Patrick Henry College + the Bush admin = Scary!

You've missed the point, AGAIN, McG. Why would there be nary a soul surprised?

We all need our boogie men. Some people say "the Liberals are coming" and some people say "the Christians are coming". There is a difference, however, since the basis of liberalism is investigative thought and reasoning, and the basis of religion is, well, not that. If it was a school whose purpose was to train up muslim home schooled children to take their places in congress, the white house, and on the supreme court, would you blink?

ok - example link

Husker, what are you pointing to in your link?

Wanted to ask this as well.



[Still my - perhaps more general - question, what Physics, Religion Studies, Maths etc has to do with studying History. Not that you should avoid it - but just why it is done as part of history studies.]

Walter, their mission statement, as quoted by Set, contains the phrase "classical liberal arts curriculum." in the US, that typically means that all undergraduate students have to take a sampling of courses outside of their major. so, it's not particularly unusual that a history major would take math classes, and vice versa; theology classes are much more unusual overall, but perhaps not in insitutions associated with a particular religious faith.

Thanks, I just remembered that.

(That's done here at school - otherwise you're not allowed to study at a college/university.)

Here, you've done a very poor job there, let me fix that for you:

Oh no! The ultra-right-wing Christian fanatics with an agenda to subvert American liberties and secular and religious plurality are coming!! The ultra-right-wing Christian fanatics with an agenda to subvert American liberties and secular and religious plurality are coming!!

One of the concerns we have with some in Muslim societies is that they seclude their children in religious schools, indoctrinate them with a narrow point of view with little exposure to broader civic thought and then release them as soldiers to promote their religion in secular societies. PH is just the Christian equivalent.

It's scary when any group does it.

I agree.Now, I am as tolerant as the next man but no one should try to protect intolerance as is clearly laid out by the philosophy of the Patrick Henry School.

They clearly are a subversive group who wish to imbue our innocent boys and girls with a clearly religiously based philosophy which, at bottom, spreads hate and discord.

I would hope that the next President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, I am sure, hates "haters", will appoint judges who will make an exception to the First Amendment insofar as "hate groups" are concerned.

"Haters" like the Patrick Henry group must be wiped out!!!

I bet those hateful PHers get together every Sunday night for training in beheadings, planting IEDs, and protesting Jesus cartoons.

Their meeting places are no doubt filled with RPGs, AK47s, and ministers prodding impressionable youth into mounting suicide attacks against Anglican wedding parties.

Scary. Yeah I remember just the other day when those mean, nasty PHers blew up a schoolbus...

As far as hate groups go, the first amendment has already been held by the courts not to apply to any speech which incites to criminality. I doubt that anyone here suggests that PHC incites to criminality, unless it were very subtle, indeed. Nevertheless, there is genuine danger to be apprehended from an organization which actively seeks to inject a particularist christian theology into the government of a secular, pluralist society.

There is nothing in the Constitution about being organized and making long range plans.

Also see Grooming Politicians for Christ.

The religious fanatics attempting to take over are much more organized than most people know about. I agree that it is no different than religious fanatics of Islam in its desire to indoctrinate the populace.

Suggesting that "biblical values" are antithetical to "American values," is absurd.

Comparing Patrick Henry University to Islamic madrassas, is simply ignorant.

That anyone would find an organization like Patrick Henry University to be frightening is interesting and, frankly, telling.

I would be surprised if one could not easily find some written assertion by Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Princeton etc that they aspire to produce the next generation of leaders in America.

Presumably one expects this aspiration of any institution of higher education in the country.

The difference of course is that those who are frightened by Patrick Henry University tend to believe that the faculty of schools like Harvard and Stanford have no agendas other than the production of well educated young men and women.

For argument's sake, let's concede that PHU is turning out right-wing christian youths, and that right-wing christian politicians in Washington favor such graduates as interns.

So what?

I can imagine that left-wing secularists might not be very pleased by this, but then it is unlikely that they voted for the right-wing christians in government. No problem here. I would not be happy to find that left-wing secularist graduates from Berkeley (or any other school for that matter) were filling the halls of power in DC.

That such a situation evokes fear is interesting. Clearly, this expression of fear is intended to go beyond "I'm afraid that the people with whom I disagree politically are gaining power, because I don't want them to."

Instead, it is intended to express a concern for the very future of freedom in America.

To some extent this is to be expected from an intensely partisan or ideological perspective: The opposition is not just wrong, it is sinister and evil.

I fear that left-wing secularists might take control of our government, but not because I ascribe to them sinister motives. I fear them assuming power because they are so bloody wrong-headed.

We have but a few freedoms that can never be taken away from us, and one of them is the freedom to fear.

Those of you who truly fear PHU (and are not simply making a left-wing statement to which you hope other lefties will be drawn), that's kinda tough for you, because whether or not you believe their intentions to be legitimate, they are legal, and they are not going to cease and desist because they give you goosebumps.

Of course you could always try and put a halt to their activity and thereby become, it seems, the very thing you fear.

For the record, I was not the one who made the connection between this school and madrasses. I know nothing about madrasses in any detail. It was a right-leaning a2ker who made the connection, I believe.

I admit this very grudgingly, but there is a modicum of reasonablness in what Finn d'Abuzz has said.

Only a modicum, MA, if at all--and, typically, Finn attempts to refute what others have written by turning it on its head. For example, he says: "Suggesting that 'biblical values' are antithetical to 'American values,' is absurd." however, that is not what i wrote. PHC claims that they are " . . . prepar[ing] Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding."

To that quote of their own published mission statement, i responded: "Although the rightwingnuts like to deny it, 'timeless biblical values' do not constitute fidelity to the spirit of 'the American founding.' " Finn's disingenuous tactic is to equate the denial that "timeless biblical values" are faithful to the spirit of the American founding with a claim that "timeless biblical values" are antithetical to "American values." So, in fact, Finn's drivel is what is absurd here. I made my claim about "timeless biblical values" based upon what i characterized as follows: "Timeless biblical values include support for slavery, execution of homosexuals, execution of unruly children, execution of adulterous women (apparently, adulterous men just need to find a new squeeze), bashing in the skulls of the babies of one's enemies--yeah, right, those are good old American virtues."

Finn has not seen fit to address the issue of slavery, and the execution of homosexuals, unruly children and adulteresses, and the slaughter of the infants of one's enemies as "timeless biblical values." Instead, he offered a twisted and false characterization--in short, a lie--of the criticism offered, and then called it absurd. Yes, it is absurd to lie about what someone else has written rather than to address the substance of it.

He has completely failed to address the issue that rightwing christians wish to impose their religious doctrine on a secular nation which promotes toleration and pluralism. He completely ignores that injecting "timeless biblical values" into government (and the nature of those "values" defined by a particularist Protestant fundamentalist political agenda) constitutes an imposition of doctrine on all those of religious conviction who do not subscrbe to "timeless biblical values." Instead, he revs up partisan hatred, characterizes anyone who would oppose the mission statement of PHC as a dangerous, leftwing secularists (inferentially suggesting that no one who holds "leftwing" political views could ever be someone of religious conviction), and tries to suggest that those who are not leftwing secularists would applaud and desire the imposition of such a particularist Protestant fundamentalist agenda. Finn's thesis does not recognize that there are Protestants who are not fundamentalists, and who do not necessarily subscribe to PHC's version of a "biblical world view." Finn's thesis does not acknowledge that there are large Christian communities in the United States who are not Protestants. Finn's thesis does not recognize that there are large communities in the United States with religious conviction who are not Christians.

But it is a timeless rhetorical trick of the right, and of fundamentalist christian fanatics, to offer a dichotomous, black/white, good/bad, right/left view of the world, which conveniently ignores all of the annoying petty details which one must address in a tolerant, pluralistic nation with a secular government.

With not the slightest degree of grudgininitude, I have to say I agree with most of Set's take on Finn's take. The few good points Finn made, were like always/often, attempts to paint the ugly with a veneer of platitudes.