Rutgers student told not to quote Bible in essay because of 'separation of church and state'

[Pogo]

In it the writer was using scripture to support HIS position on acceptance of LGBT people against a friends mother's belief against it.

And, if preferenced by something like, "I can find basis for this in biblical scripture", then it's appropriate.

And if his professor still has a problem, there are academic boards at every University which exist precisely to arbitrate these disputes. You will have to excuse me if I am not buying every word of that article as fact.

Nice to see you actually read it this time instead of just making blanket assumptions.

The crux of the article is that the instructor used a worthless rationale for not using scripture in the essay.

--- or so the creative writers of a right-wing propaganda site would have us believe, citing zero evidence that such an exchange ever took place at all.

 

[Pogo]

Got a legitimate source, or just this blog?

By the way, wanna buy a bridge?

Three days later, still nothing.

Ah feel your pain. I couldn't find any either.

Attacking the source, the first and last refuge of the person with nothing else to argue about.

What a lazy twat you are.

The question stands untouched. Find us any legitimate source reporting that this event happened at all.

I already tried. Every single one referred back to this unsourced article. All of them. Every last one.

CHRIST you people are gullible.

I could point out here that this makes three threads in a row by the same OP that I cited and easily-found gap in his credibility that he can't answer.

Still going for the "it never happened" trope.

I lean towards it never happened about 51% to 49%....it MAY have happened because some professors think of themselves as god on earth and have the weirdest requirements. But I lean MORE towards it didn't happen because CRCs are known for making up shi-it in order to make themselves victims of religious persecution rather than take personal responsibility for screwing up.

Your percentages are extremely generous methinks. As in anything else, if they had any supporting evidence they would have furnished it. Makes any assertion come to life. In this case their entire premise is built on "this guy said", and then to mount the cherry on top they even admit it's their own guy saying it.

 

[martybegan]

In it the writer was using scripture to support HIS position on acceptance of LGBT people against a friends mother's belief against it.

And, if preferenced by something like, "I can find basis for this in biblical scripture", then it's appropriate.

And if his professor still has a problem, there are academic boards at every University which exist precisely to arbitrate these disputes. You will have to excuse me if I am not buying every word of that article as fact.

Nice to see you actually read it this time instead of just making blanket assumptions.

The crux of the article is that the instructor used a worthless rationale for not using scripture in the essay.

So, a human made a mistake. We should start a misleading website and rile up Christians immediately!

Sorry, just felt like making fun of that garbage website.

It's a single issue website. besides attacking it for being right of center, you have nothing else in the holster.

 

[martybegan]

So do you support impeachment or not? I was going off your general Prog whining.

Maybe you should have "gone off" actual evidence huh.

What have we learned today?

How about you answer my question, Dodgeball soy boi?

How about you should have posed that question before you ASS-sumed the answer, Dimbulb?

Answer the question.

Too late. Answer it yourself. See the search box?

Answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

In it the writer was using scripture to support HIS position on acceptance of LGBT people against a friends mother's belief against it.

And, if preferenced by something like, "I can find basis for this in biblical scripture", then it's appropriate.

And if his professor still has a problem, there are academic boards at every University which exist precisely to arbitrate these disputes. You will have to excuse me if I am not buying every word of that article as fact.

Nice to see you actually read it this time instead of just making blanket assumptions.

The crux of the article is that the instructor used a worthless rationale for not using scripture in the essay.

--- or so the creative writers of a right-wing propaganda site would have us believe, citing zero evidence that such an exchange ever took place at all.

More doding.

And answer the question, do you support Trump's Impeachment or not?

 

[Pogo]

Maybe you should have "gone off" actual evidence huh.

What have we learned today?

How about you answer my question, Dodgeball soy boi?

How about you should have posed that question before you ASS-sumed the answer, Dimbulb?

Answer the question.

Too late. Answer it yourself. See the search box?

Answer the question.

My question back in post 4 TWO WEEKS ago?

I can't. It would seem no one can. I even tried. Zippo.

/thread

 

[martybegan]

How about you answer my question, Dodgeball soy boi?

How about you should have posed that question before you ASS-sumed the answer, Dimbulb?

Answer the question.

Too late. Answer it yourself. See the search box?

Answer the question.

My question back in post 4 TWO WEEKS ago?

I can't. It would seem no one can. I even tried. Zippo.

/thread

Answer the question. Do you support the Impeachment of Trump or not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a single issue website

Right: gaslighting and lathering up right wing Christians

 

[martybegan]

It's a single issue website

Right: gaslighting and lathering up right wing Christians

That was only one post regarding religion. The site is dedicated to reporting progressive malfeasance in university settings.

Of course you support deplatforming and other things the site reports on, because you are a wanna-be antifa hack-twat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was only one post regarding religion. The site is dedicated to reporting progressive malfeasance in university settings.

No, it is dedicated to gaslighting right wing Christians. As if they need assistance in this regard...

 

[martybegan]

That was only one post regarding religion. The site is dedicated to reporting progressive malfeasance in university settings.

No, it is dedicated to gaslighting right wing Christians. As if they need assistance in this regard...

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.[1][2]

You are describing "agitprop"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was only one post regarding religion. The site is dedicated to reporting progressive malfeasance in university settings.

No, it is dedicated to gaslighting right wing Christians. As if they need assistance in this regard...

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.[1][2]

You are describing "agitprop"

And gaslighting. Why believe climate scientists, when you've just read our negative story on a climate activist? Why believe universities are about academics, when we just showed you a story about one professor pushing a political agenda? Yes, agitprop, too. But gaslighting is an appropriate word, when referring to this specious trick of cherry picking and appealing to emotion.

 

[CWayne]

That’s not how it works.

Annual cost to attend Rutgers: $30,572

Rutgers student told not to quote Bible in essay because of 'separation of church and state'

I didn't know Rutgers was the state.

And it is separation of church FROM the state. The intention was to prevent the state from telling you how to practice your faith, not for universities to bar you from even accessing or referencing it. The former is freedom from censorship; the latter is the left's way of twisting it into TOTAL censorship.

https://www.rutgers.edu/about/budget-facts

They take public dollars. That makes them an extension of the State.

They have it wrong. THEY cannot promote any specific religion.

Students are not under any such obligation, even if they accept federal tuition.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Students are not under any such obligation, even if they accept federal tuition.

True. And they are free to get 'F's on academic papers for violating academic standards. Power to the people!

 

[martybegan]

That was only one post regarding religion. The site is dedicated to reporting progressive malfeasance in university settings.

No, it is dedicated to gaslighting right wing Christians. As if they need assistance in this regard...

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.[1][2]

You are describing "agitprop"

And gaslighting. Why believe climate scientists, when you've just read our negative story on a climate activist? Why believe universities are about academics, when we just showed you a story about one professor pushing a political agenda? Yes, agitprop, too. But gaslighting is an appropriate word, when referring to this specious trick of cherry picking and appealing to emotion.

More dismissing of opposing opinions. You scream gaslighting when you see something you don't like or agree with.

Good little lockstep thinking from someone with a room temperature IQ.

 

[CWayne]

Students are not under any such obligation, even if they accept federal tuition.

True. And they are free to get 'F's on academic papers for violating academic standards. Power to the people!

And free to get that academic standard overturned on the unconstitutionality of the policy.

I wonder if they'd be willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars in an unsuccessful defense in court?

Plus, when they lose that argument, the hefty civil rights fines.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

More dismissing of opposing opinions.

Nonsense. It is not "opinion" that the scientific global community aligns, in consensus, with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence regarding the climate. See? You have been successfully gaslighted. Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And free to get that academic standard overturned on the unconstitutionality of the policy.

Which will never, ever happen. Academic standards pay no mind to your preferred magical horseshit, nor should they, nor will they ever.

 

[martybegan]

More dismissing of opposing opinions.

Nonsense. It is not "opinion" that the scientific global community aligns, in consensus, with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence regarding the climate. See? You have been successfully gaslighted. Thank you for making my point for me.

The scientific global community once thought bleeding was the best way to balance the four humors. You are assuming our current knowledge is the end all be all.

To me any threat from climate change is not worth letting Watermelon assholes control our economy to "save" us from ourselves.

 

[CWayne]

And free to get that academic standard overturned on the unconstitutionality of the policy.

Which will never, ever happen. Academic standards pay no mind to your preferred magical horseshit, nor should they, nor will they ever.

The courts are magical horseshit now? Interesting.