2008 Woodie Awards
Students hold double standards
Ian Nix
Issue date: 2/16/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 1
There are two kinds of people in the world: people who hate other people, and people who hate those people who hate other people. They are, of course, one and the same.
I'm a third type, though. I hate those people who say they don't hate people but hate the people that hate other people. You follow?
Let me clarify. There are certain people who judge other people. Then, there are certain people who claim to be against judgment of other people, and then turn their judgment onto the people in the first group. I'm in that last group that judges the second group.
I read in the first newspaper of this semester a couple of articles dealing with the first two chapels we had here at Southwest Baptist University. They were both quite obviously in favor of Kurt Caddy's message of love and obviously against University President Dr. C. Pat Taylor's admonitions against alcohol and the abuse thereof.
My question, quite simply, is: where is the consistency?
To those more in favor of Caddy's message, I say a resounding, "Good!" However, you must also give deference and meditation to Taylor's message. Why? Because it is important to arrive at our opinions intelligently.
Ask yourself next time you send a letter to the editor: does this need to be proofread first? Do my arguments hold up well? Are my arguments based on emotion or rational and empirical fact?
If we really take Caddy's message to heart, wouldn't we consider Taylor? I am also aware that Caddy's message seemed to emphasize more love than Taylor's, but shouldn't we apply this love to Taylor? We must come before whatever it is being said in Chapel and say to ourselves, "How can this apply to me?"
The truth is, Taylor's message applies. While the consumption of alcohol is not, by any stretch, our biggest problem on this campus, it is certainly a very public one. Haven't we heard this very same thing from Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians? We are to "abstain from all appearance of evil," and this must coexist with whatever ideas we have about the consumption of alcohol - be they for or against.
We must learn, SBU, to question not only the authorities that are so easy to question, but we must learn also to question ourselves. Taylor had more of a point than most of us wish to acknowledge.
While it is okay to question the system of rules by which we abide, it is not okay to question by directly flouting those rules and expect no reprimand from "the pulpit." Some of you are angry that Taylor concentrated so heavily on alcohol, and yet it is in our policy that we do not drink. I'm not seeing the discrepancy, here. It is a blatant part of the contract we sign, so should we expect any less? And beyond that, what does it mean to lovingly confront those in whom we see wrong?
Well, a partial answer to that question is to at least present our arguments well. No more letters full of anger, SBU. Let's all be mature and have a conversation, shall we?
I'm a third type, though. I hate those people who say they don't hate people but hate the people that hate other people. You follow?
Let me clarify. There are certain people who judge other people. Then, there are certain people who claim to be against judgment of other people, and then turn their judgment onto the people in the first group. I'm in that last group that judges the second group.
I read in the first newspaper of this semester a couple of articles dealing with the first two chapels we had here at Southwest Baptist University. They were both quite obviously in favor of Kurt Caddy's message of love and obviously against University President Dr. C. Pat Taylor's admonitions against alcohol and the abuse thereof.
My question, quite simply, is: where is the consistency?
To those more in favor of Caddy's message, I say a resounding, "Good!" However, you must also give deference and meditation to Taylor's message. Why? Because it is important to arrive at our opinions intelligently.
Ask yourself next time you send a letter to the editor: does this need to be proofread first? Do my arguments hold up well? Are my arguments based on emotion or rational and empirical fact?
If we really take Caddy's message to heart, wouldn't we consider Taylor? I am also aware that Caddy's message seemed to emphasize more love than Taylor's, but shouldn't we apply this love to Taylor? We must come before whatever it is being said in Chapel and say to ourselves, "How can this apply to me?"
The truth is, Taylor's message applies. While the consumption of alcohol is not, by any stretch, our biggest problem on this campus, it is certainly a very public one. Haven't we heard this very same thing from Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians? We are to "abstain from all appearance of evil," and this must coexist with whatever ideas we have about the consumption of alcohol - be they for or against.
We must learn, SBU, to question not only the authorities that are so easy to question, but we must learn also to question ourselves. Taylor had more of a point than most of us wish to acknowledge.
While it is okay to question the system of rules by which we abide, it is not okay to question by directly flouting those rules and expect no reprimand from "the pulpit." Some of you are angry that Taylor concentrated so heavily on alcohol, and yet it is in our policy that we do not drink. I'm not seeing the discrepancy, here. It is a blatant part of the contract we sign, so should we expect any less? And beyond that, what does it mean to lovingly confront those in whom we see wrong?
Well, a partial answer to that question is to at least present our arguments well. No more letters full of anger, SBU. Let's all be mature and have a conversation, shall we?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
rev.spike
JP Williams
posted 2/24/07 @ 2:18 PM CST
What astounded me as a student, and still amazes me is how much of an issue this annual talk is to students who SIGN AN AGREEMENT when they enroll in SBU. (Continued…)
Post a Comment