juju wrote on Apr 19, 2007 1:39 AM:
" re David B....clearly it shows that you never attended SIU. To bad David, perhaps your tunnel vision would have been opened up a bit. Where did you go to school? Perhaps somewhere in Utah? You need a reality check sir, as well as to spend a bit of time with the LGBT student/faculty association. "
lancelot wrote on Apr 17, 2007 3:58 PM:
" i didnt say it was banned,but it is under constant attack. i am not religous but i do know religin is part of our country's history. don't you find it kind of funny to want to remove things as ten commandments from buildings.even though they have been in some of these buildings for 200 years or more? if they were not a problem then,why now? think about it. "
JC wrote on Apr 12, 2007 2:56 PM:
" The real issue is whether or not this "faith-based therapy" has any scientific merit. If it does, and it was on topic for the paper, it should be allowed. If its some b.s. theory totally based on your religion, then let it go. I'm so sick of people using lawsuits to force their religion down other people's throats. "
To LANCELOT wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:18 PM:
" Uh-huh...that's why they shipped all those churches off to Jonestown, right? "
To Karl wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:17 PM:
" We're still waiting. . .who is the ADF? Is this really a difficult question? What denominations is it affiliated with? Who finances the organization? "
To mom of five wrote on Apr 11, 2007 4:15 PM:
" Hmm..what a concept. . .a "valid fact" is any superstition. "
To Lancelot wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:59 AM:
" Who said christianity was banned? "
re lan slot wrote on Apr 11, 2007 10:02 AM:
" Whas this about chicken worship? I don't do hot wings or hot wings and beer let alone worship same. Most everyone is aware of that which you complain we aren't or we (as a group?) won't allow your like minded to give testimony in their thesis with. Those who aren't aware most certainly don't have any jehovah witnesses canvasing their neighborhoods. Did they, they would know and god bless the little old lady witnesses who appear to have did their three score an ten and have a healthy start on using up another go at 3 score and 10. But no matter lance. Your dealing in generalities tells me you think doing jesusu from any perspective is OK. Surely yours is the only way, especially if your of the born agin variety. You know, or probably should, what born agin reverend gerald foulwell claims to be a fact. I've heard him (on TV) say that if a person isn't born again. Saint Pete ain't let-n them in. What's your take on that one Lance? "
mom to five wrote on Apr 9, 2007 7:25 AM:
" Good for Mize. It's time that people stood up to this kind of egomania that says you can't mention valid facts because it offends a paganistic viewpoint. The establishment clause to the Constitution does not negate the free speech clause. She was not establishing a state-ran religion. She was stating fact. Good for her. If more people stood up and demanded their constitutional rights from public schools there would be less violations to Constitutional rights of students. "
LANCELOT wrote on Apr 6, 2007 9:52 PM:
" you can express religous freedom as long as it is islamic,buddist,witchcraft,paganism,communism,chicken worshiping or anything else you see fit. BUT don't dare and do christianity. "
Karl wrote on Apr 6, 2007 3:19 PM:
" Way to weasel Kevin...you are an excellent student. Keep this up, and I'll send you Mao or Che T-shirt. "
burnt out needs re lit wrote on Apr 6, 2007 2:09 PM:
" Camon burnie. Hava heart. Don't sweat discorse you find not to your liking. This on going is freedom of expression. It just happens to about religion to begin with and what ever else some one dreams up. If you don't wanna follow along. That's your choice. You've tried it and you don't like so vamoose or hang-ga-round. Which ever suits you, but don't try to take over as thats no your job. "
To Good Friday 1 wrote on Apr 6, 2007 11:05 AM:
" Who said this issue is about expressing a viewpoint? Or that the assignment was an opinion piece? Are you saying that SIU has outlawed campus organizations which engage in religious expression?
Seems to me that the ONLY organization on campus which is allowed to EXCLUDE members is a conservative "Christian" group. . .now imagine that. Do you wonder what "viewpoint" that is supporting? Or are only conservative groups which declare themselves "christian" allowed to stifle freedom of expression?
"
Kevin wrote on Apr 6, 2007 11:01 AM:
" Awww...now one doesn't have to be a "marxist" to question how a dominionist organization is clearly endorsed by this newspaper as a "religious freedom advocacy" group.. .especially since it is rather obvious that it doesn't protect the "religious freedom" of everyone, nor is it recognized as such by every "christian."
Now why is that the case?
And I'm still waiting to see some real evidence of persecution of "christians" beyond right wing bloviating about how their selected interpretations are useless unless they are allowed to persecute others.
84 comments on this story and still no one can explain why the reporter defined the ADF as a "religious freedom advocacy" group. Do they defend the freedom of Jews? Moonies? Presbyterians? Quakers? Those gay churches? Now why is this such a difficult question to answer? "
Good Friday 1 wrote on Apr 6, 2007 8:40 AM:
" Well, it doesn't take long to see that if Christ were here, the masses would line up to crucify Him again! No, that is not to say that His followers are completely right, but Christ did have a different perspective than the one the majority of the world without God had. In His day, even the so-called religious leaders didn't know God and took offense at what Jesus said concerning Himself in relationship to Him. The Romans were merely used in the political maneuverings of the religious leaders and gave in to them to keep the peace. Today we have political maneuvering that goes just as deep from every angle. In America, however, which is not a brutal dictatorship as Rome was, everyone is supposed to have freedom to voice his or her views, even in the classroom. Enough with this anti-Christian bigotry and secular bias! "Been There Too" (March 15) is right! In our world, freedom to express one's views -including religious views - is a civil right. May you secular citizens learn to be as tolerant as you are always preaching that the rest of us should be! "
Burnt out wrote on Apr 5, 2007 9:24 PM:
" OK, I'm sorry, but it's time the newspaper take this story down and put another one up for readers to comment and debate on. The Christian haters have had their say, and the Bible thumpers have had their say. It's time The Southern remove this and replace it with current NEWS. Thank you. "
Bus-b-Late wrote on Apr 5, 2007 6:32 PM:
" Does this mean that 'my man' Kevin is a Marxist? Good for him...so am I. "
Karl wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:09 PM:
" Kevin, you are a good student...you remembered what I wrote. 'Religion is the opium of the people.' Thanks again for remembering me and my manifesto. "
Kevin wrote on Apr 5, 2007 12:42 AM:
" I'm still trying to figure out how the writer of this story felt the Alliance Defense Fund should be labeled a "religious freedom advocacy" organization when it clearly represents a narrow, fundamentalist version of one religion.
"
Karl wrote on Apr 4, 2007 2:07 PM:
" More words have been posted on this subject than in the Old Testament or The Communist Manifesto. Folks, it's time to give it rest. "
hard core republican wrote on Apr 4, 2007 1:42 PM:
" Re: "say what", you are really over generalizing. If we were in science class, how would a personal belief that the world was created in 7 days and carbon dating is a satanic plot be germane to a discussion on the validity of evolution? Almost 90% of Americans self identify as believing in God. How can you then claim to be persecuted? The point is, many of those 'believers' also know that the Constitution seperates church and state, church should stay private regarding public education. Since when is a Muslim saying 'Allah is punishing someone' taken as progressive? What about the Westboro Baptists from Kansas, they celebrate dead soldiers in Iraq, because as they say, "God hates F%*'s (homosexuals)"..should that veiw be part of an academic course? "
Say What? wrote on Apr 2, 2007 4:26 PM:
" KelKel
Why is it that a Muslim, homosexual, or an atheist can say what ever they want about any topic and that is considered modern and progressive thinking, but if a Christian says the same thing, they are labeled dumb, intolerant and hateful?
"
kelkel wrote on Apr 2, 2007 11:58 AM:
" I am so sick of christians acting like they are so persecuted, give me a break. The majority of the population is christian or some variation of it. This is why the minority needs protection. Christians that I know are not accepting/tolerant or able to see reality and other peples opinions. It is thier way or the highway. Thier "beliefs" affect every decision they make, wether it is a reasonable one or not. I have never said anything to limit a persons rights but many a christian have tried to do so to me.
This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. If you are in a 500 level Social Work class, you better base your papers on treatments that are recognized by the NASW and that live upto the code of ethics all social workers must vow to uphold. Also it might be good practice to choose a topic about conditions that actually exist. Further more I believe this is just an example of the beauracracy of SIU. Dreuth-Zeman did what she should have done. The legal dept should have moved quickly on it.
Also if you wanna see what Mize is really upto google her, it is ridiculous. If you feel bad about having an abortion years ago- thats your problem. Don't make it everyone else's. All these right wing pro-lifers need to take care of the kids that are allready here!!! Leave adults to make thier own decisions not influenced by faithorreligion but by factandlogic. "
bugler wrote on Mar 31, 2007 12:10 PM:
" Dear "How Sad": Put 10 people in a room, give them an assignment, and those who stick to the topic and do things covered in the course SHOULD get the best grades. If you don't believe this, it's just as well you didn't choose SIUC, or any other real university, or you would have been disappointed. "
How Sad wrote on Mar 30, 2007 10:20 AM:
" With all this hoopla and some of the hate filled statements, I'm glad we didn't choose SIU-C. Even without a faith base, who wants to hear/see another destroyed because of differing views based upon beliefs. The Name calling, the dagger throwing...that says it all. What happened to the free thinking ability within this country? Instead, SIU Grad points out that you conform to the Professors thinking or pay the price. Others say if you are going to go 'faith-based' you have to chose a university that matches your faith if you want that freedom. Still others will ripped you apart for having a differing opinion. Are you all so blind that you can't see? Put 10 people in a room and give them an assignment. Each one will write according to their own person beliefs, religious or otherwise. Can one person then really tell everyone else they are wrong? According to what has been said here, yes. And then you'll get ripped up for having a different opinion. "
To Recent Grad wrote on Mar 28, 2007 10:49 AM:
" I think you should include that belief system on your resume. "
Bush b gone wrote on Mar 27, 2007 10:56 AM:
" I'm clapping my hands together, and tears of joy are streaming down my face because Lo! The great wisdom of "Pedro" has been brought forth!! Thank you so much Pedro for gracing us all with that eloquent statement. Yes! Professors that don't act according to the law of "Pedro" should be ran out of the country. Hmmm, smell that? That's Pedro wisdom! You should really write a treatise on who gets to stay in the country Pedro, Love your work! "
pedro wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:33 PM:
" some of these daffy professors should be ran out of the country... "
Recent Grad wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:49 PM:
" To Recent Grad wrote, "If you get a good grade for practicing deception, then it is evidence the professor requires deception from all students." My point exactly. Thank You. "
To Recent Grad wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:42 AM:
" Your beliefs are that deception is expected in performance in order to gain rewards. However, you don't want to be punished if that deception is discovered by the professor.
So, your point is that your beliefs are being "violated" if you are expected to meet the same performance standards as other students. Then you blame others for forcing you to assume you cannot get a good grade unless you practice deception, which is the core value of your chosen beliefs. So if you don't get a good grade for practicing that deception, your beliefs are being violated. If you get a good grade for practicing deception, then it is evidence the professor requires deception from all students.
Nice try.
"
Recent Grad wrote on Mar 23, 2007 11:45 AM:
" I have to thank the Professor and Michael for helping me make my point. No amount of evidence I could have presented would give better validation to my position. Both of you are ready to lower the grades of students based on their beliefs regardless of any presented evidence. The fact you have stated is that your opinions are right and anyone that disagrees with those opinions is wrong. Wow now that is true education. "
Michael wrote on Mar 23, 2007 10:11 AM:
" I sling mud back at those who sling it. Mize is doing that here: this is much ado about nothing. And, again, we see someone trying to base a paper on faith when actual "evidence" is required. Again, right on something that concerns the topic Mize or take the "F." "
Checks and balances wrote on Mar 22, 2007 4:19 PM:
" Re:"recent grad"-what did you major in, because I didn'yt have that experience with my professors? "
To Recent Grad wrote on Mar 22, 2007 3:41 PM:
" I'm not sure what credibility to assign someone who just received a degree by misrepresenting your own work to conform to the imaginary desires of the professor. Of course, I'm sure you have data to match your assessment of grade punishment for not adhering to classroom opinions. But frankly, if you were in my class and I sensed you were attempting to cater to your imagined projections of my opinions, you'd lose much more than a small percentage of a grade.
"
Recent Grad wrote on Mar 22, 2007 12:01 PM:
" As a recent grad of SIUC I discovered early on how to get good grades. You had to construct all your work in a manner that agreed with the ethical, moral, and political views of the professor or TA that would be grading your work. If your opinion or conclusion differed from what the instructor had deemed as appropriate, then you would be graded down regardless of how well you defended your position. Art is only art if the professor agrees with your style. Ethical positions are proper only if they agree with those of the professor. Political opinion is correct only if you support the candidate and the views of the instructor. To waiver from this philosophy, though in public is encouraged, in reality will reduce your GPA by at least .5% and in some cases a full 1%. "
Checks and balances wrote on Mar 22, 2007 10:26 AM:
" "Be logical"-There is a myth that Southern Illinois is ultra-conservative, but the truth is more complicated. Supporting the "reality based," community's stance is the fact that Illinois governor election totals in 2006 show that only in White County did Topinka get more votes than Blagojevich and Whitney (40 more). In only 3 counties, (white, johnson, jackson) did Topinka beat Blagojevich, but more voted for Whitney plus Blajovech to beat Topinka's totals. Since whitney is arguable more liberal, less conservative than blagojevich, I think it's fair to say 2006's election in SI showsa rejection of Topinka's conservative veiws. "
Be Logical wrote on Mar 22, 2007 2:50 AM:
" SIUC happens to be located in the most conservative part of the state. SIUC however is no more liberal than other Public Universities in the State. If you listen to the conservative pundits you would know that most of higher education is dominated by liberal ideology so to single SIU out is not fair. Sending your kids to EIU or NIU instead is not going to help the situation. "
proud collegiate graduate wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:52 PM:
" The reason religion has a hard time finding its place in higher education is that once you reach that level you see what a psychological farce religion is. thank you easter bunny. bok-bok. "
Tired wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:48 PM:
" The student told the professor she had in her paper valid research evidence to prove that post abortion syndrome exists and valid research evidence to prove the condition is treated effectively by faith based support groups (similiar to AA). In spite of this stated to the professor in class, the professor repeated her statement that the student could turn in the paper but that it would be graded down.
Not every woman that has an abortion suffers from post abortion syndrome, but those that do and wish to have a treatment that is congruent with their values should be able to access such treatment. If the professor would have read the paper, she would have found that the faith based intervention had been taken out because of her threat and that was no longer an issue with this paper. This big mess could have been resolved last year.
I'm tired of this mess. Come on university, do the right thing. Don't let it happen again. Grade student's papers when they meet the criteria set out by the professor. This one did.
Let's get on with life. "
To SW Grad wrote on Mar 21, 2007 9:39 AM:
" The professor in question, I'm assuming, is teaching the class because she is considered both an expert in the subject area and has years of experience in studying the practical applications of the material. While I have no idea why that decision was made, I would have a problem with a subject as broadly based as "faith-based" programs. Another poster has pointed out there are plenty of social programs which have been in operation for years which are associated with certain ministries. On the other hand, we have rather newer players in the federal program, including the Moonies and the Hare Khrishna. I gather the religious Right was upset about the HK getting funds. However, Mize's reaction by going to the legal organizations which represent the "religious" beliefs of certain ministries is suspect unless those same organizations represent the "faith-based" values of all religious persuasions. Is the students contention here that only ministries which support those organizations "faith-based?" Again, I have no idea what the rationale for the professor's decision was, but a blanket statement about "faith-based" should be verified. We didn't get that in this story - instead, we had the newspaper attempted to endorse the student's apparent definition.
Then there is the problem of evidence-based research - meaning no "junk" science. That matter could have been easily cleared up within the department structure. I saw nothing related to that in the article. "
To Sojourner wrote on Mar 21, 2007 9:31 AM:
" This newspaper describe the ADF and the ACLJ as organizations which protect the "religious freedom" - of whom? You indicated your respect isn't based on any First Amendment issue - rather it is politically motivated. That makes the newspapers description suspect and implies an endorsement of Rightwing "religious" claims as the sole representative of "Christianity."
That, naturally, raises some other First Amendment issues, along with some Illinois state constitutional issues. Subscribing to "conservative" thought is not the equivilent of Christianity. And your statement, once again, does not address who the ACLJ represents. . .a pertinent fact when organizations become players in the article. "
seeker of truth wrote on Mar 20, 2007 9:44 AM:
" To the responder of "SIU Grad", you made an assumption that Ms. Mize did not talk to the hierarchy of her department. You are wrong. Michael, be careful while you're slinging mud; some may get on you!! Look out for that "horrible reasoning and moronic stupidy." You are wearing it like a banner.
This situation is an opportunity for SIUC leaders to demonstrate personal integrity. Imagine the respect you could earn by doing so. Examine your motives.
"
SW GRAD wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:24 AM:
" I was in the class in question. The topic of the paper was the students choice as long as the student could provide support from evidenced based practice that has been proven to be effective treatments. When Christine told Dr. Dreuth the topic she immeditaly dismissed a religious component without knowing if Christine did in fact base her topic and plan on evidenced based treatments. I don't think that Dr. Dreuth denied Christine's plan with any malice, I believe that she thought that there was no evidenced based treatment plans that incorporated "faith based" treatment. Dr. Dreuth was correct in turning over the paper to legal counsel as it was handed in with a legal opinion. However, the legal counsel should not have taken this long to reply. What started out as a valid student complaint spun out of control as the SIU system does not do things quickly or kindly. "
Sojourner wrote on Mar 20, 2007 12:09 AM:
" I have the utmost respect for The American Center for Law & Justice and its chief counsel Jay Sekulow. The ACLJ is the radical leftist ACLU's worst nightmare and an ever growing force on the landscape of the American judicial system. I applaud Christine for seeking them out. More institutions of higher learning need take notice that "the times they are a changin'". Christians and other students of faith will no longer tolerate being treated like apples that fell off the cart in the marketplace of ideas. "
grown up wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:39 PM:
" To Michael,
you suggest that the student should complete the paper as assigned or take an F. Why? SIU professor complaining about someone not completing a task as assigned but in the very same institution you have professors who are suing the state because the state has the gall to expect them to complete a task as assigned, i.e. the ethics test. Here's an interesting concept, maybe that ethics test had nothing to do with the actual questions, maybe the ethics test was to see if the professors actually read the material as assigned. Finishing too early means they failed to read all the material, hmmmm. Teachings at SIU: Do as I say not as I do. what's good for the goose.... "
Kevin wrote on Mar 19, 2007 4:06 PM:
" I agree, Bugler. There is just too much relevant information missing here - and it reads like a deliberate attempt to inflame. And again, no one talks about the ministries which support the organizations complaining about this process. "
bugler wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:43 PM:
" This whole debate is pretty silly. To quote from the article:
"She (Dreuth-Zeman) said ... she wanted ideas to come from what was discussed in class or in the textbook."
But Mize said the class had discussed faith-based initiatives in social work throughout the semester.
Now were faith-based initiatives discussed in the class? (And this doesn't mean "mentioned by students," I mean discussed in the class in a substantial way.) Were they discussed in the textbook? (Again, not merely a footnote.) If the answer is "Yes" then Dreuth-Zeman is wrong and should aplologize. If the answer is "No", then Mize should apologize, and SIU should sue the ACLJ for a frivolous lawsuit.
And in either case, the Southern Illinoisan owes us all an apology for sloppy journalism. They should have asked these questions and sought answers from a cross-section of students (and consulted the syllabus) before publishing any story. It wouldn't have taken very long.
Two questions: 1. to "Milorad", what is a Mooslum, some kind of religious ungulate? And to "Social Work Student", are you saying that discussion of "everything from homosexuality and Wicca" would be acceptable in papers in the particular course in question? Can you prove it? "
Truth wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:15 PM:
" Maybe they did not want to hear wher her views where? Maybe she should do what they told her to do her paper on and then she would have no problem?
Just what was the paper to be on?
"
To SIU Grad wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:39 AM:
" You don't appear to have any knowledge of this specific situation - you are making assumptions, which once again leads me to believe that the purpose of this story was to inflame, not inform. It doesn't belong on the news pages.
Moreover, I am naturally suspicious of anyone who stakes a claim that their personal faith choice is the only spokesmodel for Christianity - it implies to me an inherent intolerance of the religious rights of others, including Christians. Again, the key here is to distinguish the role of the ADF and the ACLJ - and why the student chose that route to air her complaint rather than talk with the hierarchy in the department offering the course.
We cannot assume the professor in question has no "faith" - nor can we assume there are no "christian" organizations on campus. "
Michael wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:09 AM:
" I went to SIU, and it doesn't discriminate against anything other than horrible reasoning and moronic stupidity, like the type offered by Mize here. She needs to shut up and write the paper on the subject matter assigned or just take a big fat "F." "
SIU Grad wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:50 AM:
" I have attended SIU over two different time spans and graduated from SIU with two different degrees. I have personally witnessed the extreme liberalism and intolerance for anything that even remotely smells like Christianity (of course this intolerance DOES NOT hold true for other religions on campus...only Christianity). There have been many different issues brought up in the comments for this article that quite frankly, have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue is, a student was told she could not incorporate her faith into an assignment. What is the use of having faith in anything or anyone if it doesn't affect every aspect of one's life? If I lay my faith at the door when I enter a classroom (regardless of what or who that faith is in), the truth of the matter is that I have no faith at all. Someone who truely embraces faith, allows that faith to saturate every portion of their life...including their university assignments. The fact of the matter is, we are given that right by our governing documents and this professor attempted to remove that right. The reason she attempted to remove that right really does not matter. Rights were infringed and an organization that claimed to be able to help, was asked to help. As to whether or not this article was news worthy...judging by the number of comments on this page...I'd say it was. "
prof2 wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:07 AM:
" The prof in question asked SIUC's legal council for help. They sat on the problem for weeks. This says a lot about the ability of the SIUC adminstration to work with faculty and students. The issue may have less to do with religion and more to do with an inefficient bureaucracy. "
bystander wrote on Mar 18, 2007 7:17 AM:
" To be fair, this incident involves (initially at least) a single faculty member. It is not fair to tar SIUC in its entirety for what Druth did. Most of the Profs at SIUC, left/right, religious/non-religious, are reasonable people. People like Druth, thankfully, are in the minority. The really frightening thing is that they think they are right. "
jn wrote on Mar 17, 2007 12:46 PM:
" You don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church. "
The SI and SIU Bashing wrote on Mar 17, 2007 12:39 PM:
" This is a poorly researched, thinly veiled attempt to gratuitously bash SIU. It would have been easy to find out (from other students) if the topic was truly a formal part of the course, and what the stated requirements were for the paper. Did Hale even attempt to determine whether Mize followed the formal grievance procedure that all SIU students agree to follow when they enroll? If she didn't, SIU should dismiss her just for that. It's quite obvious Mize is a fringe extremist who just wants to pad her credentials as a reactionary. Verily I say unto you, Mize can thank the Lord I'm not the tenured professor, because if she'd sucker-punched me like that, I'd have fought her to the finish. I'd give ANYTHING to see the finished paper - particularly the lit review and the (scientific) justification for the research. Perhaps she will post it on the web for us to critique (laugh). Full disclosure: I'm a male, a Christian, a Republican, pro-choice, a former SIU student, a published author of peer-reviewed research, and taught several years at the university level in the very recent past. "
grown up wrote on Mar 17, 2007 11:57 AM:
" maybe it has to do with ethics....oh wait we all know siu professors dont care about ethics. "
Kevin wrote on Mar 16, 2007 5:31 PM:
" Well, no answers to who the ADF and the ACLJ are - or who funds them, or whose "religious freedom" they advocate. . .
"
To Steve S. wrote on Mar 16, 2007 5:30 PM:
" mmm...forced religion. A con-servative's dream of freedom. Tell me now. . .what was the student population during the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's? Were they appropriately pre-screened for religious correctness? "
Kevin wrote on Mar 16, 2007 5:28 PM:
" To Milorad -
Man...did they shut your church down? "
Kevin wrote on Mar 16, 2007 5:27 PM:
" To We Want Free Speech-
Really now. . .and what is the tradition of "free speech" at con-servative private "religious" institutions? Got any ideas? "
Steve S. wrote on Mar 16, 2007 10:45 AM:
" My parents either graduated from SIU or took classes there in the 20's 30's 40's and even early 50's. SIU had what was called convocation every morning which the student body attended (mandatory) that included PRAYER led by the then president. Think SIU will ever go back to that again? Think the ACLU would mind? Just a thought.... tsk tsk.. "
Milorad wrote on Mar 16, 2007 7:53 AM:
" Religious freedom?! There's no religious freedom in America unless you are a radical mooslum. "
Bill wrote on Mar 16, 2007 3:49 AM:
" Christine:
I am very proud of you. Well done! "
We want free speech! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 9:23 PM:
" See, this is why enrollment at SIU and other state institutions are on the decline and enrollment at private faith-based institutions are on the increase. No one wants to be told what they can't believe and what they can or can't say. "
To Way To Go Christine! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:48 PM:
" And the ACLJ is WHOSE answer to the ACLU? "
To Social Work Student wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:46 PM:
" That would be, naturally, the selectively-chosen "religious" beliefs of your own congregation, no doubt. Does your church history go back to colonial days? "
To Been There Too! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:29 PM:
" Which "other side" are you referring? If you are indeed a tuition-paying student, the lacking in your own education so far is your apparent inability to grasp that there are multiple "other sides" to any issue or situation, not just the one you believe in. "
To H.O.G. wrote on Mar 15, 2007 12:22 PM:
" Your right. Sometimes a little less IS a little more. Which is why this article should have been at least half the size. There's not enough information to make a "news" story except endorsement of a "religious" belief, endorsement of right wing religious-funded legal organizations, and the whining of the subject.
Neither the ACLJ nor the ADF represents everyone's religious freedom do they? I've noticed no one dares answer that question. "
Saluki grad wrote on Mar 15, 2007 11:51 AM:
" I agree with Jeffersonian. I received an excellent education from SIUC and rarely, if ever, did I encounter professors that wanted to limit opinions. I took classes, such as economics, that certainly lend themselves to wide ranging political positions. I'm fairly conservative and view some of Jim Muir's work positively but he and the Southern do seem to overstate the liberal leanings of SIUC. Yes, it's liberal like the majority of higher education institutions. However, it's nothing compared to most others. Having spent time at U of I, UC Berkeley, and Mizzou I can tell you SIUC is not near as left as they are. I think it's that SIUC is a public university in the middle of a very conservative region. "
Been There Too! wrote on Mar 15, 2007 11:39 AM:
" Religious education is fine, but public education does not have a "right" to interpret religion and then not hear the other side of the issue by a person who has religious faith. We are tuition-paying students who did not check our civil rights at the door when we entered. Those who want religious minded students to conform to secular approaches, when their careers may legitimately be aimed at faith-based approaches in the real world (comprised of both secular and religious elements working together)are imposing THEIR values on us. We are entitled to express other points of view than what a textbook or professor prescribes, particularly when an issue is current within the social system and societal debate. Basic constitutional rights are at issue here. This is in no way an establishment of religion by the government, or a violation of anyone else's right to disagree. "
Jeffersonian wrote on Mar 14, 2007 3:11 PM:
" I graduated from SIU recently, and my experience was that the best professors encouraged quality debate and discussion. Either end of the spectrum was tolerated, as long as there was rational reasoning to support the argument. What bothers me about alot of these anti-SIU posts, is that they are made by people who admit they don't attend the university. What the heck do they know? Also, I've got a news flash for all you reactionary Fox news zombies, Kevin makes well reasoned arguments as to the sad state of the press in general, and the SI in particular, and as is all too typical, the Limbaugh zombies ignore his points, create strawmen arguments, that they then try to say Kevin makes, all because they can't discuss the issue on Kevin's level...its both sad and funny, scared little half-wit Fox watchers don't like to think too hard. "
S2H wrote on Mar 14, 2007 1:16 PM:
" Could it be possible the reason given for a possible reduction in grade have nothing to do with freedom of speech or religion? Could it be that the student in question wanted to use faith based examples that were not covered in class and therefore not relevant to the course teachings? I would find this more plausible than an antireligeous liberal trying to punish a student for her beliefs. But, that's just me. "
Bob wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:38 PM:
" Shouldn't the instructor be able create their own assignments? We should proceed catiously when a student becomes unhappy with the assignment given and throws a temper tantrum by retaining the closest attorney to get her assignement changed because they can't promote their own agenda. My advise: take a religon class if you want to write a religous paper. "
Diana wrote on Mar 13, 2007 10:21 PM:
" I think there aren't enough facts to the story for me to really say what I think. IF the teacher said it was ok to do before, and then changed her mind at the end of the semester, I would say that's definitely unfair. Also, faith-based therapy sounds like a fairly common anecdote to pts sydrome from an ABORTION. hello half the people are probably wondering if they are going to hell. I think the girl got what she wanted- alot of hype. "
Social Work Student wrote on Mar 13, 2007 7:17 PM:
" SIUC School Work professors are quick to accept everything from homosexuality and Wicca as American norm, but fail to recognize the standards by which our country was founded. "
H.O.G. wrote on Mar 13, 2007 6:52 PM:
" 'Cmon Kevin. In writing, as in other mediums, sometimes a little less is a littel more. And yes, we got it in the first 750 words. "
Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:57 PM:
" SIU FACTS: You did make a perfect descriptive statement about this newspaper's agendasetting problem:
"The newspaper obviously only runs stories that they know the public will want to read."
I suggest the newspaper put this on their masthead and consider going into the sensationalized tabloid business. That way people can read what they want and continue to practice the willful ignorance of avoiding or expecting any facts. I'll be happy to go out into a field and stomp down some brush, take a fast picture, and write up a story about a UFO making a crop circle.
"
To SIU Facts wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:51 PM:
" Interesting that you consider it "Christian-bashing" to question why a community newspaper would openly endorse in a news story a politicized organization financed by a televangelist empire.
And once again, this story was designed to inflame, not inform. The failure to identify the ADF as anything more than a "religious freedom advocacy group" is an endorsement of this organization as something it isn't. Has the ADF defended the religious liberties of Jewish people? Buddhists? Moderate christians? Presbyterians? Catholics?
Why is it "christian bashing" to ask the newspaper to explain why the ADF is a "religious freedom advocacy group" and for WHOSE religious liberty?
Do the ministries funding that organization serve as the sole elected or appointed representatives of all christianity? Do they advocate for the religious liberty of ALL Americans?
And why wasn't that identified in this story?
"
To Re: Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:40 PM:
" A reporter's job is to present the facts and attribute information - not endorse a narrow religious philosophy, define what is "Christian" without attribution, and claim an organization is a "religious freedom advocacy group" without evidence or attribution. The newspaper is not supposed to be in the business of taking a side on the NEWS page, particularly in declaring what is religious freedom. It has repeatedly committed this error as an endorsement of certain, and usually, non-denominational conservative "Christian" groups without research or attribution.
If it is inflammatory to you that each American is entitled to worship according to his own conscience, and the idea that a community newspaper should not get into a habit of promoting one segment of Christianity over another, then you've got an issue.
There is something called ethics in this profession. "
To Been There Too! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 4:24 PM:
" Uh. . .how, exactly, does a university prevent you from incorporating religion into your world view and studies?
Is there some reason why we have private, religious-supported institutions of higher education in this country? Aren't these some of the schools which practice the right to censor world views that are incompatible with their religious beliefs?
Again, we have few details on this situation. A lot of conjecture, a lot from one side. How do you know that the student represents "Christian principles?" How do you know the professor doesn't?
"
Way to go, Christine! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 3:31 PM:
" *clapping* Thank GOD for the ACLJ! The answer to the disgusting ACLU!
http://www.aclj.org/
"
Been There Too! wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:44 PM:
" SIUC has a number of professors who are not friendly toward people who wish to integrate their faith into their world-views and studies. It seems fine with a number of them to criticize Christianity and religion, but not for anyone to present another position than the one they favor. It is also fine to interpret faith issues from a secular perspective but not to do so from a personal religious one in class discussions. This is insulting and intellectually dishonest. It is also not in touch with the real world outside of the university. Mize and ADF are well within their rights to take the position they do. "
To Veritas wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:38 PM:
" It's a term paper - not necessarily an opinion paper. Was it indicated in this article that the assignment was an opinion paper?
We don't know exactly what the assignment was - this is just an inflammatory article with few facts and a lot of insinuations. "
To SIU facts wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:36 PM:
" It shows no such thing. Can you cite some examples where rightwing "Christians" have been denied admission to the university?
Moreover, the only information this story provides about the religious belief of the student is that she claims "Christian principles" - whose "Christian principles?" The Moonies? The Jonestown crowd?
When this newspaper broadly endorses a vaguely identified legal organization as the official spokesmodel of "Christianity," the religious rights of all others are degraded.
Do you know if the professor in question here is a "Christian?" Or is it already a given that she can't possibly be a religiously-correct one given this newspaper only recognizes hard-right religious organizations financed by the likes of Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Robertson as officially "Christian." What denomination do these folks represent? Who appointed them the American ayatolluhs of Christianity? Hale claims they protect the "religious freedom". . .of who? ALL Americans? Or just the ones endorsed by this cabal of televangelistas, some of whom advocate for the instigation of dominionist government in the United States?
"
SIU facts wrote on Mar 13, 2007 2:10 PM:
" And here we go with Kevin's Christian bashing and anti-semitism. If you have such a problem with the stories that The Southern Illinoisan prints, then why do you even bother reading them? The newspaper obviously only runs stories that they know the public will want to read. If you don't like what the paper prints, then stop reading it and complaining about it. "
Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:32 PM:
" Christine Mize, I'm proud of you for standing up for what you believe. "
observer wrote on Mar 13, 2007 1:16 PM:
" Considering that privatization of social services to faith-based organizations is so common, why is discussing a faith-based approach to counseling clients necessarily verboten? The State of IL contracts with these faith-based agencies for child welfare services extensively. In turn, these faith-based agencies spend money to lobby legislators and influence public policies related to social services. Like another poster her, I think the article was written to inflame, not inform. "
RE Kevin: wrote on Mar 13, 2007 12:47 PM:
" And your remarks aren't inflammitory? "
Not Surprised... wrote on Mar 13, 2007 12:42 PM:
" Either by their actions or their words. In today's society, its ok to have an opinion as long as it doesn't disagree with theirs. If you do, you get called names like 'kool aide drinkers,' among others. For your information, lots of people drink kool aide and since Jamestown, there isn't poison in it nor or they being forced to. Many are not 'religious' but have a real relationship with a savior, Jesus Christ. Don't like it? That doesn't surprise me either. Your opinion isn't going to change it nor is your name calling. In fact, it only makes you look as if you have a phobia against Christian. So, what are you so afraid of? "
Sarah wrote on Mar 13, 2007 11:51 AM:
" Hey, Veritas, you misspelled "discrimination." Now that is the mark of an SIU education - blame it on the flaming liberals and the hippies. "
SIU facts wrote on Mar 13, 2007 10:54 AM:
" This provides further proof that SIU is an anti-Christian school. The majority of professors on campus have no tolerance for those who practice the Christian faith. Unless you're a flaming liberal or a hippy, you don't stand a chance at SIU. However, I do admire Ms. Mize's courage to excercise her right to free speech. Let the Christian haters complain all they want. Stay strong Christine. Hold your ground. "
Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 9:35 AM:
" And here we go with the half-cooked perspectives of the kool-aid drinkers who immediately purchase a half-researched "story" as a statement of fact.
This story was written to inflame, not inform.
"
Veritas wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:57 AM:
" Freedom of speech goes both ways. The "secular progressives" would have it that any speech, writter or otherwise, that incorporates traditional Judeo-Christian values in the marketplace of ideas ought to be disallowed. Yet, any form of speech that seeks to discredit or undermine these same values is often touted as "enlightened" and "academic." What a joke. Liberals are all for freedom of speech until that speech is something they disagree with. Oh, and don't even get me started on the "separation of Church and State" argument.
Good for you, Christine! This type of descrimination cannot be allowed to run rampant on SIU's campus. "
Ron wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:48 AM:
" Is anyone really surprised that SIU would do this. You can practice just about anything at SIU except Christianity. SIU is known as liberal state school and this is just par for the course. "
Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:42 AM:
" The Southern's coverage of the same-sex marriage "issue" in news stories was completely focused on "religious" ceremonies, with little discussion of statutes and no discussion of the non-religious contract entered into with a state.
And here we have, once again, a "story" which is written in just enough vague terms to accomplish little more than attempt to inflame and manipulate the public. We don't know what the term paper assignment was. . .we don't know what "faith-based" initiatives were discussed in class and in what context (were Rev. Moon's tax-funded efforts talked about?) and we don't know anything about what "faith-based aspects" were being included in the paper.
What we do know is that the student went to the right wing, privately financed "religious" law organizations which, by the way, only defend the "Christian principles" of people associated with certain, organizationally-approved "religious" groups. Hale didn't even identify which faith-based initiatives were involved or what research was involved.
That the student considered this a possible First Amendment issue might be news if we had more information - but then this newspaper seems to prefer creating scandal with as few facts as possible to trying to inform the public.
We aren't likely to get that kind of information from a story that neglects to even identify the political or religious affiliation of the primary organizations who are the major players in the article. But someone should be asking why this newspaper consistently attempts to mis-identify rightwing organizations as mainstream.
"
Kevin wrote on Mar 13, 2007 8:22 AM:
" Well now. . .this is certainly another case of poorly-researched and deliberate misinformation in reporting from a newspaper which has used radical con-servative "religious" political organizations in its editorials without identifying their affilation.
What, exactly, is the Alliance Defense Fund, and which "ministries" bankroll their efforts, Caleb? And what is the American Center for Law and Justice, and who funds that legal group? Is there some reason the public shouldn't have identification information as part of the story, or does this reporter assume that everyone knows who these groups are?
This is an increasingly annoying habit with this newspaper, whose editorial policy appears to be the endorsement of rightwing organizations as "mainstream" by neglecting to identify pertinent information about those organizations. When this happens, the story is not only clouded, but the information deliberately manipulated.
Muir regularly pulls this crap in his wingnut columns, slamming the ACLU and identifying them multiple times in a column, while cheerleading for Jerry Falwell's privately-funded legal organization in the "war on Christmas" and carefully neglecting to mention them directly by name.
Former editor Meta Minton gave kudos to a con-servative religious "press" organization without identifying their roots in an editorial about the questioning of a minister by the FBI over a sermon. At the same time, she quoted a far-right "ministry" with a checkered past and neglected to mention the differences between laws and policies between the United States and Canada - it was, apparently, considered more important for the newspaper to parrot. "
another prof wrote on Mar 13, 2007 7:45 AM:
" I think this is the course in question:
SOCW 555-3 Advanced Policy Analysis: Health & Mental Health. This course applies a systematic analytical framework for a critical and in-depth analysis of federal, state and local policies that shape programs affecting health and mental health in rural settings. Examines how policy impacts practice with diverse populations. Prerequisites: completion of foundation courses or advanced standing and SOCW 502, 512, & 522. "
David B wrote on Mar 13, 2007 7:27 AM:
" WOW. SIU faculty can march with the glbt but will not receive a paper with religion mentioned? Should I say that I am surprised? Absolutely not. The decreasing numbers in enrollment speak for themselves. SIU has turned into a left-wing democracy instead of an un-biased learning institution. This is why I turned to an out of state university for my education. "
