Oh I am very calm, always am. Don't get hysterical.
The larger point is how this petty little university jerk, as you call him, got in the position as to what religious symbols people could or could not wear. Who gave the authorization.
And now everyone knows he's a petty little jerk. Why do you care who "gave the authorization?"
The authorization came from very high up the food chain. Now we know that there is a petty little jerk who has a lot of power and a high level job in the university system. Maybe someone even higher up the chain will fix that.
I think you may be getting caught up in all the excitement manufactured by Christian persecution complex syndrome. This isn't the Iran Contra Scandal.
I'm not sure I understand that one.
Are you contending that the university officials were right to ban a student from wearing a cross?
What the what now? How did you get there?
from the statement about getting caught up in the "Christian persecution complex".
I'm not trying to debate your point, just understand what you're saying.
Every post I've made in this thread has been to the point that the chancellor who made the rule was a despotic little jerk who made a petty rule (and I extend that to anyone who actually enforced it as well). I thought I had made that clear by now. I just refuse to swallow the idiocy that this is an example of a shot fired in some imaginary war against Christians.
OK, understood, and agreed. Now, what I said originally was that, now that it is clear that there is a petty little jerk in a high position within the university system, perhaps someone even higher up might do something about it.
Context......geesh........seriously dude....
JMAC....you are being ridiculous. You have such a chip on your shoulder that it makes you quick to knee-jerk without taking it in context. The point being that a student is free to pray anywhere and anytime they want so long as it is not disruptive. A better choice of word would have been "Quietly" not "silently'...however if you use a little bit of context you would have understood. However, I think sometimes people want to jump into attack mode so quick that they lose complete focus of the conversation.
Every post I've made in this thread has been to the point that the chancellor who made the rule was a despotic little jerk who made a petty rule (and I extend that to anyone who actually enforced it as well). I thought I had made that clear by now. I just refuse to swallow the idiocy that this is an example of a shot fired in some imaginary war against Christians.
Define "disruptive"....
All fine, except that you don't care to find out and expose the "despotic little jerk" who made the rule, which in turn would leave this person in place to make more stupid rules.
Replace "praying" with, say, "playing a radio at a high volume," and it'll be clear.
It's a university. The number of people in the administration who will make stupid rules are legion.
And the person was exposed. According to the story the university's chancellor made the rule.
ok, But we aren't talking about that. In fact someone would have to be using a bull horn, or shouting to reach the same level of disruption of loud music right?
And then what will come of this idiot trying to enforce such a rule? Anything you think? Or will he give some non apology like "I'm sorry if anyone was offended"?
\Here's what's going to happen: the higher ups are going to review any more rules that may embarrass the university in the future and amend or eliminate them. That's it. I would be utterly shocked if anybody's job was affected by this incident, and here's why: despite many people's assumptions, the no-religious-accessory rule wasn't actually anti-religious in origin. Anybody who's been to more than a few educational institutions know that the administrations of each and every one of them is infested by small minded bureaucrats, and each of them has the problem solving process: a) Thing may offend people/cause some problem, therefore b) Ban that thing outright. And why do they think that way? Because they all have brains the size of chick peas. So there's no grand agenda at the top, just more small-mindedness bureaucrats.
\
I think you just put your finger on the larger problem.
What? Bureaucrats? Have fun with that.
Ones with brains the size of chickpeas, yes.
The "Christian hysteria" (as you have labeled their reaction) isn't simply about a student wearing one little cross_Bizarre and petty rules like this are like roaches: everywhere but they tend to scatter when you shine a light on them, as was the case here. I love though that the university fell over itself to apologize and correct the situation but we still get quotes like "I know Christianity is being attacked. Now, I know it first-hand and it sickens me and saddens me" and “We need to band together as Christians and fight back." which are words more suitable for religion being banned outright or Christians being rounded up into concentration camps rather than because of some little idiot banning religious accessories. Typical Christian hysteria.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?