgemental attitudes and a desire to outlaw something you don't agree with), but it also doesn't give him the right to enforce his definition of "sin" on anyone else. As for the hypocrite card, it has a certain merit to it. A lot of liberals preach tolerance, diversity, and acceptance, but rail so heartily against intolerance and people who reject these notions, that they become the very opposite of accepting towards these views.

For all that, though, I think there's a bit more merit in trying to change someone's intolerance of homosexuals than there is in calling the people who are asking you to change "hypocrites" and then applying that label to all "liberals".