NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/bostoncollege

It's a private, Catholic institution founded and run by Jesuits...

I could see being upset if it were a public school, but it's not a secret that Boston College is anything but a public school.

It's as though some people woke up this morning, "gosh, I didn't realize that I had been a professor at a Catholic college for 15 years, and I had no idea my boss was a Jesuit priest..."

If it's a private university, then who gives a shit?

If it's a Catholic college, then they can damn well put up Catholic imagery.

If it's a private university, then who gives a shit?

Perhaps you would understand better if you were acquainted with the works of that Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand. :p

It seems to me that it's a private institution. People have the choice if they want to work there. Though at the same time, I can understand some of the academics wanting to be consulted before having art placed in their lecture halls. So they at least know what's happening. It seems the problem was not being informed.

I, unfortunately, find myself agreeing with Hotwife. It's not a secret that Boston College is a Jesuit institution. They pride themselves on it and practically stick it up your ass whenever they can. You can't watch the BC-ND football game each year without it coming up at least 400 trillion times. That a private, fiercely proud Catholic college would put up Catholic imagery should not surprise a soul.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/02/11/bostoncollege

It's a private, Catholic institution founded and run by Jesuits...

I could see being upset if it were a public school, but it's not a secret that Boston College is anything but a public school.

It's as though some people woke up this morning, "gosh, I didn't realize that I had been a professor at a Catholic college for 15 years, and I had no idea my boss was a Jesuit priest..."
Eighteen years... Sounds like Amir is a little short on the boat payment this month.

I, unfortunately, find myself agreeing with Hotwife. It's not a secret that Boston College is a Jesuit institution. They pride themselves on it and practically stick it up your ass whenever they can. You can't watch the BC-ND football game each year without it coming up at least 400 trillion times. That a private, fiercely proud Catholic college would put up Catholic imagery should not surprise a soul.

There's a message about Catholicism.

Just kidding.

Still, it's a private college so it's not like a screaming violation of Church and State.

If it's a Catholic college, then they can damn well put up Catholic imagery.

Agreed.

Eighteen years... Sounds like Amir is a little short on the boat payment this month.

I had a mental picture of the guy waking up, "Hey! I had no idea this school in Annapolis was The Naval Academy!"

There's a message about Catholicism.

Just kidding.

Still, it's a private college so it's not like a screaming violation of Church and State.

Maybe Sdaerji was abused by some priests.

I also have to agree. Damn my university was based on religious teachings and even though that has all but disappeared the figures, statues etc haven't been removed because its part of the history.

*sigh*

Read the article people. No one complaining at BC is saying anything about the separation of Church and State. They fully recognize BC is a private college and religous expression is not illegal. They merely question whether it is wise.

Some excerpts from the article (emphasis added):

At Boston College, the placement of Christian art, including crucifixes, in classrooms over winter break has stirred some intense discussions over that particular expression of the Roman Catholic (and catholic) university’s identity. And over whether it’s undergoing an identity crisis.

“A classroom is a place where I am supposed, as a teacher, to teach without any bias, to teach the truth. And when you put an icon or an emblem or a flag, it confuses the matter,” said Amir Hoveyda, the chemistry department chair.

“For 18 years, I taught at a university where I was allowed to teach in an environment where I felt comfortable. And all the sudden, without any discussion, without any warning, without any intellectual debate, literally during the middle of the night during a break, these icons appear,” Hoveyda said.

But Dwayne Eugène Carpenter, chair of the romance languages and literatures department and co-director of the Jewish studies program, said the placement of religious art is in fact divisive. These symbols, he said, are not neutral. “I think it’s naive to believe that affixing crucifixes is going to fan the flames of religious devotion. On the other hand, it can have a negative effect on students” who might see them as creating an unwelcoming environment.

Carpenter, a professor of Hispanic Studies, said the issue was seriously debated in a recent meeting of the college’s department chairs (Boston College lacks a Faculty Senate at this point). He’d like to see an open forum addressing the subject. So far, he said, it’s been addressed mostly in private conversations, of which he’s had many.

“I think there were many people who were upset. But my sense is the majority say, ‘This is a Catholic school; they’re going to do what they’re going to do.’ I would go on the record as saying, ‘It is true. It’s a Jesuit institution and as such it has every right to place images wherever it wants. It’s just that it’s not a very smart thing to do.’ “

“I think it’s in an identity crisis,” Carpenter continued, of Boston College. “At the same time that it wants to proclaim its Catholic identity, it also wants to recruit the best. You can’t recruit the best by placing crucifixes in every classroom. You’re simply going to limit the number of people who will come here. And I’ve already heard of several faculty who have said, ‘You know, this is not a welcoming place, this is not the place that hired me, and I’ll be looking for a job elsewhere.’ ”

Carpenter added that he doesn’t recall any religious art in the classrooms from when he started teaching, in 1990. Hoveyda, the chemistry chair, said the same. He pointed out that much of his job centers around recruiting – faculty, graduate students, even undergraduates. “I can only tell you from my personal experience if I saw the same icon when I interviewed in December 1989, this place would not be under consideration for me. I’ve had several offers to leave. If I knew icons of this type would appear… I most likely would not have made the decision I did [to stay].”

Dan Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.”

Maybe Sdaerji was abused by some priests.

I got in to Boston College, but chose not to attend.

Ok.

Maybe they want to create an unwelcoming environment for non-christians. Maybe those students that weren't catholic and went to Boston College because it's a high quality institute of higher learning despite it's religious roots are no longer welcome there and the school is trying to drive the Unbelievers away.

Their loss.

Maybe they want to create an unwelcoming environment for non-christians. Maybe those students that weren't catholic and went to Boston College because it's a high quality institute of higher learning despite it's religious roots are no longer welcome there and the school is trying to drive the Unbelievers away.

Their loss.

It's also their school.

It's also their school.

yes, it is, I don't see why you wish to keep pointing that out when nobody is disagreeing with you. The question is, whether it's a wise thing for them to do.

BC is considered one of the best schools in the country, one questions whether this activity is necessarily the best. As a highschooler, I considered BC as an option. I wouldn't now.

*sigh*

Read the article people. No one complaining at BC is saying anything about the separation of Church and State. They fully recognize BC is a private college and religous expression is not illegal. They merely question whether it is wise.

Some excerpts from the article (emphasis added):

At Boston College, the placement of Christian art, including crucifixes, in classrooms over winter break has stirred some intense discussions over that particular expression of the Roman Catholic (and catholic) university’s identity. And over whether it’s undergoing an identity crisis.

“A classroom is a place where I am supposed, as a teacher, to teach without any bias, to teach the truth. And when you put an icon or an emblem or a flag, it confuses the matter,” said Amir Hoveyda, the chemistry department chair.

“For 18 years, I taught at a university where I was allowed to teach in an environment where I felt comfortable. And all the sudden, without any discussion, without any warning, without any intellectual debate, literally during the middle of the night during a break, these icons appear,” Hoveyda said.

But Dwayne Eugène Carpenter, chair of the romance languages and literatures department and co-director of the Jewish studies program, said the placement of religious art is in fact divisive. These symbols, he said, are not neutral. “I think it’s naive to believe that affixing crucifixes is going to fan the flames of religious devotion. On the other hand, it can have a negative effect on students” who might see them as creating an unwelcoming environment.

Carpenter, a professor of Hispanic Studies, said the issue was seriously debated in a recent meeting of the college’s department chairs (Boston College lacks a Faculty Senate at this point). He’d like to see an open forum addressing the subject. So far, he said, it’s been addressed mostly in private conversations, of which he’s had many.

“I think there were many people who were upset. But my sense is the majority say, ‘This is a Catholic school; they’re going to do what they’re going to do.’ I would go on the record as saying, ‘It is true. It’s a Jesuit institution and as such it has every right to place images wherever it wants. It’s just that it’s not a very smart thing to do.’ “

“I think it’s in an identity crisis,” Carpenter continued, of Boston College. “At the same time that it wants to proclaim its Catholic identity, it also wants to recruit the best. You can’t recruit the best by placing crucifixes in every classroom. You’re simply going to limit the number of people who will come here. And I’ve already heard of several faculty who have said, ‘You know, this is not a welcoming place, this is not the place that hired me, and I’ll be looking for a job elsewhere.’ ”

Carpenter added that he doesn’t recall any religious art in the classrooms from when he started teaching, in 1990. Hoveyda, the chemistry chair, said the same. He pointed out that much of his job centers around recruiting – faculty, graduate students, even undergraduates. “I can only tell you from my personal experience if I saw the same icon when I interviewed in December 1989, this place would not be under consideration for me. I’ve had several offers to leave. If I knew icons of this type would appear… I most likely would not have made the decision I did [to stay].”

Dan Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.”


don't think anyone is complaining about Church and state and separation and all that... but what I bolded in Red appears to be the basis of some of the faculties complaints. that a Private Catholic School dared to put religious symbols in their classrooms and that will somehow detract from teaching 'the truth'.

i think this is more some of the professors feel they weren't consulted. Professors like to have a big say in their universities.

It's also their school.

Is Boston College considered a good school?

It's also their school.

Yep.

yes, it is, I don't see why you wish to keep pointing that out when nobody is disagreeing with you. The question is, whether it's a wise thing for them to do.

BC is considered one of the best schools in the country, one questions whether this activity is necessarily the best. As a highschooler, I considered BC as an option. I wouldn't now.

Maybe they have plenty of applicants.

don't think anyone is complaining about Church and state and separation and all that... but what I bolded in Red appears to be the basis of some of the faculties complaints. that a Private Catholic School dared to put religious symbols in their classrooms and that will somehow detract from teaching 'the truth'.

I think it may well detract from teaching the truth about chemistry. Some teachers feel a classroom is not the place to fill with symbolism, that it's a place of learning, that a chemistry class is a place of chemistry.

Some professors respect the integrity of the room, shocking...

Is Boston College considered a good school?

Yes. A very good school.

Maybe they have plenty of applicants.

The funny thing about colleges is, they tend to want to get applicants every year, and while they may have plenty to choose from now, unfortunatly, they're going to need to replenish their ranks, sooner or later.

Is Boston College considered a good school?

ranked # 46th in the world.

I think it may well detract from teaching the truth about chemistry. Some teachers feel a classroom is not the place to fill with symbolism, that it's a place of learning, that a chemistry class is a place of chemistry.

Some professors respect the integrity of the room, shocking...

The idea that a non-religious scientist would feel that the truth of science was threatened by the presence of a religious symbol....

well, it makes the scientist look positively insecure about his own beliefs

yes, it is, I don't see why you wish to keep pointing that out when nobody is disagreeing with you. The question is, whether it's a wise thing for them to do.

BC is considered one of the best schools in the country, one questions whether this activity is necessarily the best. As a highschooler, I considered BC as an option. I wouldn't now.

I haven't been to BC in 7 years, since I took a tour as a high school senior, but it seemed then that you couldn't walk 100 yards without seeing some sort of Catholic imagery. There are crosses on everything. I'm just not seeing the outrage when, in my memory at least, the place was already filled with Catholicism. Is the concern really about having the imagery inside the classroom when you can just look out a window and see a cross?

Yes. A very good school.

So would it be fair to say that pissing off the faculty, the people who actually teach the stuff that makes it into a good school, would be a bad idea?

If so, Hotwife has his answer.

I think it may well detract from teaching the truth about chemistry. Some teachers feel a classroom is not the place to fill with symbolism, that it's a place of learning, that a chemistry class is a place of chemistry.

Some professors respect the integrity of the room, shocking...

true, but in a Private Univesity/classroom. who has the say? the teacher or the school?

also, would a crucifix detract from teaching Chemestry?

or History?

or Law?

true, but in a Private Univesity/classroom. who has the say? the teacher or the school?

What's your point, that the school should be allowed to exercise their right to put crosses up, but the faculty shouldn't be allowed to exercise their right to disagree with that decision?

So would it be fair to say that pissing off the faculty, the people who actually teach the stuff that makes it into a good school, would be a bad idea?

If so, Hotwife has his answer.

Well, it's only a bad idea if you want to hold onto the best quality teachers regardless of religious affiliation. It's only a bad idea if you want to attract the largest possible pool of qualified students so you can pick and choose the best of the best. If you're willing to accept anybody that waves a funny looking stick with an action figure nailed to it then It's a pretty good idea. :)

Well, it's only a bad idea if you want to hold onto the best quality teachers regardless of religious affiliation. It's only a bad idea if you want to attract the largest possible pool of qualified students so you can pick and choose the best of the best. If you're willing to accept anybody that waves a funny looking stick with an action figure nailed to it then It's a pretty good idea. :)

Sounds like the requirements of Republican Party Membership circa 2008 Campaign.

true, but in a Private Univesity/classroom. who has the say? the teacher or the school?

also, would a crucifix detract from teaching Chemestry?

or History?

or Law?

Most University/Colleges bring their professors into a sort self government along with regents and private owners.
This is not so much the case right of way as the professors felt they were left out of the decision making process. Or at least not given a chance to voice Their concern, colleges and universities exist to foster debate, and have rules imposed arbitrarily from above normally gets this reaction from professors.

I can only use myself as an example. I considered BC as school to apply to. I’m ok, as Jew, with catholic imagery as part of the decore of the school, lots of those buildings are pretty old. I can deal with that fine. As long as it provides a quality education and doesn’t cross the line into flagrant, I’m OK with it, and I wouldn’t feel like an “outsider” for being there.

However, after this, I could say that were I in the same situation, I would not apply to it today.

What's your point, that the school should be allowed to exercise their right to put crosses up, but the faculty shouldn't be allowed to exercise their right to disagree with that decision?

just questioning if the Teachers have to be consulted as to what is posted in their classrooms in a private university/school. no point being made.

just questioning if the Teachers have to be consulted as to what is posted in their classrooms in a private university/school. no point being made.

well that would depend on the contract they have with the school. Do they HAVE to? I guess not...

just questioning if the Teachers have to be consulted as to what is posted in their classrooms in a private university/school. no point being made.

They don't have to but anytime you do not consult with them expect them to throw a fit.

“A classroom is a place where I am supposed, as a teacher, to teach without any bias, to teach the truth. And when you put an icon or an emblem or a flag, it confuses the matter,”
There is, I grant you an objective truth to chemistry. Even to the hard sciences as a whole, there may be an objective truth.

But the concept of teaching soft sciences or arts without bias is naiive at best. Everyone has a bias. At least some people have the decency to tell you what their bias IS.

It's also their school.

So would it be fair to say that pissing off the faculty, the people who actually teach the stuff that makes it into a good school, would be a bad idea?

If so, Hotwife has his answer.

Yes, he does. These people work at the university, they have a vested interest in the university, and they likely care about the actions it takes. It is people from within "their school" who are expressing concern.

If they had taken down a bunch of religious iconography, and the teachers expressed concern, it would be just as valid. I guess I'm just not sure what the hell Hotwife's point is; this thread could just as easily have been titled "Administrative Decision at Boston College Causes Controversy Among Staff" except, perhaps, it wouldn't be misleading.

If they had taken down a bunch of religious iconography, and the teachers expressed concern, it would be just as valid. I guess I'm just not sure what the hell Hotwife's point is; this thread could just as easily have been titled "Administrative Decision at Boston College Causes Controversy Among Staff" except, perhaps, it wouldn't be misleading.

which, of course, wouldn't make it a DK thread.

Sorry DK I am not seeing the "dirty librawl agenda" in the article. The school did something and the faculty expressed concern.

Sorry DK I am not seeing the "dirty librawl agenda" in the article. The school did something and the faculty expressed concern.

But the faculty are educated, which makes them dirty liberals by default, until proven otherwise by shooting a bear live on national television or some other such nonsense.

Thus your link to the "dirty librawl agenda" is established.

which, of course, wouldn't make it a DK thread.

Hrmmm....makes you wonder what would happen if, say, mods allowed certain posters to edit thread titles even if they didn't post the thread. How many DK threads would keep their same title? Would the changed titles become more representative of their content?

Hrmmm....makes you wonder what would happen if, say, mods allowed certain posters to edit thread titles even if they didn't post the thread. How many DK threads would keep their same title? Would the changed titles become more representative of their content?

I think I should be in charge of renaming threads if necessary. *nod*

Yes, he does. These people work at the university, they have a vested interest in the university, and they likely care about the actions it takes. It is people from within "their school" who are expressing concern.

If they had taken down a bunch of religious iconography, and the teachers expressed concern, it would be just as valid. I guess I'm just not sure what the hell Hotwife's point is; this thread could just as easily have been titled "Administrative Decision at Boston College Causes Controversy Among Staff" except, perhaps, it wouldn't be misleading.

Indeed.

Personally, I think some of the professors are overreacting a bit. BC is a Jesuit school, and Jesuits, like all Catholics, tend to love putting Catholic iconography all over everything. This is not news. The offense here is not, to my mind, excessive Catholic-ness getting everywhere, but rather adding the crucifixes to the classrooms without at least mentioning it to the relevant professors beforehand. It seems fairly tacky and disrespectful to the faculty, and I don't blame them for being a little peeved over it.

I did take particular note of the fact that one of the non-Christian professors quoted seemed quite specifically to object less to the Madonna and Child in his classroom than he would to a crucifix, which suggests that, had the folks responsible for the new crucifixes consulted with the professors, they might well have been able to reach simple compromises with many of them (e.g. "so, we'll hang it in the back of the classroom instead of the front, so it's not hovering right over your head while you lecture" or "so, we'll put up this portrait of St. Francis in your room instead of a crucifix"). That would have seemed to me to be the best solution.

(Well, technically, I suppose, what would seem to me to be the best solution is for BC to tone down the religious imagery a bit, seeing as it's bound to be somewhat offputting to many non-Catholics, but clearly they disagree with me on that point, anyway.)

I think I should be in charge of renaming threads if necessary. *nod*

Hey, as long as the titles are entertaining. I don't lurk these forums to be bored, you know?

To be honest, if I was a professor and they did this, I'd request many more crucifixes (the ones with the actual Jesus on them all bloody and such, not these pansy crucifixes that are really just mutant addition signs). Then I would line them up behind me on the wall while I lecture. I'd use them thusly to emphasize the importance of homework and attendance; should a student piss me off, I would get a stand at about head level with a sitting person and place one of the crucifixes on it with the saddest, bloodiest Jesus I could find. For the rest of the semester that student would have sad, bloody Jesus on the cross staring at him in the face while I lecture.

There is, I grant you an objective truth to chemistry. Even to the hard sciences as a whole, there may be an objective truth.

But the concept of teaching soft sciences or arts without bias is naiive at best. Everyone has a bias. At least some people have the decency to tell you what their bias IS.

Exactly. It is a Catholic school. It has now made a move to emphasise that there may be a Catholic bias in its teachings with those little crucifix reminders. That is refreshingly honest, and something to be praised.

Students worrying about the bias have a mouth which they can use to ask the teacher if there are other views.

Hey, as long as the titles are entertaining. I don't lurk these forums to be bored, you know?

To be honest, if I was a professor and they did this, I'd request many more crucifixes (the ones with the actual Jesus on them all bloody and such, not these pansy crucifixes that are really just mutant addition signs). Then I would line them up behind me on the wall while I lecture. I'd use them thusly to emphasize the importance of homework and attendance; should a student piss me off, I would get a stand at about head level with a sitting person and place one of the crucifixes on it with the saddest, bloodiest Jesus I could find. For the rest of the semester that student would have sad, bloody Jesus on the cross staring at him in the face while I lecture.

I'd probably want a crucifix where the Jesus fires silly string out his mouth. *nod*

If it's a private university, then who gives a shit?

the people who work there, apparently

I'd probably want a crucifix where the Jesus fires silly string out his mouth. *nod*

One would shoot silly string, one would spray bear-mace, one shoots poison tipped arrows and, finally, one shoots bullets. They'd all be mixed in with the rest of the crucifixes so you'd never know which one you got. Could call it Catholic Roulette and, with some motion sensors, it doubles as a kick as anti-burglary system.

"Well, sir, this is where the silly string actually tripped the burglar so he dodged the poison darts and was only wounded by the bullets. However, apparently bear mace and silly string are a flammable combination and the last one, well, you see what happened."

I'd probably want a crucifix where the Jesus fires silly string out his mouth. *nod*

One would shoot silly string, one would spray bear-mace, one shoots poison tipped arrows and, finally, one shoots bullets. They'd all be mixed in with the rest of the crucifixes so you'd never know which one you got. Could call it Catholic Roulette and, with some motion sensors, it doubles as a kick as anti-burglary system.

"Well, sir, this is where the silly string actually tripped the burglar so he dodged the poison darts and was only wounded by the bullets. However, apparently bear mace and silly string are a flammable combination and the last one, well, you see what happened."

And when technology is sufficiently advanced, we can have a crucifix with Jesus that shoots Lazer out of his mouth. BLAAAARRRRRGH!!

And when technology is sufficiently advanced, we can have a crucifix with Jesus that shoots Lazer out of his mouth. BLAAAARRRRRGH!!

I think a crucifix that shoots nails would be nicely ironic.

I think a crucifix that shoots nails would be nicely ironic.

It would be the ultimate accessory for Christian carpenters.

OH MY GOD A CATHOLIC COLLEGE HANGING CRUCIFIXES!?!?!?

HOW DARE THEY FORCE THEIR RELIGION DOWN MY THROAT!!! [/sarcasm]

Also, I am Catholic....

I'd rather Wolfwood's Cross (http://www.pureanimegallery.com/v/trigun/nicholas-d-wolfwood/)

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. -- Leviticus 26:1

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. -- Leviticus 26:1

Meh, the bible has always been more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.

Meh, the bible has always been more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.

Ah, so God likes it when His followers cherrypick the concepts they like and wish to follow, and ignore those that are inconvenient? :tongue:

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. -- Leviticus 26:1

No, it's not. Crucifixes are symbols, not idols. Catholics do not bow down to a crucifix or worship a crucifix, and this argument was kinda old several hundred years ago.

Ah, so God likes it when His followers cherrypick the concepts they like and wish to follow, and ignore those that are inconvenient? :tongue:

He seems to. I've noticed a distinct lack of smiting going on recently. ;)

He seems to. I've noticed a distinct lack of smiting going on recently. ;)

He has failed to inspire fear. A good smiting is in order I say. And he ought to start with me. :D I've always wanted to be smited.

He has failed to inspire fear. A good smiting is in order I say. And he ought to start with me. :D I've always wanted to be smited.

Kinky.

(Isn't it smote? I really hope it is, smote is an awesome word.)

People are surprised? Put up a crucifix, town gets cross.

Yeh, I know, awful joke. But I've got nothing else to do. I was going to spend the day putting up some furniture to store stuff, but the idea was shelved.

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. -- Leviticus 26:1

*sigh* That was the Old Covenant. The busted one.

*sigh* That was the Old Covenant. The busted one.

Ah, so naturally, all the other things found only in the Old Covenant would be similarly "busted".

God needs a better contract lawyer, he can't seem to figure it out the first time.

No, it's not. Crucifixes are symbols, not idols. Catholics do not bow down to a crucifix or worship a crucifix, and this argument was kinda old several hundred years ago.

Surely they are 'graven images', though?

And I've seen Catholics kneel to pray before both images of the crucifix AND images of saints - so you could certainly argue they bow/bend the knee to both.

The argument was old hundreds of years ago. Indeed, it was old before Christians were even invented. And it was specifically forbidden... until some Christians decided it was okay.

Kinky.

(Isn't it smote? I really hope it is, smote is an awesome word.)

Alas, it is "smitten".

I see some of you saying the incredibly incorrect phrase "separation of church and state".
In America, the government and religion have never been separate, and separation of church and state is never mentioned in the Constitution. Ever notice how "under God" is in the pledge of allegiance, "divine providence" is mentioned at least 3 times in the declaration of independence, and EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has been a practicing Christian, with all but one being Protestant? We might as well hang crucifixes in public schools, so I don't see why having them in a private, Catholic school is wrong.

Alas, it is "smitten".

Kry wishes to be "deeply loved" by god?

Good to know I was right on with my "kinky" remark. ;)

The argument was old hundreds of years ago. Indeed, it was old before Christians were even invented. And it was specifically forbidden... until some Christians decided it was okay.

of course, the bible is full of stories of jews taking up worshiping pretty much anything that was suggested to them, so it fits the pattern

I think it may well detract from teaching the truth about chemistry.
How?

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!
Luther beat you by about 500 years.

:P

I see some of you saying the incredibly incorrect phrase "separation of church and state".

In America, the government and religion have never been separate, and separation of church and state is never mentioned in the Constitution. Ever notice how "under God" is in the pledge of allegiance, "divine providence" is mentioned at least 3 times in the declaration of independence, and EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has been a practicing Christian, with all but one being Protestant? We might as well hang crucifixes in public schools, so I don't see why having them in a private, Catholic school is wrong.

Um. Separation of Church and State is irrelevant to this thread, so I'll give you a pass on your absurd and ignorant statements.

But you might want to read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14492380&postcount=80) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14485690&postcount=1).

Kinky.

(Isn't it smote? I really hope it is, smote is an awesome word.)

I thought it was smitten. Describes nicely the agony of caring for someone.

*sigh* That was the Old Covenant. The busted one.

Matthew 5:18

Ah, so God likes it when His followers cherrypick the concepts they like and wish to follow, and ignore those that are inconvenient? :tongue:

Or the Bible was inspired by God by written by humans, meaning there can be flaws and ambiguities.

Besides, which, Jesus himself said that they are basically a set of guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules.

"The greatest Commandment of all is to love God with all your heart and mind. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All that is written in the Law and the Prophets is to this end." That's more a paraphrase than a quote, cuz I'm lazy and don't feel like looking up the actual verse. But if you don't believe me, I will.

Surely they are 'graven images', though?

And I've seen Catholics kneel to pray before both images of the crucifix AND images of saints - so you could certainly argue they bow/bend the knee to both.

The argument was old hundreds of years ago. Indeed, it was old before Christians were even invented. And it was specifically forbidden... until some Christians decided it was okay.
They do not pray TO the images, they use the images to focus their prayers. There is a difference. Muslims kneel in a mosque, right? Are the worshipping the mosque?

Luther beat you by about 500 years.

Well, he's 6 feet under, so he doesn't matter! Besides, this is me talking. :D

I replied twice to this thread, why can't I see them?

EDIT: weird, working now.

They do not pray TO the images, they use the images to focus their prayers. There is a difference. Muslims kneel in a mosque, right? Are the worshipping the mosque?

I think you are implying a parallel where there is none. The Catholic is not kneeling 'in' a statue of a saint of an image of a crucifix - the best you could manage for a parallel would be if you could claim that Mecca is a graven image... which, of course, it isn't. The Mosque isn't actually required for the prayer, any more than the church is required for Christian worship.

Isn't this technically blasphemy? I mean, doesn't the Bible explicitly forbid graven images/idols, which is exactly what these crucifixes are?!

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. -- Leviticus 26:1

My God, it's true!
You know what else bothers me? Transubstantiation. Surely that can't be right. Perhaps we could submit to the Church a list of theses of problems we have with its practices and teachings.

EDIT: Someone beat me to it. Lot's of people actually. *sigh*

I think you are implying a parallel where there is none. The Catholic is not kneeling 'in' a statue of a saint of an image of a crucifix - the best you could manage for a parallel would be if you could claim that Mecca is a graven image... which, of course, it isn't. The Mosque isn't actually required for the prayer, any more than the church is required for Christian worship.
...or any more than a crucifix or statue is required for Christian worship.

...or any more than a crucifix or statue is required for Christian worship.

Not strictly true - Adoration actually requires the cookie on a stick (which some would argue is idolatry, anyway).

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that the mosque and the church aren't equal, though. If Muslims were bowing to saints or graven images in their mosques, you might have a point - but they don't. Catholics do the 'place of fellowship' thing, and then add the graven images in addition.

Surely they are 'graven images', though?

And I've seen Catholics kneel to pray before both images of the crucifix AND images of saints - so you could certainly argue they bow/bend the knee to both.

The argument was old hundreds of years ago. Indeed, it was old before Christians were even invented. And it was specifically forbidden... until some Christians decided it was okay.

Kneeling to pray in front of something is different from kneeling to pray TO something. If you can find me a Catholic who prays, "Our Crucifix, who art on the wall..." you'll have a point. In the meantime, turning this thread into "Catholics aren't really Christians because they disagree with Protestants about how precisely to interpret some parts of the Bible!" is just stupid.

Not strictly true - Adoration actually requires the cookie on a stick (which some would argue is idolatry, anyway).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Adoration:"

Thus far we have spoken of the worship given directly to God as the infinitely perfect Being. It is clear that adoration in this sense can be offered to no finite object. Still, the impulse that leads us to worship God's perfection in itself will move us also to venerate the traces and bestowals of that perfection as it appears conspicuously in saintly men and women. Even to inanimate objects, which for one reason or another strikingly recall the excellence, majesty, love, or mercy of God, we naturally pay some measure of reverence. The goodness which these creatures possess by participation or association is a reflection of God's goodness; by honouring them in the proper way we offer tribute to the Giver of all good. He is the ultimate end of our worship in such cases as He is the source of the derived perfection which called it forth. But, as was intimated above, whenever the immediate object of our veneration is a creature of this sort, the mode of worship which we exhibit towards it is fundamentally different from the worship which belongs to God alone.
The final goal for all prayers, in other words, is God.
Now, you may be thinking that in that case the idols from Scripture are sort of a strawman argument, because no one ever worshiped as divine a tree or stat; there was always some deity connected with the tree or statue. That may be true; I don't know enough about ancient religions to say for certain.

I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest that the mosque and the church aren't equal, though.
Hmm? I didn't think I was suggesting that. I certainly didn't mean to, sorry if I did.

If Muslims were bowing to saints or graven images in their mosques, you might have a point - but they don't. Catholics do the 'place of fellowship' thing, and then add the graven images in addition.
Yes, Muslims have a much different interpretation of "graven images" than most Christians. (As one would expect, both being two different religions.) There's not reason to prefer one over the other, unless one is Christian or Muslim.

EDIT: Small disclaimer. Most of the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1907, making it not always the most reliable of sources about what modern Catholics believe. This article fits with what I've heard, though.

Kneeling to pray in front of something is different from kneeling to pray TO something. If you can find me a Catholic who prays, "Our Crucifix, who art on the wall..." you'll have a point. In the meantime, turning this thread into "Catholics aren't really Christians because they disagree with Protestants about how precisely to interpret some parts of the Bible!" is just stupid.

Okay. And I'll let you know if I intend to start doing that.

My argument isn't that they're not Christian - it's about failure to follow the idolatry commandment.

I happen to think that Catholics are the only Christian group that has transubstantiation (as someone else mentioned) right, but I also happen to think they have the idolatry thing wrong.

Well, he's 6 feet under, so he doesn't matter! Besides, this is me talking. :D
*nails theses to Kyro's door*

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Adoration:"

The final goal for all prayers, in other words, is God.
Now, you may be thinking that in that case the idols from Scripture are sort of a strawman argument, because no one ever worshiped as divine a tree or stat; there was always some deity connected with the tree or statue. That may be true; I don't know enough about ancient religions to say for certain.

Hmm? I didn't think I was suggesting that. I certainly didn't mean to, sorry if I did.

Yes, Muslims have a much different interpretation of "graven images" than most Christians. (As one would expect, both being two different religions.) There's not reason to prefer one over the other, unless one is Christian or Muslim.

EDIT: Small disclaimer. Most of the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1907, making it not always the most reliable of sources about what modern Catholics believe. This article fits with what I've heard, though.

The Old Testament doesn't allow even for creation of images of Jehovah god, because ANY image is an artifice, and therefore renders the worship idolatry. Kneeling to the crucifx or Adoration would be equally frowned upon by strict interpretation of the Old Testament, no matter what excuses or rationalisation were made.

indeed, the whole bit you quoted about: "...the impulse that leads us to worship God's perfection in itself will move us also to venerate the traces and bestowals of that perfection as it appears conspicuously in saintly men and women..." is pretty much core to the idolatry commandment.

If it's a private university, then who gives a shit?Evidently, some professors and some students (several friends of mine say they now feel uncomfortable and wish they had chosen BU afterall. HA. Eat it, BC.)

Is Boston College considered a good school?
Very good. Top 50 in the world good.
I can only use myself as an example. I considered BC as school to apply to. I’m ok, as Jew, with catholic imagery as part of the decore of the school, lots of those buildings are pretty old. I can deal with that fine. As long as it provides a quality education and doesn’t cross the line into flagrant, I’m OK with it, and I wouldn’t feel like an “outsider” for being there.

However, after this, I could say that were I in the same situation, I would not apply to it today.
I felt uncomforable my entire time there, and still hate to go on their campus to see friends...the entire place feels like a giant church (for those who don't know the campus, this is a main building:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gassonsummer.jpg/439px-Gassonsummer.jpg
...bit too much for me)

While I did apply there and get in, it was always a back up to BU (reverse of the standard) in no small part because of how much Catholicism there is at every turn. This isn't to say they don't have good reason to be proud of it (BC was founded because Harvard wouldn't accept Catholics, and it is now a top university in itself...even if it should be called Newton University instead of Boston College...)

even if it should be called Newton University instead of Boston College...)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Hey, I'm a BU kid. Battle for the Green Line and all that. You ever want someone to make fun of BC, you have the right guy.

Besides, BU is rapidly catching up to BC in the rankings.

*nails theses to Kyro's door*

Ooooo! Kindling! Thanks! :D

Ooooo! Kindling! Thanks! :D
Don't make me get all Calvinist on yo' ass!

*sigh*

Dan Kirschner, a professor of biology and the faculty adviser for Boston College’s chapter of Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, said he can see it both ways. “On the one hand, BC wants to be all-inclusive. On the other hand, they do things like this to make people feel not included. On the other hand, it is a Catholic university.”

That's three hands. Either Dan's a mutant or utterly fails at maths.
He is a biology professor so either (or both) could be true.

It's as though some people woke up this morning, "gosh, I didn't realize that I had been a professor at a Catholic college for 15 years, and I had no idea my boss was a Jesuit priest..."
"mmm...that would explain his love of black clothing then."

Don't make me get all Calvinist on yo' ass!

Don'tcha mean "Lutheran"? :p

That's three hands. Either Dan's a mutant or utterly fails at maths.
He is a biology professor so either (or both) could be true.



he is a biology professor he has obviously grafted himself an extra arm or two.

Don'tcha mean "Lutheran"? :p
I'm stepping it up a notch.

I come from a long line of dour Scottish Calvinists. My po-face will destory all.

There are two possibilities, IMO:

1) The person or persons who decided to hang said crucifixes knew that they would bother a bunch of people, and decided to do it anyway. This would mean that the crucifix-hanger(s) are basically putting their personal need to get attention first, and the community of their college second.
2) The person or persons who decided to hang said crucifixes was actually stupid enough to think that it wouldn't be an issue to hang said crucifixes. This would mean that those individuals are so pig-ignorant they definitely should not be put in charge of anything more serious than selecting their own socks in the morning.

Either way, it's just another stupid "LOOKIT ME" stunt by religious folks who can't stand the idea of other people not noticing their Gawd.

I'm stepping it up a notch.

I come from a long line of dour Scottish Calvinists. My po-face will destory all.

My previous recollections fade... everything I knew dissolves around me...

Halp! Halp! I'm being destory-ed!

I'm stepping it up a notch.

I come from a long line of dour Scottish Calvinists. My po-face will destory all.
The phrase, "you're doomed!" in a strong, elderly Glaswegian accent suddenly springs to mind.

The phrase, "you're doomed!" in a strong, elderly Glaswegian accent suddenly springs to mind.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_02/frazerDM1112_228x374.jpg