For you it isn't the point. For me, it's the entire point. If they had Div I programs that would enhance C-USA revenue and competitiveness, then sign 'em up. I would be worried about one thing: would their baseball teams drag down Rice's RPI?

(04-23-2015 09:38 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:04 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:10 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I'd like to hear more about what you think goes on in a religious studies class. And how that in any way relates to the tentpole of Liberty's curriculum, whose sole goal is to prepare students to argue against evolution and in favor of the idea that the earth is a few thousand years old.

Also interested to know how far your tolerance extends -- what would you think of Rice University entering into conference with, say, the College of Metaphysical Studies and the Kepler College of Astrophysical Arts and Sciences?

I found information on a Kepler College of Astrological Arts and Sciences. Is that what you meant? As best as I could determine, neither of these institutions has an athletic program.

JOwl was obviously still thinking about the term "metaphysical" when he typed "astrophysical" instead of "astrological." Really, that didn't need to be pointed out (unless you were trying to clarify his point for an even larger audience, which you did).

As for either of those institutions having an athletic program, that... isn't the point.

(04-23-2015 07:07 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  As a Christian in Virginia I'm pretty familiar with Liberty. I see little to no difference in them and Baylor.

You're not looking very hard.

Liberty is probably at the far right of a spectrum of religious schools that play college athletics at a high level. The debate is where to draw the line on that spectrum between those we are willing to be associated with and those we aren't, and why. But all religiously associated schools are on that spectrum, and in that sense, they are the same.

Why do we need to draw lines?

(04-23-2015 10:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Why do we need to draw lines?

Good question. I don't draw the line on them because of their politics/religion, but because of their athletics level and reputation.

We play a lot of schools who espouse a philosophy with which I don't agree, even aspire to be like some of them.

(04-23-2015 09:38 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:04 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 12:10 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Also interested to know how far your tolerance extends -- what would you think of Rice University entering into conference with, say, the College of Metaphysical Studies and the Kepler College of Astrophysical Arts and Sciences?

I found information on a Kepler College of Astrological Arts and Sciences. Is that what you meant? As best as I could determine, neither of these institutions has an athletic program.

JOwl was obviously still thinking about the term "metaphysical" when he typed "astrophysical" instead of "astrological." Really, that didn't need to be pointed out (unless you were trying to clarify his question for an even larger audience, which you did).

As for either of those institutions having an athletic program, that... isn't the point.

But to be off-point on the non-point, here's an interesting fact: the former Life Chiropractic College has had an athletic program for years and in particular has been one of the dominant rugby programs in the nation. It is now called Life University and offers a handful of undergraduate degrees, but it is still chiefly a chiropractic college.

To be clear, I'm not equating chiropractic with astrology. I just thought it was an interesting example of a non-typical, narrowly focused school that happens to be extremely successful in at least one sport.

A chiropractic school that promotes the sport of rugby - that's a pretty clever business model.

Not taking sides in this argument. Just posing a rhetorical question.
Liberty has slowly but surely improved in athletics. From a marginal athletic program to one that is now being mentioned as a new CUSA member. It's not P5. But it's a big improvement over the years. They obviuosly recognize the value of increasing their athletic profile. And they've spent some dough doing it.
So, if they go all in. Get a high profile coach. Win a bunch of games. Get a lot more national attention. Pack some stadiums. Get TV attention ... And it's in our athletic interest to schedule them... In whatever sport.... Will we refuse?

Everything else aside, I'd be really shocked if we added Liberty.

I suspect we'll be at 13 for a while.

(04-23-2015 12:10 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Well I guess we should shut down all religious studies classes at Rice as well?

I stand by my original post on the subject. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions just like those at the schools you belittle. But your intolerance for beliefs and opinions different than yours is sad.

Peace.

I'd like to hear more about what you think goes on in a religious studies class. And how that in any way relates to the tentpole of Liberty's curriculum, whose sole goal is to prepare students to argue against evolution and in favor of the idea that the earth is a few thousand years old.

Also interested to know how far your tolerance extends -- what would you think of Rice University entering into conference with, say, the College of Metaphysical Studies and the Kepler College of Astrophysical Arts and Sciences?

From my experience in actually taking several religious studies classes at Rice, I can say say that what goes on is education. Isn't that the purpose of any institution of higher learning?

The two such classes I remember best were 1) a overview of religions of the modern world - my first exposure to many religions including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and others - I didn't agree with everything I heard, but certainly had a better understanding than going in, i.e., I learned; and 2) history of the synoptic gospels, one of my favorite non-major courses at Rice, primarily because it was so well taught (thank-you Dr. Kelber).

I don't have a clue how my experience relate to Liberty's "tentpoles" and could care less. All I know is I won't condemn them or belittle them for what they believe, as Liberty University has never done anything to hurt me or mine and no one is forced to attend.

As far as the others you mentioned and the extent of my tolerance, I never heard of them, but as far as I'm concerned, they are free to teach whatever they want. If someone wants to pay to learn about whatever they teach, why should I care. No one is forcing me or you to attend those schools or believe as they do.

BTW - Just to put things in perspective, I graduated from Rice with a BS in Chemical Engineering and have been in industry for 38 years, so I'm definitely not anti-science. I'm also not into putting down those who think differently than I do. I don't have to agree with them, but I will defend their right to believe as they choose as long as their beliefs are not causing physical harm to others (I'm not talking hurt feelings or sensibilities. Grow a pair or put on your big girl panties and get over it.)

(04-23-2015 09:38 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  JOwl was obviously still thinking about the term "metaphysical" when he typed "astrophysical" instead of "astrological." Really, that didn't need to be pointed out (unless you were trying to clarify his question for an even larger audience, which you did).

As someone who went through the Space Physics and Astronomy program (as an undergrad) at Rice, yes, that absolutely did need to be pointed out.

(04-23-2015 08:01 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 07:07 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 05:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There are other reasons we don't want Libery as compared or other universities with some sort of religious denomination, and that is that all of the other universities we have discussed here, as far as I know, do not compromise their role as educators by actively teaching anti-intellectual material, or intentionally trying to basically silence or removing certai political ideologies from campus (read a bit about Liberty's decision regarding the Democratic Club). Liberty does not teach its students to be open minded and think critically, it more or less uses its position to reinforce its dogma. Maybe you can point to another major university that is so set about being set in its way, but so far I don't know of any other worthwhile university which has such a different public mission.

As a Christian in Virginia I'm pretty familiar with Liberty. I see little to no difference in them and Baylor. Some of the naysayers would like to boot Baylor back to FCS as well.

"other universities we have discussed here, as far as I know, do not compromise their role as educators by actively teaching anti-intellectual material"

Actively teaching anti-intellectual material? Would that be Biblical stuff? Yes they do promote a biblical worldview.

"or intentionally trying to basically silence or removing certain political ideologies from campus (read a bit about Liberty's decision regarding the Democratic Club)"

I looked it up. http://www.liberty.edu/news/?PID=18495&MID=8373

Long live schools like Baylor and Liberty! I would like to see them succeed.

Christianity is relatively broad. The Baptist faith is non-creedal. As they were persecuted in the Reformation in England and Holland for being "gasp" non-literal in their views on Baptism and the Lord's Supper (holding both to be symbolic, a view now much more widely held in Protestant circles), they distrusted formal structure dictating to individual churches and individual Christians. Their doctrine of Priesthood of the Believer, which leaves a great deal of room for individual conscience and the responsibility of each individual to seek out God versus relying on church and leaders to think for you leaves the door much more open for individual interpretation of scripture.

This is good, but it leads to different emphasis within individuals and churches. There is an evangelical branch and a fundamentalist branch.

I think it would probably be fair to say that Liberty was set up by a group of like-minded fundamentalists. As such, their curricula includes courses that are rigidly fundamentalist. That is not all their coursework, and one would presume that people are taught skills there that work well in the outside world, apart from their beliefs (not that 100% of their students are likely fundamentalists either).

I don't think it is accurate to compare Baylor to Liberty in a theological sense. While Baylor is not liberal theologically, neither is it as strictly dogmatic or fundamental as Liberty appears to be.

I would have no problem with my kids attending Baylor (or TCU, or most public schools) if that was there choice. I would not be supportive of Liberty, based on what I know at this point in time.

That, however, does not mean that people who attend Liberty are beneath us, or deserving of contempt.

That's right.

(04-23-2015 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Everything else aside, I'd be really shocked if we added Liberty.

I suspect we'll be at 13 for a while.

Agree. There's Georgia Southern, Alabama State, Army, and JMU that would probably join the East before Liberty. FIU and FAU desperately want a school that bridges the gap between themselves and the rest of the East division. If they get what they want, that school is almost certainly Georgia Southern. The debate here about religious tolerance is interesting, but I don't think we really need to worry about Liberty becoming a member at all.

Having actually walked on the Liberty campus, I have some opinions. First, It's large, beautiful, first class facilities. I have a feeling that if they decided to win at athletics, they could in fairly short order. For all their shortcomings (and they have some SERIOUS ones, according to my daughter who goes to a nearby college) Lynchburg is a 'hip' enough town that they could probably still recruit some great athletes if they thought they had a pro opportunity from there.

I read an interesting book several years ago written by a Brown University student who visited at Liberty for a semester or year. They wound up having to let evolution be taught in the biology department so the students could get teacher certification from the state. The anti-evolution course was moved elsewhere and is mandatory for all students. The MOB could use a Flintstones theme if we ever played a home game against Liberty featuring the pet dinosaurs of the Flintstones and Rubbles (like humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time). It seems to me the fundamentalists try to shove the Bible into their own mold even if that is not the major emphasis of the Bible (abortion and homosexuality instead of the treatment of the powerless).

I'm not one who would be thrilled to be in an athletic conference with Liberty at this juncture, but as OO said, it is for athletic reasons--I view them as small time compared to Rice's athletic tradition.

But the thought occurred to me, as I remember it being said in other threads, esp. concerning the Pac12: What is the difference in being opposed to associating with others because of their religious affiliation as opposed to their skin color or sexual orientation, etc... It strikes me as the same kind of bigotry, yet for some strange reason it seems more acceptable. I'll also agree with OptimisticOwl on TCU and SMU-- we have had in the past no quarrel with being in a conference with those schools. But I remember it being said here the PAC12 would have no such desire no matter how good they were because they were religiously affiliated. Why is it okay for the PAC12 or others to be bigoted towards religion, specifically towards Christian denominations?

While I find some of Liberty's protestant dogma erroneous from a scientific point of view, and do not happen to be from that denomination, why is it acceptable to have such freely and openly bigoted posts about them from supposedly intelligent individuals, complete with the sideways snickers? Replace "Liberty" with "black" or "gay" and read some of the last few pages' posts. I find some of ya'll statements extremely close-minded and hateful. Considering the things that seem to upset this board, it strikes me as extremely hypocritical and unbecoming.

I find that I feel in general Dr. K has Rice on a good track, and has sincerely undertaken a complete and holistic reorganization of Rice athletics, which I have come to understand has been no small feat, and much more difficult than I had first thought. While I'd like more rapid progress in certain areas, and don't agree with everything, I trust we have the best Athletic Director we've had in decades. I very much look forward to the future with Karlgaard at the helm, and am trying to temper my impatience in favor of seeing how things play out. Thanks to those who effectively shared their summations of what Karlgaard said for those of us out-of-towners who don't have as much access.

(04-23-2015 08:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  While I find some of Liberty's protestant dogma erroneous from a scientific point of view . . .

I assure you that there is nothing particularly Protestant about their scientifically erroneous dogma!

(04-23-2015 09:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 08:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  While I find some of Liberty's protestant dogma erroneous from a scientific point of view . . .

I assure you that there is nothing particularly Protestant about their scientifically erroneous dogma!

While I don't know everything about every Protestant denomination, I can assure you there is nothing particularly Catholic about their scientifically erroneous dogma. As the short video post a few pages back showed, the Catholic Church believes in science and things like evolution, geology, paleontology, etc... though many erroneously allege otherwise. (I personally thought it was cool to hear him mention "Star Wars" and "The Force" in his analysis of scientism.)

(04-23-2015 08:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But I remember it being said here the PAC12 would have no such desire no matter how good they were because they were religiously affiliated. Why is it okay for the PAC12 or others to be bigoted towards religion, specifically towards Christian denominations?

I'm not aware that the PAC-12 has a bias against religious schools. I know they won't take BYU, but that's because BYU won't play on Sunday. While that's based in religion, it also presents scheduling problems, etc. Anyone else they've blackballed?

(04-23-2015 08:44 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I'm not one who would be thrilled to be in an athletic conference with Liberty at this juncture, but as OO said, it is for athletic reasons--I view them as small time compared to Rice's athletic tradition.

But the thought occurred to me, as I remember it being said in other threads, esp. concerning the Pac12: What is the difference in being opposed to associating with others because of their religious affiliation as opposed to their skin color or sexual orientation, etc... It strikes me as the same kind of bigotry, yet for some strange reason it seems more acceptable. I'll also agree with OptimisticOwl on TCU and SMU-- we have had in the past no quarrel with being in a conference with those schools. But I remember it being said here the PAC12 would have no such desire no matter how good they were because they were religiously affiliated. Why is it okay for the PAC12 or others to be bigoted towards religion, specifically towards Christian denominations?

While I find some of Liberty's protestant dogma erroneous from a scientific point of view, and do not happen to be from that denomination, why is it acceptable to have such freely and openly bigoted posts about them from supposedly intelligent individuals, complete with the sideways snickers? Replace "Liberty" with "black" or "gay" and read some of the last few pages' posts. I find some of ya'll statements extremely close-minded and hateful. Considering the things that seem to upset this board, it strikes me as extremely hypocritical and unbecoming.

I find that I feel in general Dr. K has Rice on a good track, and has sincerely undertaken a complete and holistic reorganization of Rice athletics, which I have come to understand has been no small feat, and much more difficult than I had first thought. While I'd like more rapid progress in certain areas, and don't agree with everything, I trust we have the best Athletic Director we've had in decades. I very much look forward to the future with Karlgaard at the helm, and am trying to temper my impatience in favor of seeing how things play out. Thanks to those who effectively shared their summations of what Karlgaard said for those of us out-of-towners who don't have as much access.

I obviously don't speak for anyone, but it's laughable to me to compare religious affiliation with race or sexual orientation. Did you wake up tody and decide to be black because you didn't feel like you were truly a Latino as you felt you were yesterday? Religious denomination is a choice.

But to the bigger point, to me, the issue isn't that they are a religiously affiliated university; I have no issues with Baylor, BYU, SMU, etc. To the best of my knowledge, that group of universities, while religiously based, do not veer away from the core mission of educating their students and expanding their horizons to all thought processes. They do not teach a science course from a completely unscientific perspective, and actively, as a university, promote one type of political ideology over the other. IMO, universities should not have an agenda in the way that Liberty does. I would be saying the same thing if a school was teaching a religious studies course on Christianity, and the only thing they taught was that all Christians ate babies, or something else that was completely baseless. This isn't an issue about being bigoted towards people of faith, it is about trying to avoid affiliating our university, dedicated Letters, Art, and Science, with a university obviously dedicated to a strange version of that.

But then again, we are already affiliated with plenty of other universities that don't have the same dedication to academics that we do...