|insert catchy juxtaposition here|
Dating
I know that no one who reads this blog would ever be interested in the concept of dating (especially those of you from LU.... From strangers to married in just 3 short months. Either that or you LUites call it courting because it sounds more serious). Anyway. Back to dating. What is the purpose of dating? I guess that is determined by the people involved. Some date for fun. others for sex, some because one person in the couple (or square) is codependent on the other (or anyone for that matter), others because they are seeking to find a life long partner. Regardless of the purpose of dating, there is always risk involved when one starts a relationship. For me, that's not nearly as big a deal when I don't know the girl as a friend first. However, now its just weird because I'm starting to have feelings for a friend of mine who i've been close to over the last few years. How does one move from a great friendship to a dating relationship? Why would one want to do that. What can you get out of a date that you can't out of a friend, other than physical things? eh? Yeah, anyway, that's my first original post in a while. I guess I'm just going to hang and wait for things to develop.
|
Please post thoughts and reactions to this article
------
MISSING IN ACTION
By Colin Elliott
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS COME UNDER FIRE RECENTLY. WHILE THE GOALS SEEM NOBLE, THE IMPLEMENTATION IS RACIST, SEXIST, AND DOES NOTHING BUT SEND THE MESSAGE THAT SELECTED MINORITIES ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPETING.
The University of Michigan has been in hot water as of late. Not only did their basketball team suck it up on Big Ten courts this season, but their Affirmative Action policy is currently in a losing battle against public opinion and the Constitution in United States legal courts. And while the U of M might become inclined to fire their coach after a few years of sorry basketball, their resilience in propping up their racist and judgmental Affirmative Action policy has only led to an increase of morons across the country using all their flower power to fight for a dying ideal.
With this light of scrutiny still examining the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action policy, perhaps it would be beneficial to shed some light on what the University of Oregon is doing with student fees and tuition in the name of diversity promotion.
The University claims that it is “firmly committed to creating a workforce that reflects the diversity of qualified individuals in the labor market” (University of Oregon Affirmative Action Plan). One begins to question this statement, however, when viewing the professions these minorities are being “created” for.
According to a study completed earlier this year by the ODE, 35 percent of undergraduate black men receive athletic scholarships. Either there is a huge demand for black professional athletes, or something is amiss and the University isn’t being straight with the public. The latter seems to stand out even more so when it is revealed that 75 percent of all black males at the University play football.
These figures reflect that, while the University’s Affirmative Action plan sounds nice on paper, they could care less about putting it into practice. If the University was really concerned about advancing minorities equally, then we wouldn’t see such an abundance of blacks in the professional football career track.
Trying to maintain their integrity, the University asserts that “the percentage of women and minorities working in a ‘job group’ (groups of employees with similar salaries, duties, and opportunities) should be similar to the percentage of women and minorities qualified for such positions” (AAEO website). Blacks make up 64.6 percent of NFL players, yet the University thinks that 75 percent of black students should be on a career track that leads to the NFL. Good intentions? Doubtful.
The Department of Affirmative Action and Equal opportunity (AAEO) insists that they do not use quotas, which are prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The FAQ on their website even notes, “Affirmative Action programs do use goals. Goals are used as ideal targets.” So no, the University does not use quotas, but yes, they do have a specific percentage that they would like to fill with minorities. The public loses another one to the veiled lies of Academic-speak.
There is an incredulous assumption made when using Affirmative Action guidelines to judge people -- what a person looks like is directly linked to their cultural experience. In reality, and most especially in the cultural melting pot that is America, this idea is absurd and outdated. Have schools and parents not been telling children that stereotyping is wrong? It seems that universities across America would rather make assumptions based on students’ physical qualities then judge their academic worth. While there is no doubt that there are many cultures and traditions preserved throughout America’s minority communities, there is still the fact that some minorities out there share nearly identical cultural experiences with regular, middle-class white families.
For instance, one could envision two boys, one black and one white, growing up in a small town and sharing a similar upbringing. Maybe the black boy volunteers in his high school multicultural club, maybe the white boy writes for the school paper. When the time arrives to go to college, they apply to the same school. If they have similar academic qualifications, then should the black boy have an easier time getting in because he is black? Surely not; they both had the same experiences. Minorities are not to be equated with exchange students or immigrants – they grow up in the same America as white people.
This fact brings up the immediate knee-jerk criticism that minorities, in fact, do not grow up in the same America as the white middle class. While yes, there are going to be some differences, there is essentially no deviation in opportunity for minorities and, fortunately, there is a vast wealth of statistics that soundly refute such notions implied by the left. According to the US Census Bureau, 47.7 percent of whites made $25,000-$74,999 in 1999 as opposed to 42.4 percent of blacks and 46.5 percent of other races.
This leads to the defining problem of Affirmative Action—namely, that it is a racist agenda that assumes minorities aren’t gifted enough to gain the same achievements as white people and therefore must be helped. Affirmative Action says: “those poor minorities, we should help them because they can’t help themselves” – an assertion that is vehemently racist, derogatory, and disgusting.
Many minorities across the nation have a heated hatred for Affirmative Action because from its roots a thought process stems that declares white males superior to all others. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a patriotic, rational American activist, put it best when he hoped for a world where his children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King knew that character, not race, was more important.
Not only was Dr. King an activist for equality among blacks, but equality among all people. Right now, the University of Oregon is supporting a program that is racist and against progress towards a colorblind nation. Employers, teachers, and students cannot try to be blind to race while Affirmative Action is still looking them straight in the face.
Colin Elliott, a sophomore majoring in History, is a staff writer for the OREGON COMMENTATOR
----
|
i was reading some old blogs, and came across this from the timcratic foundation.
--
The LeTourneau Bubble is an intellectual eye sore to just about anyone. Most of us hate conforming to it. Frankly, the LeTourneau Bubble is just part of the much larger Christian Bubble. What characterizes both is simply Religion. Those on the inside don't think for themselves, they just do and believe whatever their pastor/professor/chaplain/peer tells them to. That is not a relationship with God, that is legalism. Living according to a set of rules or standards is exactly what Jesus criticized the pharisees for.
Of course most of my readers agree with me so far, since giving up the freedom of thought is always looked down upon by everyone, as nobody does it consciously. What I find as being an absolutely baffling phenomenon that is the epidemy of hypocrisy is the opposite side of the coin. Those people who go against the flow (which is incidentally the group that everybody thinks they are a part of) go to the other extreme. These people give up their individuality to conform to non-conformity. People who break rules or go against kosher, because they don't want to be part of the Bubble. Cussing because they can. Picking verbal fights with anyone that is so close-minded to not agree with them. Criticizing anything and everything to show how much more Christian or on-fire their lives are. [i realize how seemingly hypocritical that statement is, but I can deal with that for the sake of communicating my point] The Anti-Bubble is just as much of a Religion as the Bubble itself.
Christ was not about controversy. He was about Love and relationships with real people. If controversy came up He was not afraid of it, but He didn't go looking for it. He didn't pick up the Jewish rule book to see how many Laws he could break. He surrounded himself with children to Love them. He healed the sick and the lame. He passionately told parables to communicate the reality of a relationship with Almighty Jehovah.
"Whether you think I'm so confused
Or if you feel the way I do
So don't give in to this hate within."
- P.O.D.
He came to Love, not to fight.
--
|
I do not want sunday school answers like God or Jesus, or set apart for a special purpose. I am looking for a practical, real life definition.
When you think of holiness, how do you describe it?
How would you describe a holy person? Would it be their lifestyle? (I'm not talking legalism, i'm talking true holiness that isn't confined to your church life. I think it would affect your whole life).
Give me input!
Example of an answer i don't want
---------------------------------------
Holy means set apart, and the opposite is profane which means common or to make common. Like it says in the OT "Honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy" that means don't make it common, don't make it like any other day, set it apart.
So as Christians we are called to be holy, we are called to be set apart, to be different, in the world and not of it. We are striving for a different goal than the rest of the world, we are striving for the light in Christ to be Christlike and to have a personal relationships with him.
--------------------------------------
My response to this answer:
you sure used alot of churchese. That's what i didn't want. use specifics. What does it mean to be Holy?
How can one be set apart?
How can we be in the world?
How are we to not be of it?
What does it mean to be Christ like?
Do christians today really strive for holiness. Do we truly understand what it means (not just churchese words to describe it)?
|
A Trustworthy Name
“I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name ofthe Lord.”—Zephaniah 3:12
WHEN true religion is ready to die out among the wealthy it finds a home among the poor of this world, rich in faith. The Lord has even now His faithful remnant. Am I one of them?
Perhaps it is because men are afflicted and poor that they learn to trust in the name of the Lord. He that hath no money must try what he can do on trust. He whose own name is good for nothing in his own esteem, acts wisely to rest in another name, even that best of names, the name of Jehovah. God will always have a trusting people, and these will be an afflicted and poor people. Little as the world thinks of them, their being left in the midst of a nation is the channel of untold blessings to it. Here we have the conserving salt which keeps in check the corruption which is in the world through lust.
Again the question comes home to each one of us: am I one of them? Am I afflicted by the sin within me and around me? Am I poor in spirit, poor spiritually in my own judgment? Do I trust in the Lord? That is the main business. Jesus reveals the name, the character, the person of God: am I trusting in Him? If so, I am left in this world for a purpose. Lord, help me to fulfill it.
|
I've had an incredible week. After work friday I came home and just kinda dozed off on the couch when I was rudely interupted by a telephone call. It was the music director of my church, and she wanted to know if I would be able to join the worship team in going to a Creative Arts and Worship conference at Willow Creek Community Church. I thanked her for the offer and told her i'd have to talk to my boss. I didn't have high hopes. I talked to Chad (my boss) and he was like "Yeah, definately hit up willow creek if you get the chance." He even paid my transportation and hotel (thanks!) because the total cost was around $485. So, I went from having another typical week in Sugarcreek to hanging out in chicago for a few days.
The conference was great. Willow is a church of a couple of thousand (the sanctuary holds about 4600, and they have 4 services). They are even building a new sanctuary to hold 3000 more than that. Bill Hybels is the senior pastor. I think the best thing I got out of if was the desire to be fresh and creative in my approach to teaching. They really emphasize the Arts in their church, regularly doing dramas and dances as a part of their weekend services (2 sat, 2 sun). Ask me questions about it if you want to know more - i don't want to type it out right now.
Well, my family left for vacation yesterday morning (i didn't go with them b/c i went to the conference). They are in myrtle beach and I get to have the house to myself for a week. I had a good time providing live music w/ jt at a coffee shop last weekend. It went well. We'll probably go back next month sometime. That's what I've been up to this week. How was yours?
|
