Xavier Names Their Student Section "The Holy Land"

[scoscox]

I mean it makes no sense for this to be any more or less offensive to any one of any religion, but the name wasn't great. Really should've gone with Blob Mob. The Blob Mob is clearly a rowdy place to be.

[jaxalum]

Reason cited being Muslim and other non Catholic students feeling scared and offended. Also in the light of racial and religious tensions on campus.

This is the the spineless, over the top, politically correct, bullsh$t that's spread over this once great country, and overtaken many of our universities. The First Amendment has become meaningless, inconsequential writing on a 241 year old piece of parchment. Their/the administrations reason is nonsensical as well, as the "Holy Land" is similar for Muslims and Catholics/Christians alike. And I guarantee you that 99% of the student populace could not tell you what, where, why, and speak with any real competence concerning its history, IF THEY EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS. i.e. The Crusades, Richard the Lionhearted, Salahuddin, when, how and why Israel came to be/The West bank and the Gaza Strip, Palestines role etc.

Xavier is a private Catholic, Jesuit institution. Why would you matriculate to a school knowing that some Jesuit methodologies are going to be taught/students will be exposed to their beliefs to a certain extent? I was required to take classes about other religions. One of my best friends was from India, so I took Hinduism, and found it to be fascinating, and in turn, engaged in some compelling conversations with him and his parents as well.

Unfortunately the student of today (not all of them) and academia as a whole(leftist professors/not all of them), are not interested in an exchange of differing ideas, or creating dialogue between students of differing backgrounds, and having professors expose their students to more than just their own (usually leftist) beliefs. It's all about protesting speakers who may present differing viewpoints, to the point of violence in some cases, where the invited speaker has no chance to speak/engage the students that have open minds, yet are escorted off campus by the authorities for their own protection(Ben Shapiro/Ann Coulter are just 2 examples). And then they/the protesters, go back to their "safe spaces" and sign petitions to have the First Amendment abolished. (Youtube it)

Obviously, this is a huge hot button issue for me, but this is a basketball board, so my apologies for the long political rant. I will conclude with this:

-Benjamin Franklin was in such poor health (he was 81,life expectancy was 36 back then) that he had to ride in a sedan chair, carried by four men, to make it up to the desk where the Constitution rest. He wept as he signed it.

-As Benjamin Franklin left the Pennsylvania State House after the final meeting of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, he was approached by the wife of the mayor of Philadelphia. She was curious as to what the new government would be. Franklin replied, "A republic, madam. If you can keep it."

If we only had great men like Benjamin Franklin around......because we are well on our way to losing our Republic, if it is not lost already.

Wow, pretty hot take over an uncreative name for a student section. You realize you are complaining about protesters in your defense of the first amendment, even though that is literally a part of the first amendment. You are adding to your own argument about people not appreciating the first amendment.

Read it again, as there is obviously a huge disconnect in your understanding and/or my communication of the point(s) I was trying to make. In no way, shape, or form, did I say protesting should be banned, disallowed, etc. I absolutely agree that protesting is an important part of freedom of expression and the First Amendment.

"restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably." -1st Amendment

But it no longer is considered "protesting" when you are robbing others the right to express their ideas, THEIR freedom of speech rights. And, it is no longer considered "protesting" when citizens, who are guaranteed the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, become violent. When one, or both of these occur, these are things called CENSORSHIP and SUPPRESSION. These are very popular concepts in communist countries. And I clearly gave examples of where protesting turned into suppression and censorship in my post.

All the underlying examples happened at Cal Berkely;
Political pundit Ann Coulter, a conservative, who was invited by the school to speak, her speech was cancelled due to safety concerns. Their concerns were that left wing "protestors"/rioters would become violent, AGAIN. Yet, even though the speech was cancelled, there were still violent "protests" that turned into riots, that lasted for days(arrests were made). The other person I provided as an example was Ben Shapiro, a Jewish, Conservative pundit. He actually made it into the building. Yet, Police with riot gear surrounded the plaza outside Zellerbach Hall, where Shapiro spoke. And for the first time in two decades, officers were armed with pepper spray after the city council modified a 1997 ban at an emergency meeting that week. Milo Yiannnopolis, a conservative pundit, writer and speaker, his speech was cancelled, and leftist RIOTERS caused more than $100,000 in damage.

XtoDC, I hope that makes more sense. I was not "complaining" about protestors, as I believe gathering peacefully and protesting, expressing ones beliefs, is an important piece/practice of the 1st Amendment. There is protesting, and there are these protestors that rob others of their right to free speech, and they are no longer protestors, but fanatics that are not only unwilling to listen to differing ideas, but suppress them entirely. That was clearly my point, and to me, that is F#CKING unacceptable.

As to Political Correctness, it's a virus, and Xavier caved. Being respectful of all humans and thinking before speaking is one thing (and obviously a good thing), but feeling ultra sensitive and overly concerned with how our language and behavior will affect others limits our ability to speak freely and express opinions about certain issues, which in turn limits the opportunity for new knowledge and ideas. We/other entities (Xavier) are so focused on sparing feelings and avoiding controversy that we fear expressing our opinions or taking stances on serious issues. By neglecting to voice these thoughts, we also forgo the opportunity of hearing the opinions of others and learning something new. NO ONE should sacrifice sharing their thoughts just because they want to be politically correct. And I believe many problems in this country would self correct if we made it a habit to embrace (anything and everything) that makes us uncomfortable. One of my favorite quotes; "The wise man knows that he knows nothing" -Socrates

It's absolutely nothing personal towards you XtoDC. As you said, I do get "hot" with certain political issues if you haven't noticed

And NJRedmans response was CLASSIC.

[jaxalum]

Just to get off the whole political theme, does anyone(any fan of any team, help us) have any decent names/ideas for our/Xaviers student section?

Dartagnans Den is good, but is already used up top, right?

The Kings Guard

The Guardians

The body guards

The Kings Island

Macks guard

Macks Musketeers

Macks Muskies

The French guard

[billyjack]

"The Sons of D'Artagan", or
"Les Enfants D'Artagan" to look classy.

Sign behind the opposing bench can label them as "Richelieu's Minions", the beah-stids.

[TBC Alum]

Going a completely different direction - Muskie Pond

[NJRedman]

Read it again, as there is obviously a huge disconnect in your understanding and/or my communication of the point(s) I was trying to make. In no way, shape, or form, did I say protesting should be banned, disallowed, etc. I absolutely agree that protesting is an important part of freedom of expression and the First Amendment.

"restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably." -1st Amendment

But it no longer is considered "protesting" when you are robbing others the right to express their ideas, THEIR freedom of speech rights. And, it is no longer considered "protesting" when citizens, who are guaranteed the right to PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, become violent. When one, or both of these occur, these are things called CENSORSHIP and SUPPRESSION. These are very popular concepts in communist countries. And I clearly gave examples of where protesting turned into suppression and censorship in my post.

All the underlying examples happened at Cal Berkely;
Political pundit Ann Coulter, a conservative, who was invited by the school to speak, her speech was cancelled due to safety concerns. Their concerns were that left wing "protestors"/rioters would become violent, AGAIN. Yet, even though the speech was cancelled, there were still violent "protests" that turned into riots, that lasted for days(arrests were made). The other person I provided as an example was Ben Shapiro, a Jewish, Conservative pundit. He actually made it into the building. Yet, Police with riot gear surrounded the plaza outside Zellerbach Hall, where Shapiro spoke. And for the first time in two decades, officers were armed with pepper spray after the city council modified a 1997 ban at an emergency meeting that week. Milo Yiannnopolis, a conservative pundit, writer and speaker, his speech was cancelled, and leftist RIOTERS caused more than $100,000 in damage.

XtoDC, I hope that makes more sense. I was not "complaining" about protestors, as I believe gathering peacefully and protesting, expressing ones beliefs, is an important piece/practice of the 1st Amendment. There is protesting, and there are these protestors that rob others of their right to free speech, and they are no longer protestors, but fanatics that are not only unwilling to listen to differing ideas, but suppress them entirely. That was clearly my point, and to me, that is F#CKING unacceptable.

As to Political Correctness, it's a virus, and Xavier caved. Being respectful of all humans and thinking before speaking is one thing (and obviously a good thing), but feeling ultra sensitive and overly concerned with how our language and behavior will affect others limits our ability to speak freely and express opinions about certain issues, which in turn limits the opportunity for new knowledge and ideas. We/other entities (Xavier) are so focused on sparing feelings and avoiding controversy that we fear expressing our opinions or taking stances on serious issues. By neglecting to voice these thoughts, we also forgo the opportunity of hearing the opinions of others and learning something new. NO ONE should sacrifice sharing their thoughts just because they want to be politically correct. And I believe many problems in this country would self correct if we made it a habit to embrace (anything and everything) that makes us uncomfortable. One of my favorite quotes; "The wise man knows that he knows nothing" -Socrates

It's absolutely nothing personal towards you XtoDC. As you said, I do get "hot" with certain political issues if you haven't noticed

And NJRedmans response was CLASSIC.

Yeah we should embrace making each other feel uncomfortable. Thats how large groups of people will live amongst each other without any problems right? Dude, stop with the libertarian BS. This whole word salad is just silly. Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on.

[DudeAnon]

Ever notice that those who complain about Political Correctness seem to be the most sensitive? Nut up jax, its not that big of a deal.

[jaxalum]

Ever notice that those who complain about Political Correctness seem to be the most sensitive? Nut up jax, its not that big of a deal.

So Dudeanon, we are living in a utopian society, our citizens live in perfect harmony, important issues, such as a severe fracture in race relations don't exist. Bigotry, sexual assault, bullying, gay marriage, single family households, the wealth gap/redistribution of wealth, transgenderism, and bipartisanship between the two parties at every level of government, have been resolved, and are non-issues. There's no army manual with a list of taboo subjects containing the following but not limited to;(passed during the last administration) soldiers are prohibited from criticizing anything related to Islam, derogatory comments about the Taliban, Women's rights, and homosexuality in any way. The last administration definitely did not ban all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. And most importantly, and both sides of the aisle acknowledge, and agree, that the more we become a P.C. nation, the closer we are where legislation prohibiting an action that could in any way be construed as offensive to anyone, will be commonplace in Congress.

As long as we are a PC nation, the above mentioned issues will never be resolved, and if you read my thread before this, you would understand why. DudeAnon, you carelessly misinterpreted my perceived complaining/sensitivity for what is a very real concern for this country and it's future. Perhaps, as you so eloquently put it, you need to nut the f#ck up DudeAnon, as it is a big deal.

Yeah we should embrace making each other feel uncomfortable. Thats how large groups of people will live amongst each other without any problems right? Dude, stop with the libertarian BS. This whole word salad is just silly. Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on.

-Njredman

Wow, your response tells me that there either was a lack of comprehension, I did not adequately explain/communicate my point, or a combination of both. I will simplify this completely. I NEVER said we should make others uncomfortable. I said we should embrace making OURSELVES uncomfortable. One example, as it pertains to the subject matter, is we are so focused on sparing feelings and avoiding controversy, that we fear expressing our opinions or taking stances on serious issues. By neglecting to voice these thoughts, we also forgo the opportunity of hearing the opinions of others and learning something new. I first heard a version of that at a speaker series I attended where Colin Powell was the feature speaker(you hear it from many CEOs as well). He said that to really grow as a person, you should do two things everyday that take you out of your comfort zone. As far as the Libertarian BS comment. You might want to read up on your Libertarian dogma, as nothing I said was particular to any political group.

Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on

-NJ

NONE of what you wrote here is even remotely in the realm of the point(s) that I made, or at least tried to make.

I absolutely agree that protesting is an important part of freedom of expression and the First Amendment.

My point was protestors/protesting , especially on college campuses, is far from what the forefathers had in mind when drafting the First Amendment. These are gatherings, not of peaceful protesters, but fanatics, extremists, and angry activists that utilize violence and intimidation, among other tactics, to achieve their agenda(s). Those agendas are usually to block an invited speaker that they disapprove of. And if they "win", a person has lost their right to free speech, to express their beliefs. And interested parties planning on attending are cheated of a chance to potentially learn something.

This example in more detail may help. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. Cal Berkely has a very liberal oriented student body, perhaps the MOST Liberal student body of any University in the country. They gathered in large numbers, and protested outside the auditorium, for days before, and in even in greater numbers when Milo arrived for his speech. His speech went mostly without incident, yet more importantly, he was able to excercise his right to freedom of expression. The protestors were able to express themselves as well, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs. This was a purely fictional, hypothetical situation where protesting/gathering of a peaceful assembly was what the 1st Amendment was all about. The protestors were able to express themselves, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs.

What really happened. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. The student body started protesting 3-4 days before Milos speech(it turned into more rioting then protesting by day 2). The real police were called in and had to dress in riot gear, as the "protestors"/now rioters started throwing objects at them. They started fires, dressed in masks, and attacked the police. They also caused more than $100,000 in damage. There were arrests. Weapons were found on students/RIOTERS and confiscated. All of this fanatical, suppressive behavior so a person with differing views would not be able to express those views for one measly hour. They not only robbed him of his right to free speech(essentially they censored him), but they also cheated the students who wanted to hear the speech, and perhaps compare and contrast his views and convictions with their own. The Admin ended up cancelling the speech due to safety concerns. This has become commonplace now at Berkely, and many other campuses across the country unfortunately. These rioters/fanaticists realize that they need to go way beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment, as it will not come close to providing the two pronged outcome they seek; The first being to discredit, disparage, and shutdown the speaker. The second is satisfied if the first succeeds, which is keeping students from hearing the speakers message. And then you introduce a group like ANTIFA, which is like dropping a nuke on the fire.

I will stop permanently. AND I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERY MEMBER ON THIS BOARD FOR BRINGING POLITICS ONTO IT. ITS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. THIS IS AN ESCAPE/A PASSION, A PLACE WHERE ONLY BIG EAST BALL AND MEMBER TEAMS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.

If I've offended anyone, please feel free to PM me.

[X-man]

I have taught at Xavier for over thirty years. One of the saddest things a student ever told me was that students don't talk politics with each other because any disagreement of opinion is too uncomfortable for them to tolerate. A university setting is precisely the place where such conversations should, and must, take place. Students should embrace access to alternative points of view. Who knows? They might even change their thinking on issues. I am sure we all agree that life would be pretty boring if one's views were locked in place by the time one reached college.

As a college student in the 60's myself, I remember being involved in spirited discussions with classmates on virtually everything going on back then (Vietnam of course was topic A). And I learned from those discussions that the people who disagree with you aren't simply dumb or evil. In fact if you find the basis for any disagreement in your points of view, you often find common ground somewhere.

That said, I am happy that the student section will not be named "The Holy Land".....not because of PC, but because the name is lame.

[NJRedman]

Ever notice that those who complain about Political Correctness seem to be the most sensitive? Nut up jax, its not that big of a deal.

So Dudeanon, we are living in a utopian society, our citizens live in perfect harmony, important issues, such as a severe fracture in race relations don't exist. Bigotry, sexual assault, bullying, gay marriage, single family households, the wealth gap/redistribution of wealth, transgenderism, and bipartisanship between the two parties at every level of government, have been resolved, and are non-issues. There's no army manual with a list of taboo subjects containing the following but not limited to;(passed during the last administration) soldiers are prohibited from criticizing anything related to Islam, derogatory comments about the Taliban, Women's rights, and homosexuality in any way. The last administration definitely did not ban all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. And most importantly, and both sides of the aisle acknowledge, and agree, that the more we become a P.C. nation, the closer we are where legislation prohibiting an action that could in any way be construed as offensive to anyone, will be commonplace in Congress.

As long as we are a PC nation, the above mentioned issues will never be resolved, and if you read my thread before this, you would understand why. DudeAnon, you carelessly misinterpreted my perceived complaining/sensitivity for what is a very real concern for this country and it's future. Perhaps, as you so eloquently put it, you need to nut the f#ck up DudeAnon, as it is a big deal.

Yeah we should embrace making each other feel uncomfortable. Thats how large groups of people will live amongst each other without any problems right? Dude, stop with the libertarian BS. This whole word salad is just silly. Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on.

-Njredman

Wow, your response tells me that there either was a lack of comprehension, I did not adequately explain/communicate my point, or a combination of both. I will simplify this completely. I NEVER said we should make others uncomfortable. I said we should embrace making OURSELVES uncomfortable. One example, as it pertains to the subject matter, is we are so focused on sparing feelings and avoiding controversy, that we fear expressing our opinions or taking stances on serious issues. By neglecting to voice these thoughts, we also forgo the opportunity of hearing the opinions of others and learning something new. I first heard a version of that at a speaker series I attended where Colin Powell was the feature speaker(you hear it from many CEOs as well). He said that to really grow as a person, you should do two things everyday that take you out of your comfort zone. As far as the Libertarian BS comment. You might want to read up on your Libertarian dogma, as nothing I said was particular to any political group.

Protesting is robbing others of their first amendment rights so people should express their right to protest? No? They have the right to protest but they shouldn't because it's robbing others of their rights? Jeez dude, this is some insane circular logic you got going on

-NJ

NONE of what you wrote here is even remotely in the realm of the point(s) that I made, or at least tried to make.

I absolutely agree that protesting is an important part of freedom of expression and the First Amendment.

My point was protestors/protesting , especially on college campuses, is far from what the forefathers had in mind when drafting the First Amendment. These are gatherings, not of peaceful protesters, but fanatics, extremists, and angry activists that utilize violence and intimidation, among other tactics, to achieve their agenda(s). Those agendas are usually to block an invited speaker that they disapprove of. And if they "win", a person has lost their right to free speech, to express their beliefs. And interested parties planning on attending are cheated of a chance to potentially learn something.

This example in more detail may help. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. Cal Berkely has a very liberal oriented student body, perhaps the MOST Liberal student body of any University in the country. They gathered in large numbers, and protested outside the auditorium, for days before, and in even in greater numbers when Milo arrived for his speech. His speech went mostly without incident, yet more importantly, he was able to excercise his right to freedom of expression. The protestors were able to express themselves as well, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs. This was a purely fictional, hypothetical situation where protesting/gathering of a peaceful assembly was what the 1st Amendment was all about. The protestors were able to express themselves, and a person, with differing views, was able to share his views with students interested in opposing convictions and beliefs.

What really happened. Milo Yiannopolis is a Conservative pundit and writer. He was invited by the Cal Berkely Admin. to speak/do a Q&A. The student body started protesting 3-4 days before Milos speech(it turned into more rioting then protesting by day 2). The real police were called in and had to dress in riot gear, as the "protestors"/now rioters started throwing objects at them. They started fires, dressed in masks, and attacked the police. They also caused more than $100,000 in damage. There were arrests. Weapons were found on students/RIOTERS and confiscated. All of this fanatical, suppressive behavior so a person with differing views would not be able to express those views for one measly hour. They not only robbed him of his right to free speech(essentially they censored him), but they also cheated the students who wanted to hear the speech, and perhaps compare and contrast his views and convictions with their own. The Admin ended up cancelling the speech due to safety concerns. This has become commonplace now at Berkely, and many other campuses across the country unfortunately. These rioters/fanaticists realize that they need to go way beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment, as it will not come close to providing the two pronged outcome they seek; The first being to discredit, disparage, and shutdown the speaker. The second is satisfied if the first succeeds, which is keeping students from hearing the speakers message. And then you introduce a group like ANTIFA, which is like dropping a nuke on the fire.

I will stop permanently. AND I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERY MEMBER ON THIS BOARD FOR BRINGING POLITICS ONTO IT. ITS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA. THIS IS AN ESCAPE/A PASSION, A PLACE WHERE ONLY BIG EAST BALL AND MEMBER TEAMS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED.

If I've offended anyone, please feel free to PM me.

So how would we be making ourselves uncomfortable by no longer worrying about the feelings of others? I know you THINK you are smart and your logic makes sense to YOU but it doesn't make actual sense. You just spew out a lot of words in a TLDR monologue libertarian BS. Oh poor Milo and Anne! Wont someone think of their first amendment rights?!?!?!