(10-06-2013 08:56 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: (10-06-2013 12:22 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: (10-05-2013 10:05 PM)CardFan1 Wrote: Well I might change My take on Baylor after tonight.
Brand new stadium that is going to be bad ass. Strong basketball program and one of the strongest offenses in the game.
Been wondering why folks have been so down on the idea of taking Baylor along with Texas.
The problem with Baylor is:
1. Association with the Baptist Church, and
2. Ken Starr of Monika Lewinsky, Bill Clinton witch hunt fame.
Some University presidents don't like that at all. For example, Wake Forest has been independent of the NC Baptist Convention for just 2 decades. Religion is an issue at Baylor, BYU, and ND.
Think about what you are saying here. There is not a conference in the U.S. that would turn down Notre Dame. The real issue with Baylor is not their religious association as much as it is the political vendetta against Starr. And B.Y.U. is the only one of the three that restricts academic freedom. Baylor just doesn't like dances, but from what I've seen this generation can't dance anyway.
The U.S. is screwed up if it has intolerant academicians, but allows a sheltered religion to operate inside our borders which takes our citizens and recruits them to a life of fundamentalism including terrorist acts abroad. We either treat all religions the same, that is accept them and hold them accountable to tolerance and peaceful coexistence with those who don't agree with them, or we continue to practice which religions we as a society will target and disdain. The former is constitutional and represents freedom at its finest. The latter is the act of an intolerant state and not that of a constitutional republic.
If a religion at its core of beliefs encourages its participants to not be tolerant of fellow citizens who believe differently, or encourages its adherents to acts of violence either against our citizens or against those of another sovereign nation then that is the religion that should be prohibited by our government. And as far as the hypocrisy of academicians goes, they seem to clamor for the tuition that comes from abroad to train those who are intolerant in areas of expertise which facilitate their potential worth as terrorists by teaching them chemistry, biology, engineering, pharmacy, and even criminology. I doubt seriously that Baptists become more dangerous to society by learning those disciplines. When a Baptist or Mormon refuses to accept the principles of Darwin it doesn't make them potentially lethal, just ignorant.
And regardless of the politics of the man, had any other executive of any corporation had sex with a much younger temp on corporate grounds it would be fair to say that he was in abuse of his power, and if the feminists had an ounce of integrity they would have been all over Clinton about that singular issue which is so near and dear to their hearts. Republicans and Democrats put on moral, and justice issues, blinders when events involving their party cross the lines. So all their yammering, even over Starr, is just so many crocodile tears.
Remember Baptists are an easy minority to pick on in part because they have no internal unity, Mormons ride bicycles and therefore must not burn enough gasoline to suit BP and Exxon, and the Vatican has its own banking system and won't agree with the feminists on abortion. Muslims have oil and money and participate heavily in investments here and in the IMF. And, Wall Street bankers don't like anyone who has their own bank and doesn't invest with them. So when a consortium of university presidents are against these three schools it is likely due to their allegiances to those corporations that support their respective institutions and to the government from whence grants come. That is why these three schools are ridiculed by the establishment. It has little to do with religion. And yes, I'm trying out a little humor here, but just a little.
/
Texas Dodds to retire tomorrow
RE: Texas Dodds to retire tomorrow 
