God's Next Army

[Admiral Johnason]

"Estate tax and property tax should be repealed because of the Biblical principle that the Earth is the Lord's, not the State's"

You know one of the great bits about Christianity & the modern world is supposed to be "Give unto Ceasar..." which lead to church state seperation, but the quote more directly says.. Yes you need to pay your bloody taxes.

Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

Mat 22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

Mat 22:19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Conservatives feel that giving God face time is more important then doing what his son told people to do.

[Omega-185]

Wow, I can't belive I made it all the way through 45 minutes of that. Every time I see or hear some thing like this I always ask my self how can anyone actually believe in that crap? Do they even realize how stunningly full of shit they apear to anyone left of fox news? Oh, well I guess this is yet anyother reason I am glad I live in a country that is not filled with people like this.

Also, did anyone else fell a profound sense of sadness that these inteligent, young are going to become ignorant, hatefilled bigoted fundimentalists?

[Kettch]

An intresting note about the college, it is not accredited.

Christianity Today

Due to the young college's unaccredited status, students who leave the school may not be able to transfer their credits. Under Virginia law, the school has until November of 2007 to become accredited or risk losing the right to call itself a degree-granting college. Patrick Henry has so far sought accreditation from the American Academy for Liberal Education and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, but was denied. While it could still re-apply, the college is currently exclusively pursuing TRACS, according to its website.

Core Curriculum per Wikipedia:

Core curriculum

All majors require 75 credit hours of core curriculum. Included courses are titled:

Constitutional Law (3)
Economics for the Citizen (3)
Euclidean Geometry (3)
Foreign Language (12)
Freedom's Foundations I, II (6)
History of the U.S. I, II (6)
History of the Western World I, II (6)
Logic (3)
Music History and Appreciation (3)
Philosophy (3)
Principles of Biblical Reasoning (3)
Research & Writing (1)
Rhetoric (3)
Science (Physics and Biology w/Lab) (8)
Theology of the Bible I, II (6)
Western Literature I, II (6)

The school offers 7 courses (21 credit hours) in Biblical Studies, 5 courses (33) in Classical Liberal Arts, 15 courses (43) in Classical Languages & Literature, 4 courses (12) in Economics, 19 courses (51) in Government, 23 courses (74) in History, 7 courses (15) in Strategic Intelligence, 6 courses (12) in Journalism, 24 courses (79) in Literature, 3 courses (9) in Mathematics, 5 courses (8) in Music, 6 courses (18) in Philosophy, 5 courses (14) in Science, and 4 courses (12) in Spanish.

Euclidian Geometry (None of that relativistic curved geometry for you!) is probably on the list to complement logic. Only one seimester each of Physics & Biology? All the easier to "create" student's opinions if you never go into depth. (Admittedly most Lib Arts degrees only require 8 credit hours, but they are forcing them to spread it between fields.) Funny thing is, I wish more schools made logic a manditory requirement.

Finally, I looks like they are having problems w/ their faculty & five have been fired/left:

About the Save Root! Campaign
Who Are SaveRoot.com?

SaveRoot.com is staffed as a labor of love by students and alumni of Patrick Henry College as well as friends of the five professors who indicated their non-intent to return to PHC for the next academic year over growing concerns over lack of academic freedom, censorship, and philosophical, religious and academic persecution at PHC. We maintain this site in keeping with what those men taught us, that a just man has nothing to fear from speaking the truth. We do so then in their memory, with the hopes that what we have to say will counter the attacks on the character of these men currently being made by an Administration with little regard for any truth other than what they define in their talking points.

SaveRoot.com was founded by students seeking answers to the questions the PHC administration would not answer, and which the college had forbidden the professors to answer. We organized a orange ribbon campaign on the campus, passing out flyers on free speech, and wearing orange ribbons as a show of support for Dr. Root, and later the other four courageous professors who chose not to return out of their support for Dr. Root, the principles of academic freedom, and a stand for truth. Several students were told they could not exercise their First Amendment rights through simply wearing an orange ribbon while working at their on campus work study jobs.

Christianity Today's Article:

"We were brought here on false pretenses," said David Noe, assistant professor of classics who has taught at Patrick Henry since its founding. "We are leaving due to a long train of abuses by Farris in violating both academic freedom and due process, as well as many other issues relating to Farris's running of the college."

Departing professors also cite Farris's treatment of government instructor Erik Root and his March firing of Robert Stacey, the chairman of the college's department of government, as additional reasons that confirmed their decisions to leave the 350-student college.

Noe, Root, and rhetoric and theology professor Todd Bates agreed to go public with Christianity Today earlier this month, they said, after Farris repeatedly denied their requests to respond to accusations that beliefs they had expressed were biblically unsound. "Farris said that we threatened the college's fidelity to its mission and vision," said Noe. "He spoke to the press, but told us we couldn't."

...

The debate reached a head when Root published an article entitled "Of St. Augustine, the Teacher, and Politics" in the campus publication The Source. The piece argued that St. Augustine "deserves to be called a Saint because he was instrumental in making political philosophy palpable to Christians and vice versa. … [He] taught Christians how to engage the culture around them."

Soon after its publication, Root learned his contract was being "temporarily withdrawn" based on the article as well as a complaint from a student's parent over his use of the "lifeboat example" in class. Root said the illustration was used to explain Thomas Hobbes's state of nature argument. "Acting academic dean [Marian Sanders] told me I couldn't use that any more," said Root. "She said that there are some questions we can't ask in class or entertain."

In a February 28 e-mail message, Farris asked Root to respond to seven "questions."

"The overall question is the fidelity to the biblical worldview in your role at PHC," stated Farris. The letter claimed "the well-known 'lifeboat' game" was "a recognized tool of those who wish to contend that there are no absolute values." It further asked for an "explanation about this episode and the underlying philosophy that this represents."

"I thought it was an academic freedom issue," said Root, adding that he did not respond to Farris's questions as his contract had already been pulled.

...

On March 8 another Source article, this one by Noe and Culberson entitled "The Role of General Revelation in Education," again prompted the administration's response.

"A common misconception among American evangelicals, and one that cannot be supported by the Scriptures themselves, is that the Bible is the only source of truth," the article began. "We argue that this misconception amounts to a blasphemous denial of Christ's words in Matthew 5 that 'he sends rain on the just and the unjust.'"

The 900-word article argued that "a Christian must refuse to view special and general revelation as hostile to one another. Nor should he hesitate to learn from a pagan. There is much wisdom to be gained from Parmenides and Plato, as well Machiavelli and Marx."

The article prompted a 2,600-word response by college chaplain Raymond Bouchoc, sent to students, faculty, and staff. The response, endorsed by Farris and Sanders, discussed seven "harmful implications" that could be drawn from the professors' article and claimed the piece "diminishes the import of Scripture."

The official response prompted Noe, Root, Culberson, Stacey, and, later, Bates to turn in letters of non-intent stating they would not be signing their contracts for the following school year. The next day, in a March 17 "Q&A" with the campus newspaper, The Patrick Henry Herald, Farris said the resigning professors "quit because the leadership utilized academic freedom. If somebody wants to quit because they believe we have too strong of a view of the Bible, then so be it. I believe God's going to bless us for standing up for his Word."

...

Amid the controversy, on March 31 Stacey read the school's statement of faith aloud in his class and asked students to decide if he had been unfaithful to it. If they agreed, they could leave. "He said, if you think I have an unbiblical worldview, you shouldn't be listening to me," said one student. Another student then immediately left the classroom to report the comments to Farris, multiple sources confirmed.

"At 2 p.m., Farris cut Bob's phone and e-mail while he was in class," said Noe. "Then he called him to a 4 p.m. meeting where he fired him. He told him he had until 8:45 a.m. the next morning to apologize and recant; otherwise he'd lose his job. What Bob did in class was attempt to publicly address this after repeated requests to the president, and when he did he was fired. … We believe that Bob's firing was Farris's attempt to keep us quiet."

Farris told reporters that he fired Stacey because "he asked students to take sides."

...

Nice to see their training little KGB or Gestapo informers.

Commentary in the Christian Post:

"If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe." (That's G. K. Chesterton, of course.) If you want to form a Bible college, you are free to draw it as such, and it can be checked out. Fine. You can also form a liberal arts college in a recognizable way. Fine. Patrick Henry College, a rural Virginia school that commands big funds for its (so far) tiny enrollment (300) and faculty (sixteen), lost five of those sixteen professors this month, and others speak of leaving. They are having trouble with the school president's image of what a giraffe looks like. That is, he disciplines them when they "do" liberal arts, while he insists that his pact with them demands that everything they teach must be congruent with "the biblical world view."

Finally, an interview w/ Dr. Root via PBS:

Q: Do you think there is academic freedom at Patrick Henry College?

A: As it exists right now I would say no, or if there is it's very limited. The professors that want to explore ideas, talk about certain issues even within the biblical worldview at Patrick Henry College, have a rough go of it … Even the questions that students can ask in class are under scrutiny because of the way the president interprets the biblical worldview. So even questions that are asked, ideas that are explored within the biblical worldview of Patrick Henry College sometimes come under scrutiny, even if they're not outside the biblical worldview, because of disagreements that the president might have with a certain person, what this person is saying.

...

Q: What is the future of Patrick Henry College?

A: Patrick Henry will end up, if it continues down this road, will end up being more illiberal … it won't be a liberal arts education, it will be an illiberal arts education, if that's possible. I think they will lose out if they continue to -- especially this president -- put a chilling effect on ideas, on the exploration of ideas and the freedom of inquiry.
...

OK, OK, let's let them have their piece:

COLLEGE RESPONSE TO MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT DEPARTING FACULTY

Responding to a flurry of media coverage about departing faculty at Patrick Henry College in recent days, the executive leadership of PHC wishes to convey its deep concern over what it feels has been heavily skewed, one-sided coverage of a private personnel matter. In a succession of published comments by five departing professors, their voluntary resignations have been characterized as a protest-by-pact against so-called restrictions upon their license to freely teach the classical liberal arts in the classroom. By their words and quoted assertions, the professors have painted the conflict as a battle for academic freedom, suggesting that the College is retreating from open discourse and its commitment to the classical liberal arts. Both charges are patently, categorically false.

[Gil Hamilton]

Wow, PHC isn't even accredited? And their president is so christo-fascist than even their few normally super fanatic teachers are going "Hey, wait a minute..." Of course, that's kind of to be expected. What is creepy is that the students are so willing to report on their professors.

[Darth Servo]

Thier "defense" of Religious Coersion:

Academic Freedom or Religious Coercion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professors at Patrick Henry College sign a statement of faith as a requirement of employment. This practice might suggest to some that our professors give up academic freedom when they sign the PHC statement of faith. The unstated assumption embedded in such a claim is that academic freedom is an intrinsically good thing and policies that compromise this freedom are undesirable. Fair enough. Most people agree that academic freedom is good. But this only raises an obvious question, namely, what exactly is academic freedom?

Tuition ammounts to $16,000. Thats one damn expensive Bible study group.
At first blush, academic freedom would appear to mean the freedom of those holding academic posts to conduct research and teach the subject of their expertise in whatever way they see fit. The imposition of any guidelines that restrict the freedom of the scholar are undesirable, for restrictions serve to stifle creativity and silence challenges to the current orthodoxy, challenges that, as we have seen throughout history, ought to be heard. If this is what academic freedom means, then religious colleges that require faculty to sign faith statements do indeed appear to limit academic freedom.

But perhaps academic freedom should be understood in another sense. What if we define academic freedom as the freedom for scholars holding similar worldviews to associate and in so doing to form a community of scholars actively pursuing truth in a collegial and cooperative fashion? Academic freedom in this sense seeks to step back from the radically individualized conception in the first definition in favor of a view that emphasizes community and cooperation.

Before this communal notion of academic freedom is dismissed as stultifying or even (gasp) medieval, let's consider for a moment how scholars work. Anyone who has spent any time in a traditional academic department (especially liberal arts and social science departments) knows that one doesn't have to scratch very deep to find substantial and often bitter divisions. Alliances naturally form and at times acrimony grows between opposing factions. Those scholars who share similar worldviews tend to gravitate toward each other. They voluntarily choose to associate on a deeper and more meaningful level than with those in the department with whom they fundamentally disagree. They read each other's papers, collaborate on articles, and informally discuss ideas. In short, they form sub-communities within the larger, and sometimes dysfunctional, academic department.

Such associations are not limited to academic departments, though. The same sort of self-segregation often occurs at professional meetings. Those with similar views naturally tend to gravitate toward each other as they form panels and discuss papers and books that interest them precisely because they share similar conceptions of the world.

In other words, regardless of whether or not scholars sign statements of faith, they tend to form voluntary associations with like-minded colleagues. The obvious corollary to this reality is that some people are excluded from some groups. But, far from being onerous, this exclusion is usually mutually agreeable. Would a politically left-leaning feminist seek to be a contributing member of a community of conservative Thomists? Or vice versa? This is not to suggest that there is no place for constructive engagement between communities, but such engagement comes after an idea has been developed and tested within a community committed to working within a particular conceptual framework.

Creative scholarship is hindered where scholars must constantly defend the basic first principles upon which their conception of the world is grounded. As such, a community of scholars sharing a similar worldview will be able to pour their energies into their scholarship without constantly having to justify their very intellectual existence. This environment of cooperation and collegiality (which does not imply lack of either debate or disagreement) is precisely the type of environment best suited to the germination and nurturing of new ideas. Since scholars naturally form these sorts of communities regardless of whether or not they are employed at institutions that require faculty to adhere to a particular set of beliefs, academic freedom understood in the communal sense seems more in keeping with real practices than the radically individualistic notion that is currently held up as the ideal. If this is the case, then institutions that require their faculty to sign statements of faith are merely formalizing a type of voluntary relationship that almost always arises naturally at institutions where no such requirement exists. As such, statements of faith do not in themselves limit true academic freedom.

Such hypocricy. Such stupidity. They admit they aren't allowing people to teach and research according to their own views then call this "academic freedom" by insisting that knowledge grows best by associating more with people who agree with you. They admit that "Creative scholarship is hindered where scholars must constantly defend the basic first principles upon which their conception of the world is grounded" yet this is precisely what creationist morons like them do to science and they are training their students to continue this waste of time. Is it any wonder they can't get accredited?

[Gil Hamilton]

How Orwellian.

I mean, we end disagreements and rivalries in our facility by making sure everyone believes exactly the same thing. If everyone believes the same thing, no arguments! Everyone is free from dissent and disagreement! Everyone is unified! Freedom is Slavery!

[Darth Wong]

Wow, PHC isn't even accredited? And their president is so christo-fascist than even their few normally super fanatic teachers are going "Hey, wait a minute..." Of course, that's kind of to be expected. What is creepy is that the students are so willing to report on their professors.

Any time when ideological correctness is determined by conformity rather than evidence and reasoning, you have fascism. Whether it be intellectual or governmental. Unfortunately, they project this kind of interpretation onto the rest of society so often that the accusation has no effect on them when they hear it, even though it's true in their case.

[wautd]

I wonder how many decades it would take untill the US becomes a copy of Afghanistan during the Taliban cockroaches. I hope I'm wrong but history tends to repeat itself.

"What we learn from history is that no one learns from history"

[PainRack]

just out of interest, what does it take to get a college accredited in liberal arts?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Questions are a burden to others; answers, a prison for oneself.

[Vehrec]

*thumps his head on the desk*
You know, this reminds me about the thing Thomas Jefferson said about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots. I know it works as a revolutionary call to arms, but maybe it should also be a reminder not to be to welcoming of a leader who is someone yelling 'Forward' from the rear and hasn't had any family do any kind of grunt work.

On the other hand I don't think that this school is much more than an unussually agressive branch of the radical christians. The religious right in America is so extreme because fire and brimstone sells. Once it stops selling, this movement should break up.

What America really needs is a charismatic liberal party that isn't afraid of being confrontational with the Republicans and their religious nutjobs. Maybe get some liberal churches backing them and starting to quote scripture. . .