College and religion...?

Question

I am currently going to college. I have heard Republicans say that "Liberals have hijacked the Universities and have infected them with their Godless Liberal beliefs." I haven't seen any of this. When I go to class, the teachers teach their subjects. Then you go home. That's it. I have never been in a class lecture and heard anything like "The hydrogen atom bonds with the oxygen atom to make water, oh and buy the way, God doesn't exist." I haven't even heard the word politics even mentioned in the 2 years that I have attended college. You go to college to train for a job. The whole purpose of education is to train you for a future job. Not give you Bible lessons. I think republicans need to get a life and start going to college. It's not the liberals fault that not enough Republicans go to college to push their theistic beliefs on campus.

Answer 1

It depends on the classes you take. Science, math, some economics, business, foreign language, law classes all tend to be phenomenally objective and very valuable courses.

Sociology and SOME psychology courses (ones that don't teach logical thought process) are generally useless and the professors who teach them are pissed off at the world.

Answer 2

Okay....... only two instances from my own personal account:

1) On my VERY FIRST DAY of college I got to class early and was sitting in the hall, and I looked on the door and it said there was a Science class going on, I forget exactly what type, whether it was Biology or Geography (sort of a science class) or Astronomy or something like that... But the teacher said, "Lets face it, the war in Iraq is all about oil". I mean if it was a political science class it would make a little sense, but this was a regular science class. That would be like me starting a Business class and saying, "Lets face it, Jesus died on the sins for your account"

2) .... What was the second... oh yes. Well after learning New Testament Greek at the college, I was eager to learn Hebrew because the teacher was going to give a class on that. However this was just a few days after a Muslim shot up people at a Jewish convention in Seattle, so the college decreed that Hebrew could not be taught at the college because they feared the Muslims would be upset. I mean this should have been big news, there were about 40 people wanting to learn Hebrew in the community, but the school would not allow it. Why? Do they think EVERY Muslim will kill Jews? Heck I do not even know if we have one Muslim in this county, I know we don't have any Islamic services. Besides, aren't Muslims and Jews both descended from Abraham? Are they not brothers?

Oh and for the record, my college does have a class on Atheism and how religion is no longer necessary for society. But there is no Christian class, no Judaism class, no Islam class. The nearest we come to is a class on the Greek language.

Answer 3

Yep, 8 years in college and counting and I've never heard any of this 'liberal bias' in the classrooms. Sure, my teachers are liberals, but I learned that over drinks, not over physics. Hell, my RELIGION class barely brought up the subject.

I think the problem is they decided anything that doesn't mention god is a liberal bias - which would include any science or math classes, since the topic never comes up.

Besides, the act of going to college and meeting new people with different viewpoints pretty much makes you liberal - you can't live in your bubble forever.

Answer 4

Some people go to college for an education. If I was training for a job, I would have studied something other than English Lit.

But, you are right. Universities are just schools. The main goal of your profs is to teach you what you need to know to pass that class.

Answer 5

It depends what your studying. I went for engineering, so there was no talk about God. We talked about engineering. I was required to take an anthropology class (that was required) that was extremely liberal. My lesbian professor told us that if we could clone people that we would no longer need men. I took a liberal sort of history class (that was required for engineers for no apparent reason), the whole point of it was to complain about industry and the white mans oppression of Indians, blacks, and woman.
So the point is that not all classes oppose God, but liberals require courses that add little value to your education in order to force you to hear their views. I'm sure that if you went into biology or teaching you would be exposed to much more. If you went to one of the elite schools, then you wouldn't be able to avoid it. One other course was Business ethics (a required coarse) taught by a homosexual, and was anti business. The fact that many professors today are draft dodgers that stayed in school to achieve doctorate degrees while avoiding the Vietnam war. So you might not be exposed to it, and I wasn't exposed to much of it, but it definitely exists.

Answer 6

They say this because in the world today the more educated you are, the less likely it is you'll believe in a god. Statistically Atheists are smarter than theists.

So, in a sense they're right, but it's not the liberals that have "hijacked" the schools, it's rational thought that the schools themselves help give rise to.

Answer 7

LOL I am also in college and I have not noticed anything. Sometimes I may get a liberal professor and they may bad mouth republicans but then the next professor is republican and bashes liberals. Usuallythough its like you said you go to class (fall asleep) then go home.

Answer 8

We don't need to preach against religion in our universities to get the truth out, the #1 factor that leads to the decline of religion is education.

Answer 9

may well be an exciting way of figuring out any sort of cutting-edge, American perceptions of religion. The "goody-goody" born lower back neighbor who lower back and lower back makes stupid judgements interior the call of his faith, Lisa's seek for God in one episode, Bart's (and Homer's) interpretation of God that shows up in many episodes. appears like a chilled type...as long because it substitute into taught exact.

Answer 10

They have rewritten our history books to erase our Christian heritage as a nation and taught that our constitution was meant to protect us from religion instead of proteting freedom of religion. They have taught us that evolution is a fact instead of the errant theory that is is.ETC.Don't tell me you havent been taught the religion of evolution in a secular college. If so you do go to a great college. Let us know where it is. We may want to send our kids there.

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."