(05-24-2013 06:18 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:58 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

Considering that Appalachian State is Over 3,000 feet higher, you must be talking about something other than altitude.
Additionally some of the mountain peaks near Boone are the highest East of the Rockies. That's one reason there are so
many ski slopes around App State.

Surprised the MAC has not grabbed Liberty up already.

Why? If you think Liberty does not fit with the Sun Belt how would it fit with the MAC?

If the MAC wanted to expand it would go for many of the same institutions that the Sun Belt wants such as JMU, Missouri State, or Delaware.

Lastly everybody if you have ever been you would know that Ohio U is the "highest" school east of the Rockies.

I stand by my statement that the U of Vermont is the highest school this side of Boulder.

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

(05-24-2013 08:33 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

you've never been to Morgantown have you?

WVU is #2 (#3 overall)

(05-24-2013 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:18 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:58 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If the MAC needs another member and likes Liberty University, why not take them into the conference right away.

I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

Considering that Appalachian State is Over 3,000 feet higher, you must be talking about something other than altitude.
Additionally some of the mountain peaks near Boone are the highest East of the Rockies. That's one reason there are so
many ski slopes around App State.

Surprised the MAC has not grabbed Liberty up already.

Why? If you think Liberty does not fit with the Sun Belt how would it fit with the MAC?

If the MAC wanted to expand it would go for many of the same institutions that the Sun Belt wants such as JMU, Missouri State, or Delaware.

Lastly everybody if you have ever been you would know that Ohio U is the "highest" school east of the Rockies.

I stand by my statement that the U of Vermont is the highest school this side of Boulder.

Boone is more than 3000 feet higher than Burlington.

(05-24-2013 09:44 PM)hapapp Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:18 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:58 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm not sure that's the case, but if it was the case, then I would imagine that they would.


Btw, I think that the U of Vermont is the highest university east of the Rockies

Considering that Appalachian State is Over 3,000 feet higher, you must be talking about something other than altitude.
Additionally some of the mountain peaks near Boone are the highest East of the Rockies. That's one reason there are so
many ski slopes around App State.

Surprised the MAC has not grabbed Liberty up already.

Why? If you think Liberty does not fit with the Sun Belt how would it fit with the MAC?

If the MAC wanted to expand it would go for many of the same institutions that the Sun Belt wants such as JMU, Missouri State, or Delaware.

Lastly everybody if you have ever been you would know that Ohio U is the "highest" school east of the Rockies.

I stand by my statement that the U of Vermont is the highest school this side of Boulder.

Boone is more than 3000 feet higher than Burlington.

(05-24-2013 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 05:19 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

A bill currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, which was written and originally promoted by US evangelicals through their Ugandan allies, demands the death penalty for being Gay and up to 10 years in prison for being Gay or supporting Gay anything (even if one is straight). Liberty University's Law School Dean, Mat Staver, is involved in sustaining the advocates of that legislation. As the US advocates of the Ugandan legislation 'now' (after they were called out on it by liberals) say that they don't support the death penalty, I'll just leave my accusation at some US evangelicals, supported by Liberty University's administration, advocate legislation to jail all Gay persons for the crime of existing. The law as current written is actually WORSE than just jailing all Gays.

I brought it up as advocates of Liberty's inclusion in the Sun Belt opine that it is 'religious bigotry' that is behind the Belt telling Liberty 'no thanks'. I'd like to point out the Liberty University is involved in the sustanance of the complete and total abrogation of any freedom of speech, petition, religion, association, expression, press, and due process at the same time.

Ok but what's so wrong with the name Gay that Uganda would want to kill or lock up all the Gays? And what's it got to do with religion. I can't imagine there are many Gays in Uganda. Gays aren't common in the US and I'm sure they are less common in Uganda given the language. If its anything like in the states, all the Gays are old women. The one Gay I know is a sweet 60 year old woman who wouldn't hurt a fly, I can't imagine any government targeting people like that.

(05-24-2013 09:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:44 PM)hapapp Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:25 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:18 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:58 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Considering that Appalachian State is Over 3,000 feet higher, you must be talking about something other than altitude.
Additionally some of the mountain peaks near Boone are the highest East of the Rockies. That's one reason there are so
many ski slopes around App State.

Surprised the MAC has not grabbed Liberty up already.

Why? If you think Liberty does not fit with the Sun Belt how would it fit with the MAC?

If the MAC wanted to expand it would go for many of the same institutions that the Sun Belt wants such as JMU, Missouri State, or Delaware.

Lastly everybody if you have ever been you would know that Ohio U is the "highest" school east of the Rockies.

I stand by my statement that the U of Vermont is the highest school this side of Boulder.

Boone is more than 3000 feet higher than Burlington.

If you meant this you should have said so. So you are referencing the "highest" schools?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27...34387.html

(05-24-2013 09:48 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 05:19 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 11:24 AM)MU88 Wrote:  I don't believe in many of the beliefs that Liberty supports. But, they should be free to express them without discrimination. However, while you spout off about as being for free speech and anti-discrimination, your views are are clearly discriminatory towards Liberty and their beliefs. That's the problem with most free speech advocates, they only support free speech if agrees with their point of view. Say something anti-Islam and you are a bigot. Say something anti-Christian or Mormon and no one pays attention. We can have anti-Mormon or Catholic plays on Broadway and they are critically acclaimed. Imagine the reaction from an anti-Islam play? Would you be just as accepting or would you find it offensive?

The criteria for admitting Liberty or any other school in a conference should depend on whether their athletic department is a good fit for the conference. If their Christian beliefs, e.g. not playing on Sunday, renders the school incompatible, so be it. But to advocate rejecting a school simply because their administration maintains certain religious beliefs that conflict with your accepted view of what Christians should believe, in my opinion, also conflicts with beliefs you are advocating on so many levels.

The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

A bill currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, which was written and originally promoted by US evangelicals through their Ugandan allies, demands the death penalty for being Gay and up to 10 years in prison for being Gay or supporting Gay anything (even if one is straight). Liberty University's Law School Dean, Mat Staver, is involved in sustaining the advocates of that legislation. As the US advocates of the Ugandan legislation 'now' (after they were called out on it by liberals) say that they don't support the death penalty, I'll just leave my accusation at some US evangelicals, supported by Liberty University's administration, advocate legislation to jail all Gay persons for the crime of existing. The law as current written is actually WORSE than just jailing all Gays.

I brought it up as advocates of Liberty's inclusion in the Sun Belt opine that it is 'religious bigotry' that is behind the Belt telling Liberty 'no thanks'. I'd like to point out the Liberty University is involved in the sustanance of the complete and total abrogation of any freedom of speech, petition, religion, association, expression, press, and due process at the same time.

Ok but what's so wrong with the name Gay that Uganda would want to kill or lock up all the Gays? And what's it got to do with religion.[?] I can't imagine there are many Gays in Uganda. Gays aren't common in the US and I'm sure they are less common in Uganda given the language. If its anything like in the states, all the Gays are old women. The one Gay I know is a sweet 60 year old woman who wouldn't hurt a fly, I can't imagine any government targeting people like that.

Homosexuality does not have to conflict with religion, but people use the latter to rationalize persecution against gays. There are probably fewer homosexuals because the total population is smaller and there is a stronger taboo against being openly gay. But, what evidence confirms Uganda should have a smaller percentage of gays?

(05-24-2013 11:18 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:48 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 05:19 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The Sun Belt does not discriminate against fundamenatalists, who contribute to each member institution as students, faculty, staff, alumni, athletes, and fans. The Belt is well within their rights (morally, ethically, and legally) to demand that any institution in their private association (See Dale v Boy Scouts) not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation (Liberty does discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation).

I'm a bit confused. Liberty doesn't hire persons of certain religious traditions or Gay persons in their non-theological hiring. The Sun Belt doesn't extend a bid to Liberty, possibly due to Liberty's discriminatory practices. Exactly, how is Liberty the victim?

Liberty has a right to its own free speech and its own discriminatory policies. It does not have a right to escape consequences for its abuse of those rights.

Liberty's advocacy of human rights abuses go well beyond a generic opposition to Gay rights or marriage equality. The Dean of their Law School (a member of the leadership of the school) engages in extremely questionable rhetoric/actions (calling a pro-life GOP Senator a cockroach on national radio for disagreing with him on marriage equality and defending a proponent of jailing all Gay persons in Uganda - and thats just in the last couple of weeks). This behavior is ongoing and is apparently condoned by the leadership of the institution. Liberty today is much worse than Oral Roberts or even Bob Jones.

Beyond the discrimination issues, Liberty's mission isn't to compete at the highest levels of sport for purely competitive purposes. Its to evangelize and advocate for discrimination and conservative political causes. Their motto isn't "Champions", its "Champions for Christ" (using a very limited message IMHO). And its more than a slogan at Liberty. They really aren't looking to join the Belt to just play football, but rather to use the conference I've called home for almost 40 years to promote an agenda unrelated to athletic excellence. They aren't a fit with public institutions that look for the most talented students, alumni, staff, faculty, and athletes.

I suggest that Liberty find a conference where they DO fit in. The Sun Belt isn't a fit for them. I certainly wouldn't feel welcome at an away game at an institution where the school's leadership defends people advocating jailing all Gay persons for the crime of existing.

So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

A bill currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, which was written and originally promoted by US evangelicals through their Ugandan allies, demands the death penalty for being Gay and up to 10 years in prison for being Gay or supporting Gay anything (even if one is straight). Liberty University's Law School Dean, Mat Staver, is involved in sustaining the advocates of that legislation. As the US advocates of the Ugandan legislation 'now' (after they were called out on it by liberals) say that they don't support the death penalty, I'll just leave my accusation at some US evangelicals, supported by Liberty University's administration, advocate legislation to jail all Gay persons for the crime of existing. The law as current written is actually WORSE than just jailing all Gays.

I brought it up as advocates of Liberty's inclusion in the Sun Belt opine that it is 'religious bigotry' that is behind the Belt telling Liberty 'no thanks'. I'd like to point out the Liberty University is involved in the sustanance of the complete and total abrogation of any freedom of speech, petition, religion, association, expression, press, and due process at the same time.

Ok but what's so wrong with the name Gay that Uganda would want to kill or lock up all the Gays? And what's it got to do with religion.[?] I can't imagine there are many Gays in Uganda. Gays aren't common in the US and I'm sure they are less common in Uganda given the language. If its anything like in the states, all the Gays are old women. The one Gay I know is a sweet 60 year old woman who wouldn't hurt a fly, I can't imagine any government targeting people like that.

Homosexuality does not have to conflict with religion, but people use the latter to rationalize persecution against gays. There are probably fewer homosexuals because the total population is smaller and there is a stronger taboo against being openly gay. But, what evidence confirms Uganda should have a smaller percentage of gays?

Look, I was making a joke about Tom always capitalizing gay in his many Liberty-related posts as if its a proper noun - which it can be. As I said in the prior post, I know an old lady named Gay. But in his case, it is not.

(05-25-2013 06:59 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 11:18 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:48 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 05:19 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  So is Uganda jailing all persons named Gay?

A bill currently pending in the Ugandan legislature, which was written and originally promoted by US evangelicals through their Ugandan allies, demands the death penalty for being Gay and up to 10 years in prison for being Gay or supporting Gay anything (even if one is straight). Liberty University's Law School Dean, Mat Staver, is involved in sustaining the advocates of that legislation. As the US advocates of the Ugandan legislation 'now' (after they were called out on it by liberals) say that they don't support the death penalty, I'll just leave my accusation at some US evangelicals, supported by Liberty University's administration, advocate legislation to jail all Gay persons for the crime of existing. The law as current written is actually WORSE than just jailing all Gays.

I brought it up as advocates of Liberty's inclusion in the Sun Belt opine that it is 'religious bigotry' that is behind the Belt telling Liberty 'no thanks'. I'd like to point out the Liberty University is involved in the sustanance of the complete and total abrogation of any freedom of speech, petition, religion, association, expression, press, and due process at the same time.

Ok but what's so wrong with the name Gay that Uganda would want to kill or lock up all the Gays? And what's it got to do with religion.[?] I can't imagine there are many Gays in Uganda. Gays aren't common in the US and I'm sure they are less common in Uganda given the language. If its anything like in the states, all the Gays are old women. The one Gay I know is a sweet 60 year old woman who wouldn't hurt a fly, I can't imagine any government targeting people like that.

Homosexuality does not have to conflict with religion, but people use the latter to rationalize persecution against gays. There are probably fewer homosexuals because the total population is smaller and there is a stronger taboo against being openly gay. But, what evidence confirms Uganda should have a smaller percentage of gays?

Look, I was making a joke about Tom always capitalizing gay in his many Liberty-related posts as if its a proper noun - which it can be. As I said in the prior post, I know an old lady named Gay. But in his case, it is not.

Lol

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

GB is right. Evolution has scientific evidence to back it up. Creationism doesn't. It only has the faith of its adherents. There's the difference between the 2 theories. Creationism is early man's attempt to explain something they didn't have the knowledge or intelligence to understand...

(05-25-2013 09:03 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

GB is right. Evolution has scientific evidence to back it up. Creationism doesn't. It only has the faith of its adherents. There's the difference between the 2 theories. Creationism is early man's attempt to explain something they didn't have the knowledge or intelligence to understand...

If you go back to the period of the Scopes monkey trial, fundamentalists of that era mostly conceded the earth was millions of years old and the universe in the billions.

William Jennings Bryan who represented the state to uphold the ban on teaching evolution conceded those points because they were widely accepted.

Young Earth Creationism fifty years ago was fringe doctrine not widely accepted among Christians.

Liberty per what I've read, requires faculty members to affirm that they believe in Young Earth Creation.

Evolution is a theory but based on scientific evidence, no one has come up with a better theory that fits the evidence. The evidence for a young earth creation just isn't there.

If you argue creation on the timeline of millions and billions of years, science has little to refute it.

(05-25-2013 09:03 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

GB is right. Evolution has scientific evidence to back it up. Creationism doesn't. It only has the faith of its adherents. There's the difference between the 2 theories. Creationism is early man's attempt to explain something they didn't have the knowledge or intelligence to understand...

It is about how rigorous the testing has been. Evolution has been tested constantly and ironically has evolved over time to deal with this testing. It is among the more tested theories out there and therefor has a lot of respect from the academic community. People forget that in being a true theory this long is a mark of something great as most don't last this long and very few (painfully few) theories go on as anything else because our ability to understand rarely lets us do so. For instance how gravity works is a theory.

Creationism has not been through such rigor. It is also very difficult to test because you have to draft experiments to prove not just that something happened but that it occurred due to the actions of a being that may or may not exist. So instead of confirming the theory what we get are stuff like 'look at how similar these things are" (which evolution can explain) and stuff like "the chances of this occurring are so low that an outside being must have had a hand in it" which does not prove anything and forgets that due to the length of time in the time frame given even low percentage things actually can occur.

This also can contrast with the people think that a god created evolution as the way to create the world (which is what many scientists that are religious do). For instance if you are Christian and are a scientist you don't have to dismiss the old Big Bang Theory. That theory is just the scientific way of explaining God saying "Let there be light" just from a different point of view.

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

so conversely, I assume you support inviting scientists into Sunday School classes to give their take on stories like Noah's Ark and Jonah and the Whale?

can I also assume you support theories from other religions, say Islam, being taught to your child in his or her's science class as well?

(05-25-2013 03:58 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

so conversely, I assume you support inviting scientists into Sunday School classes to give their take on stories like Noah's Ark and Jonah and the Whale?

can I also assume you support theories from other religions, say Islam, being taught to your child in his or her's science class as well?

University level classes I have attended did examine the religion/ science relationship as it exists in at least 3 of the major religions. However there is a problem. There are infinite degree's of interpretation concerning religious scripture. Many believers of Christianity, Judaism and Islam hold positions in between the two extremes (while also holding a belief in the inerrant nature of their scriptures). I am an example of this position. One should not indicate that all fundamentalists cannot make accommodate science. I see little conflict between the actual tenants of Christianity and actual scientific evidence. While I believe the Bible is true, I may not be interpreting it correctly. The Bible leaves quite a bit of room for natural selection. Most conflict between religion and science is man made, IMO.

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Tom get a life you Libtard

Well I doubt anyone has changed anybody's opinion about anything in anyway at any time with this thread. The creationist still believe, and they are not hired nor fired nor promoted nor demoted because of what they believe about creation. And the evolutionist are still non-believers that are not hired nor fired, nor promoted nor demoted because of what they believe about creation. The question is does the individual add value to the organization. And (presently) that is why I don't want any team from the SBC added to C-USA; they add no value.

If I thought any SBC team added value to C-USA I would want them. If Liberty added value to C-USA I would want them. If BYU added value to C-USA I would want them. If Sandhills Community College added value to C-USA I would want them. The ACC was adamant that they did not want Louisville (but they were intelligent enough to swallow their pride when Louisville became the best solution). Could (and I am making no assumptions) the SBC do the same with Liberty if they became their best solution?

(05-26-2013 04:06 AM)liberty1959 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:12 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its obvious at this point that there is significant opposition to Liberty's inclusion by the existing members of the Sun Belt Conference. The opposition is likely related to the following:

1) Liberty's actions. They discriminate in employment against persons on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. They may have a legal right to do so, but that doesn't mean that the institutions of the Belt have to sustain such discrimination by providing Liberty with a benefit as they continue to discriminate. The school continues to retain, at very high levels within the institution (including the Dean of the Liberty University Law School), persons that engage in advocacy and rhetoric considered to be deeply offensive to wide segments of the American population and that does not comport with any IMHO mainstream understanding of Christianity.

2) Liberty's reputation. Heavily influenced by Liberty actions, as well as Liberty's long (and continuing) history of unconventional statements and academic practices, has caused Liberty to have a richly earned reputation for bigotry and bizzare academics. Liberty's reputation is so toxic that their inclusion in the Belt today would likely cause other potential members of the Belt to run for the hills. In other words, if the Belt let Liberty in, very few schools would ever join us in the future, thus eliminating candidates for future expansion (which the Belt may need in the future).

The fact that Liberty is outside the normal footprint is apparently less of a concern (they took Idaho). As is Liberty's poor record in FCS (they looked at everyone else in FCS). Really, it comes down to a fit issue. Liberty doesn't fit in the Sun Belt due to Liberty's actions, rhetoric, policies, and institutional organization (private school and dynastic leadership).

Not all members of the Liberty community support the continuing actions of the administration. However, the Belt has to look at the leadership of the school, which appears to be fully committed to furthering Liberty's richly deserved reputation for discrimination, human rights abuse advocacy/defense, adherence to unconventional academic standards, and extremely offensive rhetoric.

Tom get a life you Libtard

so discriminating against people in the name of religion is not being intolerant, but pointing it out is? ok.

I don't think this thread was intended to do anything but discuss the possibility of Liberty going to the Sunbelt. There is both an abundance of ignorance and truth on both sides of the creation versus evolution debate. For those who wish to discuss that go to the Spin Room and continue your debate there. That is after all the appropriate space for such. Those who wish to discuss the merits of Liberty's realignment value, pro or con, for the Sunbelt may do so here. Let's just keep the threads and arguments in their allotted and appropriate locations. Thanks.

(05-24-2013 09:27 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:16 PM)indydoug Wrote:  

(05-23-2013 11:48 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They'll get an invite when they become a real academic institution. As long as they continue to "teach" creationism, they'll be left behind.

Creationism like evolution are theories. Both should be taught at all universities

Creationism is not derived from science. It belongs only in religion courses and cultural studies.

There is plenty of science to back up the Biblical creation. Just because a theory is "scientific" doesn't make it true by the way.