|
Post by vuweathernerd on Nov 20, 2008 17:31:54 GMT -5
i'm with 72. stand up for yourselves-don't fall on your knees, bowing to the overly pc society we've converted to.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Nov 20, 2008 18:08:23 GMT -5
I am no theologian like you stlvufan, but didn't the Genesio and Confessional Lutherans of the time reject this adiaphoristic philosophy? Weren't they afraid of the "domino effect" if they allowed the Catholic "indifference's" (things not essential) to be reintroduced? Isn't that why they opposed the Leipsig Interim? I probably have this all messed up. No, not all messed up, but that was an exception. The one time "adiaphora" are no longer adiaphora is when the things being discussed are not being discussed on equal footing but rather the ones in power are demanding said adiaphora be adhered to as a prelude to a kind of domino effect as you suggest. Melanchthon (representing the Phillipists) used the adiaphora designation to argue for compromising with the Catholic establishment (presumably because deep down inside he was sick and tired of fighting all the time) in the interests of making peace. His more perceptive brethren on the other side realized that the Catholic establishment was not simply suggesting that the Lutherans meet them halfway on non-essential rites and rituals, but they were actually taking what was non-essential and making it essential to the Christian faith. When non-essentials are made into essentials that must be agreed to, the strict Lutherans (not quite the opposite designation, but the actual name is escaping me at the moment) argued that this is precisely when such non-essentials must be rejected like the plague, not because there's anything wrong with doing them or not doing them, but because it is no longer simply about getting along. It is now about the heart of the faith being attacked. Is that what would be happening here? Not saying no to that, but I'm not seeing a concrete yes, either. For me, this question is up in the air. Yes, there apparently is some group dynamic involved in pushing for this change, but is this group in a position to be dictatorial about it? Is this group entrenched, for example, in the administration of the University? Is the ELCA somehow applying pressure (I'm quite sure the LCMS would not be pushing for this change)? If not, how then is this group, whoever they are, exercising real power over the faith of others? That's the question that I am curious to see answered. As I say, I'm not siding with those who want the change. For one thing, I'm not altogether sure I want to completely jettison the concept of "Crusade" from the Christian faith. It may still have some usefulness. I'm sure I don't want what it meant in Midieval times (though I'm also sure my knowledge of that history is razor thin). But, then again, this is just sports we are talking about here. Interesting side note: Oral Roberts (where, if I'm not mistaken, Chapel *IS* a requirement for all students) bit the bullet and changed their name from Titans (of questionable christian heritage) to Golden Eagles. I wonder how this discussion unfolded on their campus...
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Nov 21, 2008 8:21:06 GMT -5
I'm not at all concerned about Valpo's Lutheran or Christian identity. In fact, I'm proud of both. They're a core part of the university's identity. But, why are we interested in celebrating the crusades? They're an awful piece of the history of Europe and the Church. We should be embarrassed by them, and certainly not celebrate them. In the 40's I suppose they might have felt the same way about the Uhlans. German militarism wasn't a good thing to celebrate at the time. These days, there's probably less risk of a Nazi association. I wouldn't want to be the Valpo SS, or the Valpo Nazis, but I could probably stomach the Valpo Uhlans as a sort of a historical throwback. But, what's redeeming about the crusades? It's as if Notre Dame were the Inquisition instead of the Irish. So, I don't know whether Valpo's Muslim students are offended. Or offended enough to care. But, _I_ am offended. Just by the celebration of the crusades on the face of it. And, then the presence of a significant Muslim minority on campus adds insult to injury. Give me the Dunesmen any day. Or the Tornadoes. (Sentimentally I might prefer the Quarks. Or how about the Big Bang or the Black Holes? But, I'll admit that the Tornadoes are a better mascot, and through the Met department a bone here.)
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Nov 21, 2008 8:54:41 GMT -5
But, why are we interested in celebrating the crusades? They're an awful piece of the history of Europe and the Church. We should be embarrassed by them, and certainly not celebrate them. Again, why does the Crusader have to be tied to "THE" Crusades of the 11th century? A "crusade" isn't a bad thing. Crusade - exert oneself continuously, vigorously, or obtrusively to gain an end or engage in a crusade for a certain cause or person; be an advocate for ... wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=crusadeSounds like Crusaders is a perfect nickname and much better than any of the forced, PC names that have been suggested in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Nov 21, 2008 9:01:53 GMT -5
OK - point taken. I think I was being guided by the mascot, the guy wearing a suit of armor.
The Billy Graham crusades, and Campus Crusade for Christ are, perhaps, along the lines of where you're going.
So, I guess I'd start by changing the mascot. And disassociating Valpo from the medieval crusades at least that much. But, a lot of Americans seem to have trouble with the notion that "jihad" can mean roughly the same thing as the meaning of "crusade" you're giving here.
Likewise, I think the cognitive connection between "crusader" and "those medieval military guys" is pretty strong.
|
|
|
Post by valpospartan on Nov 21, 2008 9:49:28 GMT -5
1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go! * Refrain: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before. 2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee; On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory! Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise; Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise. 3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God; Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod. We are not divided, all one body we, One in hope and doctrine, one in charity. 4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane, But the church of Jesus constant will remain. Gates of hell can never ’gainst that church prevail; We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail. 5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng, Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song. Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King, This through countless ages men and angels sing.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Nov 21, 2008 10:06:31 GMT -5
1. Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go! * Refrain: Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before. 2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee; On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory! Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise; Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise. 3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God; Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod. We are not divided, all one body we, One in hope and doctrine, one in charity. 4. Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane, But the church of Jesus constant will remain. Gates of hell can never ’gainst that church prevail; We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail. 5. Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng, Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song. Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King, This through countless ages men and angels sing. valpospartan, Could you please change your screen name? I saw the movie '300' and the spartans were brutal. They killed a lot of people and I was offended by their tactics. My suggestions include: "valpolakeeffectsnower" "valpopeacemaker" or "valpovegetablegrower"
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Nov 21, 2008 10:53:30 GMT -5
My suggestions include: "valpolakeeffectsnower" "valpopeacemaker" or "valpovegetablegrower" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not wild about the military theme generally, it's true. But, if we have to find a military theme can't we find one that's a little less... diabolical? Or at least less specifically targeted against minority groups? Staying away from the Middle East probably wouldn't hurt, either. You'll notice "Onward Christian Soldiers" isn't sung much any more...
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Nov 21, 2008 11:00:52 GMT -5
My suggestions include: "valpolakeeffectsnower" "valpopeacemaker" or "valpovegetablegrower" Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not wild about the military theme generally, it's true. But, if we have to find a military theme can't we find one that's a little less... diabolical? Or at least less specifically targeted against minority groups? Staying away from the Middle East probably wouldn't hurt, either. You'll notice "Onward Christian Soldiers" isn't sung much any more... I am just giving you a hard time about the names. I just get annoyed when a seemingly small group feel the need to change tradition and history because someone might not like the name or might feel offended by it. No one is forcing anyone to support VU. It's not the private institutions job to make sure that their mascot makes 100% of the population happy. I am offended by Rev. Wright, and him having an honorary degree from the school. I am not asking them to take it back.
|
|
mj
Bench Warmer
Posts: 124
|
Post by mj on Nov 21, 2008 11:35:19 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader of this forum but it's my first time posting.
Here's my thoughts about the Crusader mascot. When you think of what a crusader looks like, in terms of the Crusades, it's a soldier with a big red cross. The red cross separates a crusader from any other knight or soldier. Valpo's mascot doesn't have a red cross, so really it's indistinguishable from any other knight or soldier type character.
It basically comes down to people being offended at the word "Crusader". It's been mentioned before that the word has multiple meanings, both good and bad. If people automatically assume negative connotations, then that is their problem. The University has never expressed any type of views that would cause people to make that assumption.
Valpo needs to issue a statement explaining the positive aspects of a "Crusader" and how the University embodies those characteristics. Hopefully then, we can move past this ridiculous issue that comes up every year.
I love Valpo and everything that it stands for. But if we cave into this idea that we're not "PC" enough, then I'll have serious reservations about ever donating to the university. If enough alumni stand up against changing the Crusader by withholding donations, I don't think they'll change it.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Nov 21, 2008 11:41:32 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader of this forum but it's my first time posting. Here's my thoughts about the Crusader mascot. When you think of what a crusader looks like, in terms of the Crusades, it's a soldier with a big red cross. The red cross separates a crusader from any other knight or soldier. Valpo's mascot doesn't have a red cross, so really it's indistinguishable from any other knight or soldier type character. It basically comes down to people being offended at the word "Crusader". It's been mentioned before that the word has multiple meanings, both good and bad. If people automatically assume negative connotations, then that is their problem. The University has never expressed any type of views that would cause people to make that assumption. Valpo needs to issue a statement explaining the positive aspects of a "Crusader" and how the University embodies those characteristics. Hopefully then, we can move past this ridiculous issue that comes up every year. I love Valpo and everything that it stands for. But if we cave into this idea that we're not "PC" enough, then I'll have serious reservations about ever donating to the university. If enough alumni stand up against changing the Crusader by withholding donations, I don't think they'll change it. Good post! Welcome! Post often!
|
|
|
Post by agibson on Nov 21, 2008 12:03:58 GMT -5
Here's my thoughts about the Crusader mascot. When you think of what a crusader looks like, in terms of the Crusades, it's a soldier with a big red cross. The red cross separates a crusader from any other knight or soldier. Valpo's mascot doesn't have a red cross, so really it's indistinguishable from any other knight or soldier type character. It basically comes down to people being offended at the word "Crusader". It's been mentioned before that the word has multiple meanings, both good and bad. If people automatically assume negative connotations, then that is their problem. The University has never expressed any type of views that would cause people to make that assumption. The university's never done anything to make people think they have the medieval crusades in mind? He's just supposed to be a guy in armor, not a medieval crusader? I'll admit that a crusade, and maybe even a crusader, doesn't have to be the medieval type. But, surely the mascot is intended as a medieval crusader. It would be an interesting spin to have the university try to reinterpret the crusader. But, they would have to start by getting rid of the mascot. Or, coming up with a good story for who this guy in armor is supposed to be! And, yes, welcome to the ranks of the posting!
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Nov 21, 2008 12:06:43 GMT -5
I'm a long time reader of this forum but it's my first time posting. Here's my thoughts about the Crusader mascot. When you think of what a crusader looks like, in terms of the Crusades, it's a soldier with a big red cross. The red cross separates a crusader from any other knight or soldier. Valpo's mascot doesn't have a red cross, so really it's indistinguishable from any other knight or soldier type character. It basically comes down to people being offended at the word "Crusader". It's been mentioned before that the word has multiple meanings, both good and bad. If people automatically assume negative connotations, then that is their problem. The University has never expressed any type of views that would cause people to make that assumption. Valpo needs to issue a statement explaining the positive aspects of a "Crusader" and how the University embodies those characteristics. Hopefully then, we can move past this ridiculous issue that comes up every year. I love Valpo and everything that it stands for. But if we cave into this idea that we're not "PC" enough, then I'll have serious reservations about ever donating to the university. If enough alumni stand up against changing the Crusader by withholding donations, I don't think they'll change it. All well and good, and I mostly agree with you, certainly that nothing about VU today "celebrates the Crusades", and that the name "Crusader" can mean multiple things, some good, some bad. My only quibble is that I don't know myself what the intention is behind this push for a name change. "This idea that we're not PC enough..." is of course you're interpretation of their motives, not an actual quote of their motives. Let's remember that "political correctness" is itself a pejorative term. I'm not saying it is inaccurate, but it is never clearly what is intended by this or that initiative. You never hear someone say, "We need to make this campus more politically correct." Now, I know, you're probably saying, "but that's what they REALLY want." Maybe, maybe not. But I'd say we have at least one voice in this very thread who would beg to differ, and pointedly so. It is hard to tell, though not impossible. Being far removed from the campus, I am the last person who should speak authoritatively on this particular case. Maybe the students on here do have a much better feel for the intentions of this particular group. All I'm trying to suggest is that the issue is very complicated, and it is easy to lose sight of the true essentials -- the distinction between what you should be willing to fight for and what you should be willing to compromise on. The domino effect *does* have it's place in this debate, but I think it is overused where it is not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Nov 21, 2008 12:12:38 GMT -5
Obviously you haven't been involved in this discussion for the past 5 years, or is it 6, or 7...whatever, it comes up every year because someone brings it up. Just let it die, it's a ridiculous argument in my opinion. No one at VU sees the word Crusader as anything more than just a mascot, no diabolical meaning....no slight to a certain group...it is an excuse for a minority (a small minority) to bitch about something...period !!!!!.....maybe my beloved Boilermakers will have to get rid of the Boilermaker train because train engineers are offended...or Boilermaker Pete because people with larger heads than usual are offended...or the large bass drum because smaller drums are offedned....give me a break...
|
|
|
Post by vuweathernerd on Nov 21, 2008 12:34:19 GMT -5
the problem i have with the current argument on campus is that the group advocating the name-change says we cannot focus on a single meaning of the term "crusade" yet that's exactly what they're doing. they're telling supporters of the name that we cannot simply use it in a positive light-we have to look at the negatives that go with it. but somehow they're allowed to ignore their own argument and focus solely on the negative meaning while ignoring the uses tied to the likes of mother teresa, crusading for global improvement.
i stand behind the crusader, and always will!
|
|