(12-03-2012 02:18 PM)knucklehead Wrote: (12-03-2012 01:46 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote: (12-03-2012 01:18 PM)knucklehead Wrote: Yes I will gladly talk the Athletics side if we can get past the monotonous agendas.
This is sort of what I was trying to establish a baseline for, though: The "monotonous agendas" are part of the total package and are worth discussing. I'm not saying that they're always discussed in the most fruitful manner, but what is on a message board? It seems like the first line of argument is, "Doesn't matter, this is a sports board," as if nothing else matters...I wanted to see if we could acknowledge that this isn't true so that other lines of argument could be addressed.
Also, I don't want to speak for Tom and Paul, but I will offer this. FWIW, I pretty much agree with their views on Liberty in the SBC. I could maybe be convinced otherwise with a solid argument, but I really don't like them as an addition. (Obviously, many feel the same way about GSU right now.) What those who don't feel this way often fail to see is just how big of a deal Liberty's religious and political views are in the minds of others. I know you see strong reaction, but to realize why such a thing elicits that reaction is a whole other level of understanding that doesn't come naturally in human discourse.
Here's my comparison that's sure to anger a lot of people because they'll think I'm drawing comparisons between Liberty supporters and federal criminals. That's not what I'm doing. It's simply the attitudes that seem comparable: Here in Atlanta, there was a lot of debate over the severity of Michael Vick's crimes. I have worked in animal rescue, and my wife still works in the field, and I took his actions very seriously. To the point of, y'know, hell no I don't want that guy as the Falcons' quarterback anymore. There were plenty of people who argued along that they're just dogs, that other people do bad things, that we treat dogs better than people (sure), etc. I eventually realized that most people who didn't understand the severity that I saw in the crimes simply weren't going to see it, and I had to accept that.
I know that some of us take Liberty's political views more seriously than others, and that at some point, we may have to accept that those others may just not understand why it bothers us so much. At the same time, I hope that people can realize it's not always about a "monotonous agenda" (I don't really think that's a fair way to put it, actually), but something that others just feel really strongly about and are potentially unwilling to break on.
BTW, I got my bachelor's from a Christian school - Mercer University (at the time, Southern Baptist-affiliated, even) - so I'm not altogether unfamiliar with the strengths and foibles of the religious university.
Just my thoughts as I avoid work today. Hope I haven't offended too harshly.
Also, the production on the GSU-Liberty game yesterday was pretty good. I can certainly appreciate that aspect of what LU has to offer a conference.
NOTE: Posted before seeing C4L's post above and am not trying to call him/her or anyone else out as someone who "just doesn't get it"...just trying to point out a divide that we might not actually be able to cross.
Fairly stated. Look, I have stated several times that I am able to acknowledge that the views or LU (and mine as well) are counterintuitive to those of most main-stream university Admins and Alumns. If you had time to hang out with myself or LU folks, you would find us rather "normal". OH I do talk about my faith at times, no doubt, but not in a judgemental or hateful way. That would be very typical of most (not all) LU Folks.
The Monotonous Agenda I referred to was in relation to those who seem to take a small part of LU and color the whole place with that brush. Every school has controversial elements, but that doesn't make the whole place controversial. I just think it is short sighted to discount LU just because you have an issue or 2. Doing so discounts everything else they bring to the table.
I do acknowledge that we are "Different" but I do not apologize for that. I also take issue with those who ask LU to "Change" to fit in. That is just not going to happen. LU is guided by a set of beliefs that are based on the Bible and that will not change. Would anyone ask the same of UC Berkley? NO. And likewise, LU would not ask a fellow conference school to "change".
I don't doubt that you are a nice person. But I'm not sure you understand my argument. Your University is very ugly towards many people, even those not attending your University. And your administration does nothing to counteract the behavior of your prominent Law School dean and its most prominent employee (Matt Barber).
But even beyond that. I don't think that the Sun Belt should associate with institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religion. We need to take schools that will leverage the talents of everyone, including evangelicals, Gays, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Athiests, Baptists, Jews, Gentiles, etc.
I don't think there's a place in the Sun Belt for people who discriminate in hiring (Liberty does) or in admissions (they say they don't but they do - its not reasonable to expect someone to be a lifelong celebate if they are Gay) or in athletic participation.
Liberty doesn't have to compromise any mainstream Christian beliefs to be less objectionable towards the Sun Belt community. Here's how.
1) Remove the prohibition on Gay behavior and simply say its 'discouraged'. You're not going to get a bunch of us working there.
2) Remove the prohibition on supporting Gay rights from the policy. The University can prohibit statements made associated with the University and oppose gay rights as an institution.
3) Provide mechanisms for some non-evangelical staff in non-theological employment. I doubt many athiests would be on your staff, but for the 5 percent that might be willing to teach there, would provide some addl basis for intellectual discourse. Liberty's student body is largely self selected. I doubt it would turn LU into Berkeley or anything.
4) Get rid of Matt Barber. He's toxic. And an embarrasment to the University. Any University. Also, separate Liberty Counsel from the University. Stop hiring professors from there, move it out of town and separate the endowments. And change the name of it while you're at it. He's doing as much damage today to LU as Jerry Falwell, Sr did with the Tinky-Winky thing.
5) Try and lead by example instead of by fear. Kicking the College Democrats (who were initially tossed alone off of campus) was incredibly stupid. Again, your campus is gonna be incredibly conservative anyway. There's no need to spike the ball.
I'll probably never like Liberty University. But in the future, given cerain changes by the administration, I might be able to put up with them. But that's up to Liberty, who would need to make changes. And none of those changes involve compromising one's religious beliefs.
