[Sly Fox]

Free ... you are in over your head. You are not swaying the masses. I'd suggest focusing on your next diatribe on your blog.

[El Scorcho]

El Scorcho,

If you're trying to mock my misuse of "you're," then you probably regret your misplaced modifier in the sentence in which you tried to mock my usage.

I'm not the one claiming to be a journalist on the Internet. I'll use misplaced modifiers, double negatives, dangling participles and anything else I want to use. I'm just a schmuck on an Internet message board.

I was mocking a lot more than your grammar.

[Libertine]

Libertine,

Care to tell us why? It will take a little more work. But answering the question why in your posts would save us all some time and would lend a point to your posts. It would also turn your conclusion into an actual argument.

I think you've answered the question of why very well yourself whether you realize it or not. I don't want to get too far into an LU issue for obvious reasons but I'll be glad to give you a more verbose answer since quantity of words over quality of thought seems to be your m.o. here.

What Ed said was pretty obvious. You asked what LU needed to do to look better in the eyes of the mainstream media. That means, they have to start projecting a new image, which is fancy for 'controlling the message'. Liberty would need to control the message (e.g., censor) in the name of public relations.

Regarding the Teletubby story, by 'controlling the message', you would have precluded that story from being released. A flag would have been raised. Because the story wouldn't have gotten out, Liberty wouldn't have had to suffer the black eye it suffered on behalf of a mocking mainstream media.

Corporations who want to make themselves look better hire public relations firms. They are the ones who control the message. If Liberty wanted to make itself look better, it would necessarily have to do the same.

In the end, however, beyond the issues that you say you're confronting, I think you're just here to stir something up. You don't want change and you don't want free thought. You just want someone to validate whatever petty grudge you have that you believe is worthy of consuming all this time and energy and you think that the longer you go on and the more words you put out there then the more likely you are to get it but the exact opposite is true.

[matshark]

matshark:

I'm glad you were on the Champion. Did you ever challenge their censorship?

um, yes actually. We quite frequently challenged it. Like every week. If you had ever been on Champion staff, you would know that.

Yes, Ted Kennedy, in . . . 1982. That was 27 years ago. Quick: name the last five commencement speakers? Yes, that was admirable to invite Tim Kaine. And Liberty has done better at bringing in more speakers. But it's hardly a free market of ideas. And that should be the goal.

The pot shouldn't call the kettle black. First, Liberty isn't about a free market exchange of ideas. It's about teaching a Christian worldview. It's quite obvious that other ideas are out there for perusal by anybody who has this cool new invention called the internet.

In deciding whether Liberty is being fair in inviting opposing viewpoints to come speak, you should compare them to the academic world in general. You NEVER hear about other public and private colleges inviting conservative speakers. Heck, the last one that did (UNC) ended up with a riot and prevented the guy from even speaking (Tancredo). In that comparison, Liberty is QUITE fair. Further, graduation speakers are supposed to reflect the outlook of the school. That is not the place to invite opposing viewpoints. Convo on the other hand, that is more appropriate. I'm sure if you looked into it, you would find several more examples of the free exchange of ideas from speakers here at Liberty. (Granted that would take a few minutes of actual work, so it may be easier just to sling baseless accusations)

You're last point is an ad hominem. Sure, he's young. Sure, you have a few graduate hours under your belt. So what? Take his ideas on the merits. You can't right off an idea because of some personal characteristic of the speaker. Because of your experience with never hearing a professor say that, you should be all the more shocked and perhaps outraged that Roose did hear someone say that. He's obviously not out to tear down the school. He gives credit where credit is due. Why would he make that up?

My last point is NOT ad hom. It's quite on target. His view is not valid based on his lack of time spent at liberty. one semester does not make you an expert. i had 120 undergrad hours compared to his 12-18 max (call it 15 for the sake of argument). That means I had 8 times more experience at Liberty (not to mention having been around it for 16 years previously) which makes my opinion MUCH more significant statistically. 8 times more significant actually.

further, i wouldn't call 45 hours of grad work "a few graduate hours." 45 hours of grad work is a GRADUATE DEGREE. 6 hours would be "a few graduate hours." Quite different than actually having a degree.

I'm writing off his opinion based on his lack of an appropriate sample size, not because of his personal characteristics. I would say that whoever made that comment is an idiot, but to characterize the school like that in general is absolutely absurd. Lastly, it's absurd to glorify somebody merely because they wrote a book saying less than nice things about a place you don't exactly like.

Do i like everything about LU? Absolutely not. If you review my posts, you will find that I've raised lots of issues with how LU deals with and has dealt with things in the past. However, I will also give them credit when they do things properly. I'm not some giddy schoolboy with an axe to grind that get's my panties in a bind upon interviewing the flavor of the week. Btw, please remove yourself from Kevin Roose's jock. It's a bit embarrasing.

[Liberty Freelance]

Libertine,

Why would I have suppressed a Teletubby article? My blog contains an open invitation for essays. It's a free market of ideas. I've said on here before that I'm willing to publish opposing ideas. So why do you continue to say that I have an axe to grind? I certainly wouldn't publish a weak argument. And if I were an editor at a newspaper, I would discriminate in what articles I published. But it's ridiculous for the administration to censor.

In the end, however, beyond the issues that you say you're confronting, I think you're just here to stir something up. You don't want change and you don't want free thought. You just want someone to validate whatever petty grudge you have that you believe is worthy of consuming all this time and energy and you think that the longer you go on and the more words you put out there then the more likely you are to get it but the exact opposite is true.

Why? I can see why it's tempting to say that if you disagree with me. Frankly, though, you need some support other than the rest of the forum being on your side. You have to show, not tell.

Everyone seems to be against me. Is there no serious argument out there for the opposition?

[Liberty Freelance]

And the "new image" would be freedom of speech and ideas, whatever they are. That's my point. If the current speech and ideas carry the day, then great. But if the administration has to guard its ideas with censorship, there's a serious problem with the strength of its ideas.

In short, it looks as if I'm defending free speech and openness. Everyone else on here seems to think censorship is a good idea or they're apathetic about it or they're just against challenging the conventional wisdom. This hardly seems like a fair fight.

[RagingTireFire]

In short, it looks as if I'm defending free speech and openness. Everyone else on here seems to think censorship is a good idea or they're apathetic about it or they're just against challenging the conventional wisdom. This hardly seems like a fair fight.

You have clearly not been paying attention. Your circular prattling is no longer worthy of my time.

[FlamingYalieWahoo]

Roose's point is that educational institutions should be a free market of ideas. Liberty's not. The Champion's Exhibit A. Such fierce control of the ideological points of view that prevail on campus suggests that Liberty's administration is insecure in its beliefs. In a free market of ideas, the truth will prevail, right? Why suppress the competition by exclusion? It's a top-down system where those at the top decide what's right on a slew of controversial issues, and many students naturally ignore the competing ideas. Political and theological questions aren't easy black-and-white issues. There's a reason they're debated so much. There's a reason that public intellectuals of every stripe line up on all sides of these issues. Education should be about grappling with all of the ideas and challenging your assumptions until you can forcefully defend what you believe. In many respects, Liberty's administration cuts out the grappling and defending part and jumps straight to the conclusion and guards it closely. (Again, the Champion's Exhibit A, but there are many examples.) That needs to change. Soon.

\

I must respond to freelance - First if you honestly think that there is a free-market of ideas at other universities, you are sadly mistaken. I have attended two major universities for graduate degrees. NEVER, with the exception of a history class, were evangelical authors used as texts or recommended for consideration. In fact in one mildly orthodox paper on the resurrection I was graded down because the faculty member just couldn't take the concept seriously and didn't think I should either. The school newspapers generally towed the politically correct line with the exception of berating conservatives and Christians. Myself and some fellow evangelicals started an evangelical fellowship at a Divinity school and we were compared to the KKK. Secondly you apparently have never take a philosophy course at Liberty - in which David Hume, Plato, Aristotle and a number other non-Christian authors are regular and required fare. The theologians require reading in Bultmann, Heidegger, and a number of other liberal Protestant and Catholic authors. The entire theme of the philosophy department and several in the theology is the interaction of faith and reason. I was encouraged as have a number of other students to attend secular universities for my graduate education in religion and philosophy. This is because I did grapple with the ideas and did know what I believed and why. Yes, there is an overall agenda at LU to promote a particular interpretation of Christianity and yes, there needs to be more engagement with other ideas on a broader scale. So my recommendation is to take a class - not just intro - in the philosophy area and you will see that there is some grappling ideas taking place. There are a number of other departments in which this type of engagement takes place but I am most familiar with these philosophy and theology.

[matshark]

Roose's point is that educational institutions should be a free market of ideas. Liberty's not. The Champion's Exhibit A. Such fierce control of the ideological points of view that prevail on campus suggests that Liberty's administration is insecure in its beliefs. In a free market of ideas, the truth will prevail, right? Why suppress the competition by exclusion? It's a top-down system where those at the top decide what's right on a slew of controversial issues, and many students naturally ignore the competing ideas. Political and theological questions aren't easy black-and-white issues. There's a reason they're debated so much. There's a reason that public intellectuals of every stripe line up on all sides of these issues. Education should be about grappling with all of the ideas and challenging your assumptions until you can forcefully defend what you believe. In many respects, Liberty's administration cuts out the grappling and defending part and jumps straight to the conclusion and guards it closely. (Again, the Champion's Exhibit A, but there are many examples.) That needs to change. Soon.

\

I must respond to freelance - First if you honestly think that there is a free-market of ideas at other universities, you are sadly mistaken. I have attended two major universities for graduate degrees. NEVER, with the exception of a history class, were evangelical authors used as texts or recommended for consideration. In fact in one mildly orthodox paper on the resurrection I was graded down because the faculty member just couldn't take the concept seriously and didn't think I should either. The school newspapers generally towed the politically correct line with the exception of berating conservatives and Christians. Myself and some fellow evangelicals started an evangelical fellowship at a Divinity school and we were compared to the KKK.

that makes two of us saying this.

[olldflame]

Just so you know Freelance, this online community is far from homogenius. There are people here from all over the map, both geographically and philisophically, and we have had some "knock-down, drag-outs" between ourselves on issues before. Doesn't it give you even a little pause for thought when you can't seem to find a single person to agree with your position?

[SuperJon]

And the "new image" would be freedom of speech and ideas, whatever they are. That's my point. If the current speech and ideas carry the day, then great. But if the administration has to guard its ideas with censorship, there's a serious problem with the strength of its ideas.

In short, it looks as if I'm defending free speech and openness. Everyone else on here seems to think censorship is a good idea or they're apathetic about it or they're just against challenging the conventional wisdom. This hardly seems like a fair fight.

So we should allow articles in the champion promoting gay marriage?

We should allow pro-choice protestors to come on campus?

Is that what you want from us? That falls under the idea of no censorship and openness.

[Liberty Freelance]

FYW:

I don't deny that critical thinking goes on at Liberty. I experienced it when I was there. But it could improve. And I don't see what the problem is with fighting for improvement in the framework that allows critical thinking to go on. What's the problem with it? It's also irrelevant, as I've pointed out repeatedly, whether other schools have a free exchange of ideas on campus. That doesn't excuse Liberty. Also, it's irrelevant that you suffered criticism for espousing an evangelical viewpoint. That comes with the territory of free speech. People can push a point of view; others can dissent. It's healthy.

oldflame:

I think people are just defensive. No one's provided a legitimate response that defends censorship. In fact, almost everyone has said that they don't like it. But, for whatever reason, they don't like my challenging it either. No one's explained why. And no one's put forth a defense for censoring the Champion. On almost every comment, I've pleaded for someone do so. Here, again, is your chance. Defend censorship. Tell me what's wrong with freedom of speech and ideas and expression on a college campus. Anyone. Instead of taking potshots at me, defend your ideas. No one's stepped up. Yet everyone on this thread still opposes me. It's inexplicable. So yes, I am deeply concerned that I haven't garnered any support on here for free speech and a free exchange of ideas. You should be as well.

Superjon:

Yes, of course. Articles promoting gay marriage would give rise to articles opposing gay marriage. Then a real debate could take place and you wouldn't assume, as you just did, that those are obvious black-and-white issues. The students would be presented with all sides and could make their own choice instead of being fed one side of the debate. There are Christians, you might be surprised to learn, who support both gay marriage and abortion. They should be heard in the Champion. If you disagree, then maturely rebut their ideas. If you're open-minded, you might even be persuaded, though you also might not be. That's the point. All points of view should be heard, so the students can pick which ones they're persuaded by. And this is the point I've been making--not allowing articles supporting these issues suggests that Liberty's administration is afraid some students might be persuaded. If you're so sure you're side's right, then it should be no problem to entertain opposing points of view. Your views should stand up to the challenges just fine.

Of course, others, such as John Stuart Mill, have made this point much more effectively than I can:

"[T]he peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

[Th3rd]

ok i haven't read all the way through this, and may be talking out my butt here, but you don't think that homosexual marriage is a black and white issue?? really?

[Rockthejungle]

matshark:

I'm glad you were on the Champion. Did you ever challenge their censorship? It's an embarrassment. What other schools censor their student newspapers? Doesn't that disqualify it as a legitimate newspaper? Besides, who cares if other schools do it? That doesn't justify Liberty doing it. That's a tu quoque fallacy. "You do it, too, so it's OK if we do it." It's obviously not. There's a higher principle called freedom of speech and expression. And even though Liberty's a private institution, adhering to that principle has worked on a greater scale for larger institutions. So Liberty should stop censoring speech. Why would they censor the Champion or anything else, unless they were insecure about defending their own ideas?

Yes, Ted Kennedy, in . . . 1982. That was 27 years ago. Quick: name the last five commencement speakers? Yes, that was admirable to invite Tim Kaine. And Liberty has done better at bringing in more speakers. But it's hardly a free market of ideas. And that should be the goal.

You're last point is an ad hominem. Sure, he's young. Sure, you have a few graduate hours under your belt. So what? Take his ideas on the merits. You can't right off an idea because of some personal characteristic of the speaker. Because of your experience with never hearing a professor say that, you should be all the more shocked and perhaps outraged that Roose did hear someone say that. He's obviously not out to tear down the school. He gives credit where credit is due. Why would he make that up?

Super Jon:

Read the interview for yourself. Whether you would have asked the questions we asked, the answers are important. Liberty's administration should take them very seriously. They should get to work tomorrow. His suggestions would be major improvements for the school.

Can anyone point out something wrong with a free market of ideas? Does Liberty have a free market of ideas? Why not?

The school did invite Commrade Obama to speak if i'm not mistaken.And he chose not to.BTW did i just call Obama commrade?

[Liberty Freelance]

This is going to become a huge distraction. But, no, I don't think it's a black-and-white issue. And that you're apparently incredulous about that should make it obvious to everyone why Liberty needs to allow a few more points of view on campus.

There's no biblical mandate that the state should disallow gay marriage. In other words, there doesn't need to be laws against all sins. So there doesn't, biblically, need to be laws against gay marriage. You can still personally consider homosexuality a sin and defend gay marriage. Perhaps you should write an article about it and see if the Champion will publish it.

[Liberty Freelance]

That's great if they invited Obama. Those are all great steps. I hope they keep doing things like that. There's just a lot of room for improvement. And it's not a "negative attitude" to point those things out.

[Th3rd]

This is going to become a huge distraction. But, no, I don't think it's a black-and-white issue. And that you're apparently incredulous about that should make it obvious to everyone why Liberty needs to allow a few more points of view on campus.

There's no biblical mandate that the state should disallow gay marriage. In other words, there doesn't need to be laws against all sins. So there doesn't, biblically, need to be laws against gay marriage. You can still personally consider homosexuality a sin and defend gay marriage. Perhaps you should write an article about it and see if the Champion will publish it.

have you not read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah?

if that is not black and white then nothing is, God raining down fire from heaven to destroy a city that had been so morally twisted and perverted in homosexuality. Give me one verse that says its ok to be a homosexual, just one verse. Now i have some great friends who chose to be gay, that hasn't affected my friendship with them because I still love them with the love of Christ, but i tell them that what they are doin is wrong an that God will punish them for it. I love the sinner, but i hate the sin, just as God has called us to do. To say anything else would be a lie

[SuperJon]

You can still personally consider homosexuality a sin and defend gay marriage.

How?

[Liberty Freelance]

Was Sodom and Gomorrah retaliation against the state, or against the sinners? Has God "rained down fire from heaven" on Iowa? Sin goes on in America every day. Banning gay marriage does not prevent people from being gay. I don't know of a verse that says it's OK to be homosexual. That's why I said you could personally consider it a sin, yet support the state allowing gay marriage.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this, start a new thread. This one doesn't have anything to do with that.

[Liberty Freelance]

SJ,

The same way you can consider drunkenness a sin, yet support the state allowing drunkenness. It's not the state's job to punish sin. Anyway, you guys should start another thread before this one explodes about gay marriage when that's not what it's about.

[SuperJon]

Anyway, if you want to talk about this, start a new thread. This one doesn't have anything to do with that.

Actually it has everything to do with that. Your entire argument of letting us bring in those views is based in this.

[SuperJon]

SJ,

The same way you can consider drunkenness a sin, yet support the state allowing drunkenness. It's not the state's job to punish sin. Anyway, you guys should start another thread before this one explodes about gay marriage when that's not what it's about.

Why would you support drunkenness in public places being legal? Christian or not, why would you support that? It's illegal now.

Sure, sin's going to happen, that's not the issue. By condoning gay marriage you're condoning the sin of being gay.

[SuperJon]

Please keep posting though. Every word you type makes your credibility at Liberty less and less.

[matshark]

This is going to become a huge distraction. But, no, I don't think it's a black-and-white issue. And that you're apparently incredulous about that should make it obvious to everyone why Liberty needs to allow a few more points of view on campus.

There's no biblical mandate that the state should disallow gay marriage. In other words, there doesn't need to be laws against all sins. So there doesn't, biblically, need to be laws against gay marriage. You can still personally consider homosexuality a sin and defend gay marriage. Perhaps you should write an article about it and see if the Champion will publish it.

actually, no i CANT consider homosexuality a sin and defend gay marriage. if i consider something to be wrong, i can't in good conscience defend something that is a furthering of that thing which i consider to be wrong!!!

further, you don't think it's a black and white issue? it's pretty black and white in the bible which is the only moral authority that i subscribe to.

you are a blooming idiot.

the reason there are laws against things in the first place is because they are wrong (i.e. sins). the 10 commandments = original laws against sin. now, should there HAVE to be laws against every sin? no. there's this thing called commons sense and decency, as that erodes, more laws are written to replace the lost common sense, decency and moral compass.

and why do you go around thinking you are the high priest of the free market of ideas? you are not only a blooming idiot, you are an effing blooming idiot. i think i feel dumber for reading your drivel.

finally, i second Th3rd (read that again...lol). i have some very very good friends that are gay. i love them nonetheless, but they know exactly where i stand on the issue. they know that i would do anything for them, but that on that issue we firmly disagree. i cannot call right what the bible clearly calls wrong. if you can, then may God have mercy on your soul.

[Th3rd]

SJ,

The same way you can consider drunkenness a sin, yet support the state allowing drunkenness. It's not the state's job to punish sin. Anyway, you guys should start another thread before this one explodes about gay marriage when that's not what it's about.

i honestly don't know what this thread is about anymore, you have flipped on so many issues in 3 pages that i couldn't begin to talk about them all


drunkness is a sin, having a drink is not....

homosexuality is a sin, always was always will be... trying to rationalize it by saying o its their choice or the state has the right to legalize it does not make the sin go away by any means... how can you say the state is punishing someone because they are gay by not allowing them to get married...

you know what i want to legalize polygamy and can defend it the same way gays defend gay marriage

me and my spouses are adults, we love each other, we are consenting, and we are happy... plus i was born this way to have more then one spouse.. so shouldnt we all rise up against the government and tell them they have to legalize it now,

its all the same thing right?