# Who's stupider? Wheaton college or the woman who wants to stay there? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 6, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369 "2016-01-06T23:22:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/101 "2016-01-18T14:44:13Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I don’t know if you’re conflating tenure with employment contracts or if tenure actually has the force you’re attributing to it, but I will say this: If they’re actually breaking the law or a contract, they should be busted for that. It is also the case that [religious institutions have broad latitude to discriminate based on religion](http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/religious-organizations-right-to-discriminate.html), and that includes simple bigotry as long as they obey the law. [More.](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html) > > You seem to be confusing tactics with morality. Morally, I am opposed to bigotry. Tactically, this isn’t a hill worth dying on. The law enforces _minimum standards of behavior_ and there are damned few ways to force people to become morally good individuals, or to even fake it acceptably well. Especially if they think they’re _already_ good people fighting the good fight. This isn’t so much about being unable to legislate morality as different groups being unable to agree on what morality even is in this case: Even if we could legislate morality, we’d have a serious problem here. > > Facts are not moral or immoral. They are facts. People do not become immoral by acknowledging the existence of facts you consider immoral. Not a “hill worth dying on” for whom? 😕 Seems to me it’s a hill worth dying on for her, because it’s her job at stake. Personally, I think this lies in the realm of employment law, and that she’d have a damn good case. Who do you think is about to “die” on that “hill”? Your links are instructive (if not, perhaps, in the way you appear think they are). Certainly, there are exemptions from anti-discrimination … but they are sensible and limited. From your second link: > [@](#): > > Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization. > > This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. \*\* However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races. \*\* Emphasis added. What’s at stake here is that the employer is claiming a “religious” reason for firing an employee. However, as has been amply demonstrated, their claim is bullshit. They are, in effect, attempting to claim a religious exemption for behavior that would not be covered by that exemption: in this case, for seemingly making nice with Muslims. Your POV would allow them to get away with that. Why would you, or indeed anyone, think that was a _good_ idea? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/102 "2016-01-19T00:06:57Z")
> [@CC](#): > > Hard to understand why someone would fight to stay at Wheaton College. Their argument is beyond ludicrous - that Muslims’ god is different from Christians’ god. It’s similar to little kids fighting over who’s stronger - King Kong or Rodan? They’re arguing over a fictional character, for chrise sake. But the fact that this fundamentalist school wants to get rid of this ecumenical thinking professor of political science should be reason enough for her to want to be someplace else. Why on earth should she fight to be part of this corrupt, superstition-weilding organization? They’re both nuts. That’s like saying blacks who aren’t welcome in a restaurant shouldn’t want to be there, since they aren’t welcome, and should get up and leave. She’s an educator. If she leaves, a bunch of kids will get an even crappier education. Good for her for fighting to stay. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/103 "2016-01-19T06:44:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What’s at stake here is that the employer is claiming a “religious” reason for firing an employee. However, as has been amply demonstrated, their claim is bullshit. They are, in effect, attempting to claim a religious exemption for behavior that would not be covered by that exemption: in this case, for seemingly making nice with Muslims. Can you talk me through the basis upon which termination of this professor’s employment would be actionable, and how any relevant exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) would or would not apply? I haven’t worked my way through the matter but I’m not immediately seeing her case on the face of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/104 "2016-01-19T08:32:47Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Nope, you still don’t get it. Sure, it’s all a fairy tale. That’s only part of the point. The other point is, it’s _not_ internally consistent, in either written tradition or (even more notably) practice. I gave you the key example in this respect: the shoehorning of the completely inconsistent Jesus tradition into the older tradition. You haven’t dealt with this point in any way whatsoever, most likely because you can’t. How dare you. Of course I could. [The times they are a changin.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/105 "2016-01-19T14:11:18Z")
Meanwhile, Wheaton College alumni are apparently [very pissed off](http://www.christianpost.com/news/wheaton-college-800-alumni-threaten-stop-financial-support-larycia-hawkins-same-god-professor-not-reinstated-155247/). > [@Princhester](#): > > Can you talk me through the basis upon which termination of this professor’s employment would be actionable, and how any relevant exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) would or would not apply? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment actions taken based on race and religion. I think we can stipulate that the professor’s statement on which god Muslims worship can be taken as a statement of belief, yes? Title VII includes a “ministerial exception” allowing religious to discriminate based on religion when choosing non-lay personnel (priests, rabbis, and so on). The ministerial exception has been extended to cover some educational employees, including a teacher in _Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC_, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). However, the plaintiff in that case was not a lay teacher; she had theological training and was hired as a “called” teacher - essentially, a minister for the classroom. SCOTUS’ opinion made much of this, even though she was actually reassigned to a “lay” position at the time she was discriminated against. At least [one court](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-court-of-appeals/1607326.html) has applied the ministerial exception to a teacher who had no religious duties, but that was apparently based on the fact that he taught on religious subjects (including the New Testament) and participated in chapel services even though he was Jewish. As far as I can tell, Hawkins taught no religious subjects at all. The college’s only claim that she is a “minister” would be its “holistic Christian” teaching method, but to win on that argument it will have to show (at least) that its curricula for subjects like political science include religious elements. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/106 "2016-01-19T14:22:10Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Can you talk me through the basis upon which termination of this professor’s employment would be actionable, and how any relevant exceptions (and exceptions to exceptions) would or would not apply? I haven’t worked my way through the matter but I’m not immediately seeing her case on the face of this thread. She’s a professor with tenure. The meaning of tenure: > **[Academic tenure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure)** > > Tenure is a type of academic appointment that protects its holder from being fired or laid off except for cause, or under extraordinary circumstances such as financial exigency or program discontinuation. Academic tenure originated in the United States in the early 20th century, and several other countries have since adopted it. Tenure is a means of defending the principle of academic freedom, which holds that it benefits society in the long run if academics are free to hold and espouse a variety... > [@](#): > > In the United States and Canada, tenure is a contractual right of a teacher or professor not to have his or her position terminated without just cause. Therefore, Wheaton has to have “just cause” to terminate her employment. They cannot do it arbitrarily. The purpose of tenure is to allow professors freedom of speech: > [@](#): > > Academic tenure’s original purpose was to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure.[2] Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit and to report their honest conclusions.[3] However, it has also become a type of job security for professors. In sum, they are terminating her for the exact reason tenure is supposed to prevent: for exercising her speech on a ‘controversial’ topic in a manner that they, the university staff, find offensive. This is what gives her the right of action - they have breached the terms of her contract. Now, their defense would presumably be that she breached the terms of her “contract” first (namely, the “Statement of Faith”) and that this provides the “just cause” they require to terminate her. That’s where the analysis of the religion comes in: the fact that her quoted words would not reasonably be seen as actually breaching the ‘statement of faith’; and more importantly, the fact that the college hasn’t been consistent: they have allowed other faculty (one of whom did not have tenure) to make the same comment, without terminating them. It is a commonplace in employment law when looking at the reasonableness of employee discipline to look at past institutional practice as a guide. The institution cannot be _arbitrary_. It must be _consistent_. In this case, the lack of consistency would be a difficult legal barrier for them to overcome in proving ‘just cause’. That’s all that is really necessary for the analysis: assuming all of these facts are provable, she has a good solid case for breach of contract. The notion has been raised that the college could be allowed to discriminate based on religion. Strictly speaking, that has nothing to do with the legal analysis. However, even if it did, it would not apply; the right of religious institutions to discriminate based on religion is limited: it is intended for avoiding suits for religious discrimination (for example, because a Catholic school hires Catholic ministers for their chapel, that sort of thing). Assuming the above analysis is correct, this notion would not even come into play: she is not actually of a different religion. An institution cannot just make shit up and then claim a religious exemption for it, and to allow them to do so would be a silly precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2016, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/107 "2016-01-20T06:14:23Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Don’t you Niemoller me, you yahoo. > [@](#): > > It plays both kinds of music: Country and Western! I still can’t see what makes this place so unique it’d be worth the fight to save it from itself. So which is it? I personally am probably prejudiced against evangelicals due to my past experiences with them. Still, I don’t want them subjected to injustice. I can tangentially relate to what Hawkins is going through, and if I don’t think it is right when it happens to me, that goes for everyone else as well. Those are just right and proper values as I see it. I don’t know how much dog I have in this fight, but it is worth at least a few comments on the internet. > [@Princhester](#): > > Nope, you still don’t get it. Sure, it’s all a fairy tale. That’s only part of the point. The other point is, it’s _not_ internally consistent, in either written tradition or (even more notably) practice. I gave you the key example in this respect: the shoehorning of the completely inconsistent Jesus tradition into the older tradition. You haven’t dealt with this point in any way whatsoever, most likely because you can’t. I have pointed out the A != A bible reference in this thread. Why can’t the evangelical belief system include multiple views, the full set being provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory? I think a lot of evangelicals have a problem with Muslims, and also may be ignorant of their own tradition to the point that they wrongly disagree with Hawkins. So we have an orthodoxy, and then more lay views. Can you accept at least that much? As for OT v. NT, the big differences I see are that in OT times we are basically looking at stone-age people in a kind of warring-states political milieu. Maybe the Hebrews were going to come out on top, who knows? Well, their god told them to kill kill kill, and be the best at it lest I smite thee. But do it with class and dignity, here are some stone age ethics and cultural mores to that end. In the NT, times have changed, the Hebrews didn’t win history at all, the Romans did. The Hebrews are hopelessly and inescapably oppressed. When somebody inspiring like Jesus comes along, the Romans just kill him off, and there is nothing to be done about it. Interesting thing, though, that after a few centuries this religion really caught on, to the point that it became the state religion of Rome, and the statue of Victory which had stood in the Roman senate for something like 1100 years was removed. Well, next thing you know the citizens are tearing down all the classic architecture because they think it is all possessed by demons. The population turned against itself and went crazy over the reversal of values. Rome had enough problems already, and with this it got sacked by the barbarians, and it was Game Over for the Western Empire forever. Pretty good trick, really. > [@](#): > > It is fair to say I didn’t deal with your rebuttal sufficiently but that is because I neglected to do so, not because I can’t. I haven’t heard evangelicals use Romans 13:1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” the way you say they do. But assuming they do so it just illustrates my point; Romans 13:1 used this way would not in any way illustrate that bible literalists are actually literalists. It would be, at best, an illogical and disingenuous attempt to get out of literalism. > > For example, do literalists think that selling daughters into slavery is morally justified, or that their neighbours \*should \*be put to death for working on the Sabbath? No they do not. Per Romans 13:1 literalists may be excused from actually selling daughters or killing neighbours because they are subject to the governing authorities. That is no answer to the fact they should believe those things to be moral, which they don’t. Obviously I know more about how these people think than you. Hey, whatever, if this were D&D I would totally choose another achievement given my druthers. But anyway, that doesn’t put me in a position of authority over the orthodoxy. I don’t see how you could be in a position of authority over the orthodoxy. Why should I listen to you? I just don’t think _you_, **Princhester** , have to be convinced before it can be assumed that this system of religious thought has a discrete structure. You don’t understand all the ins and outs? Well obviously not, but evangelicals do. > [@](#): > > Further (and even more compellingly) Romans 13:1 would be no excuse at all for an actual literalist to refrain from following those activities in Leviticus that are not prohibited by the governing authorities: why don’t they sacrifice bulls on altars? Why do they have contact with their wives when their wives are menstrually unclean? Why do they eat shellfish, touch pigs, get their hair cut? > > I’ll tell you why - they aren’t literalists at all. They do what they want. They will decide their god is not the god of the towelheads if they want. Again, there is likely some orthodox/lay activity going on, but beyond that- these religious debates rarely change anyone’s mind. I doubt this is that rare discussion. I’ve seen you come across as pretty sharp in threads where you aren’t blinded by contempt for the subject matter. We will probably meet again in one of those threads, and hopefully the encounter will be more fruitful. I’ll follow the thread, but I don’t have the time for throwing spitballs. If you want the full details of the biblical explanation for everything, you’ll have to ask an evangelical, though I doubt the Wheatonite who appeared in this thread is getting a lot of warm fuzzies and wants to dish. Or just make up your own beliefs; it isn’t my problem. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/108 "2016-01-21T23:32:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Meanwhile, Wheaton College alumni are apparently [very pissed off](http://www.christianpost.com/news/wheaton-college-800-alumni-threaten-stop-financial-support-larycia-hawkins-same-god-professor-not-reinstated-155247/). > > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment actions taken based on race and religion. I think we can stipulate that the professor’s statement on which god Muslims worship can be taken as a statement of belief, yes? Title VII includes a “ministerial exception” allowing religious to discriminate based on religion when choosing non-lay personnel (priests, rabbis, and so on). The ministerial exception has been extended to cover some educational employees, including a teacher in _Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC_, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). However, the plaintiff in that case was not a lay teacher; she had theological training and was hired as a “called” teacher - essentially, a minister for the classroom. SCOTUS’ opinion made much of this, even though she was actually reassigned to a “lay” position at the time she was discriminated against. > > At least [one court](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ky-court-of-appeals/1607326.html) has applied the ministerial exception to a teacher who had no religious duties, but that was apparently based on the fact that he taught on religious subjects (including the New Testament) and participated in chapel services even though he was Jewish. > > As far as I can tell, Hawkins taught no religious subjects at all. The college’s only claim that she is a “minister” would be its “holistic Christian” teaching method, but to win on that argument it will have to show (at least) that its curricula for subjects like political science include religious elements. Interesting, thanks. I was assuming your last argument but if she had no religious role then yes it would look like Wheaton would have problems. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/109 "2016-01-22T00:17:10Z")
I’m hearing commercials on the radio for a university that mentions that “all courses are taught from a Christian perspective.” My cynical little brain is wondering if this is at least as much to inoculate themselves against any legal finding that ANY of their faculty are non-ministerial as to appeal to evangelicals. I wonder if Wheaton is motivated by similar considerations. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/110 "2016-01-22T10:31:07Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > SI have pointed out the A != A bible reference in this thread. Why can’t the evangelical belief system include multiple views, the full set being provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory? > > I think a lot of evangelicals have a problem with Muslims, and also may be ignorant of their own tradition to the point that they wrongly disagree with Hawkins. So we have an orthodoxy, and then more lay views. Can you accept at least that much? > > As for OT v. NT, the big differences I see are that in OT times we are basically looking at stone-age people in a kind of warring-states political milieu. Maybe the Hebrews were going to come out on top, who knows? Well, their god told them to kill kill kill, and be the best at it lest I smite thee. But do it with class and dignity, here are some stone age ethics and cultural mores to that end. > > In the NT, times have changed, the Hebrews didn’t win history at all, the Romans did. The Hebrews are hopelessly and inescapably oppressed. When somebody inspiring like Jesus comes along, the Romans just kill him off, and there is nothing to be done about it. Interesting thing, though, that after a few centuries this religion really caught on, to the point that it became the state religion of Rome, and the statue of Victory which had stood in the Roman senate for something like 1100 years was removed. > > Well, next thing you know the citizens are tearing down all the classic architecture because they think it is all possessed by demons. The population turned against itself and went crazy over the reversal of values. Rome had enough problems already, and with this it got sacked by the barbarians, and it was Game Over for the Western Empire forever. Pretty good trick, really. I think you’ve totally lost your way in this debate. You are in furious agreement with my point of view, you just haven’t realised it yet. An evangelical belief system not only can include multiple views that are provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory, it does. That’s why there is or would be no problem with such a belief system suddenly deciding their god is not the god of the muslims. _This is exactly what I’ve been saying for about 3 pages now_! And your rambling historical recital is an example of exactly how a religion can, due to times changing, come to adopt something quite different to what it believed before. _Which is exactly what I’ve been saying could occur if animosity between Xtians and Muslims creates a movement towards a new belief that “their god isn’t ours”_ The rest of your post (a) doesn’t actually deal with the nitty gritty of what I said in my last post (presumably because you can’t) and (b) is a sad attempt at a sort of argument from (absent) authority. In decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could present a plausible explanation that somehow smooths over all the obvious contradictions in the bible. But you are asking me to believe that such an explanation exists, it’s just that I’m ignorant of it. Suuuure. Riiiight. Are you going to try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge now? And while I don’t want to make you feel overly silly, can I point out that in a single posting you have said that firstly evangelicals can have a belief system that is inconsistent and self-contradictory, and secondly that if only I knew the full beliefs of evangelicals I would be able to understand how their system of thought was coherent. You’re tying yourself in knots trying not to agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/111 "2016-01-23T05:08:24Z")
I said _provisionally_ contradictory and inconsistent, in the context of orthodox and lay evangelicals, the lay ones being “ignorant of their own tradition” such that they would make a claim like, “Yahweh is not Allah.” Take as an example a fictional, especially ignorant evangelical. How is he categorized an evangelical? Why, his parents are, he has always gone to the meetings, he is a part of that community. Now, assume that he was poorly home-schooled such that he is almost illiterate, and, being so young and inexperienced, never could make heads or tails of all the sermons he’s been exposed to. He is an evangelical, yes, but he sucks at bible literalism. He hears a lot of right-wing talk radio and watches Fox News. These influences lead him to become prejudiced against Muslims. Since his religious upbringing leads him to believe he is good and right, and his prejudices lead him to believe Muslims are bad and wrong, he comes to believe that Jehovah and Allah must be separate deities. You could come into this thread and quote this guy and say, “See? Evangelicals don’t agree with you! And,\* he just made it up himself!\*” Ok, but the guy is also wrong. There is official fundamentalist evangelical doctrine, and it is defined enough that we can say, on some questions and according to that system of thought, there are right and wrong answers. But there are way more people who identify as evangelicals than are fully versed in this doctrine. That’s why you get all of these provisionally contradictory opinions- people don’t get it. I want you to read [The Bible](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/kjv.txt) and [The Koran](http://www.archive.org/stream/thekoranalquran02800gut/koran10a.txt) and _see for yourself_ that Jehovah is Allah, and that this (particular!) point is not the least bit ambiguous according to the source material. Don’t bother me again until you have examined the source material, and/or devise some fresh objection that directly refers to the source material. > [@](#): > > In decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could present a plausible explanation that somehow smooths over all the obvious contradictions in the bible. For one, that is not the debate and it is not my problem. For two, I don’t think I can be accurately described as “a religious person.” This conversation is like pounding my head against a wall because you are re-playing old debates with people who aren’t me. You should calm the fuck down, you aren’t gotcha-ing anybody here. More logos, less pathos, please? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/112 "2016-01-23T05:59:46Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I think you’ve totally lost your way in this debate. You are in furious agreement with my point of view, you just haven’t realised it yet. An evangelical belief system not only can include multiple views that are provisionally inconsistent and self-contradictory, it does. That’s why there is or would be no problem with such a belief system suddenly deciding their god is not the god of the muslims. _This is exactly what I’ve been saying for about 3 pages now_! > > And your rambling historical recital is an example of exactly how a religion can, due to times changing, come to adopt something quite different to what it believed before. _Which is exactly what I’ve been saying could occur if animosity between Xtians and Muslims creates a movement towards a new belief that “their god isn’t ours”_ > > The rest of your post (a) doesn’t actually deal with the nitty gritty of what I said in my last post (presumably be caused you can’t) and (b) is a sad attempt at a sort of argument from (absent) authority. In decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could present a plausible explanation that somehow smooths over all the obvious contradictions in the bible. > > But you are asking me to believe that such an explanation exists, it’s just that I’m ignorant of it. Suuuure. Riiiight. Are you going to try to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge now? > > And while I don’t want to make you feel overly silly, can I point out that in a single posting you have said that firstly evangelicals can have a belief system that is inconsistent and self-contradictory, and secondly that if only I knew the full beliefs of evangelicals I would be able to understand how their system of thought was coherent. You’re tying yourself in knots trying not to agree with me. Is it a part of Wheaton College’s statement of faith that the god of Judaism is not the deity they worship? ETA: also, just because all apparent (or “obvious”) contradictions cannot be “smoothed over,” does not mean that no apparent contradictions can be. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/113 "2016-01-25T08:07:38Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I said _provisionally_ contradictory and inconsistent, in the context of orthodox and lay evangelicals, the lay ones being “ignorant of their own tradition” such that they would make a claim like, “Yahweh is not Allah.” > > Take as an example a fictional, especially ignorant evangelical. How is he categorized an evangelical? Why, his parents are, he has always gone to the meetings, he is a part of that community. Now, assume that he was poorly home-schooled such that he is almost illiterate, and, being so young and inexperienced, never could make heads or tails of all the sermons he’s been exposed to. He is an evangelical, yes, but he sucks at bible literalism. > > He hears a lot of right-wing talk radio and watches Fox News. These influences lead him to become prejudiced against Muslims. Since his religious upbringing leads him to believe he is good and right, and his prejudices lead him to believe Muslims are bad and wrong, he comes to believe that Jehovah and Allah must be separate deities. > > You could come into this thread and quote this guy and say, “See? Evangelicals don’t agree with you! And,\* he just made it up himself!\*” > > Ok, but the guy is also wrong. Look, we are at cross purposes. I have never, not once, said this is about whether Wheaton are evangelists. You’ll have some hope of understanding me when you realise that my point is not whether or not someone who decided their Xtian god was not the same as the muslim god was a True [del]Scotsman[/del] Evangelical. I’m not talking about that at all. I am not talking about or in the slightest bit interested in whether Wheaton are or are not True Evangelicals: my whole point is that such a debate would be pointless and hollow. There are no objective bedrock premises to religion; it is stuff people make up. If Wheaton start saying something about their god there is no way to say they are wrong (and no way to say they right, of course). That their view of their god would make them other than evangelical is no part of anything to do with what I’m saying, and I’d appreciate it if you’d take this on board and stop going on and on about the boundaries of evangelism as if it has something to do with my point. Frankly, if your next post doesn’t acknowledge this isn’t my point, I’ll have to conclude you just aren’t meeting the minimum standards to be worth debating and I’ll bow out. > [@](#): > > For one, that is not the debate and it is not my problem. For two, I don’t think I can be accurately described as “a religious person.” This conversation is like pounding my head against a wall because you are re-playing old debates with people who aren’t me. You should calm the fuck down, you aren’t gotcha-ing anybody here. More logos, less pathos, please? It no doubt suits you to pretend I’m angry so that you can dismiss what I’m saying. How about you address my points instead of attempting to wave them away on the basis of my alleged (and completely incorrect, by the way) guesses about my mental state? It \*is \*the debate and it is your problem. Because my point is that bible literalists have never actually been able to show they follow the bible literally, hence they can do something non-literal and decide their god is not the muslim god. If you can’t refute that, then my point stands. I never said you were a religious person. What I said was that in decades of debating religion I have never come across any religious person who could explain the various contradictions. You are asking me to believe such an explanation exists, if only the right person were here to explain it all to me. I don’t believe you, for the reason just given. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2016, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369/114 "2016-01-26T15:02:42Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There are no objective bedrock premises to religion; it is stuff people make up. > > If Wheaton start saying something about their god there is no way to say they are wrong (and no way to say they right, of course). It may all be made up, but evangelicals don’t get to make things up, they have a defined source material. That isn’t how they work, regardless of the view you have of them through your lens of contempt. It is unambiguous that Allah = Jehovah. I want you to leave me alone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whos-stupider-wheaton-college-or-the-woman-who-wants-to-stay-there/742369.md?page=5)