New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
New Warhorn Media post by Tim Bayly:
You are to be commended for your defense of your friend.
God bless you, @EricRasmusen. We’ve been praying for you. Suffering for the name of Christ is an honorable thing.
Has Prof. Rasmusen been fired?
Just goes to show, you never know when you’ll be called to suffer. Who would have thought that the first public martyrs in this new inquisition would be bakers? Florists? With the exception of those particularly gifted at mass communication which tends to render them more-or-less bulletproof (e.g., Jordan Peterson) (be aware I’m not saying Dr. Peterson is suffering for Christ, but he is at least a martyr, in a sense, for objective truth) - with the exception of those outliers many academics who stand for Christ forthrightly will find themselves marginalized, removed, and denied tenure. I’m in the DoD and following what I call the “Trump Reprieve,” I can see the new “ethics” statements trickling down which will require signatures and force a decision between Christ and career. Rumblings of such things were happening under the last administration which is now seen as too conservative by those on the Left.
I’m not worried; my Savior runs the show and establishes the end from the beginning. But it’s interesting to see how these things unfold.
No. So far Indiana University’s tradition of standing for academic freedom (a la: we won’t even fire Kinnsey), has held up fine.
The paragraph at the end of the article made me think he had been fired.
“Eric Rasmusen served many years as the Dan R. and Catherine M. Dalton Professor of Economics at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. Receiving his bachelors and masters at Yale, Eric did his PhD work at MIT. Eric has been an Olin Faculty Fellow at Yale Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo; and most recently a visitor at Nuffield College, Oxford.”
Prior to the present controversy, Catherine Dalton pressured IU to remove Eric’s named professorship. It’s now going to go away.
Does that mean he becomes a tenured professor without a salary? Or that he has to go looking for grant money? Or just that he takes a random couple’s name off his office door?
Not a random couple, but the former Kelley dean. Eric’s still a prof and paid.
My experience is that faculty at a research university won’t want to set a precedent that a tenured professor can be fired when he proves to be inconvenient to the administration, so they will protect him out of self interest if not the principle of academic freedom, even while despising his views.
I think the real danger is going to be the ongoing expansion of the hostile work/educational environment doctrine.
Lauren Roble sounds like most, if not all, ideologues - someone without any sense of humour. Doesn’t matter what the ideology is, either.
In order to adhere to the community guidelines set forth, please know I am not criticizing you - only your defense of the indefensible. All the while, cloaking the defense and acceptance of these “conservative” views as something Christ would be proud of. Based on my understanding of scripture, the exact opposite is true. Christ practiced tolerance and acceptance and I can find no place in scripture stating his defense of those who questioned that acceptance. Even if it was just posting a quote “that interests you”. And for the references of the Mob – again, I think of Christ and the mob that attacked him for his views of inclusiveness and acceptance. I can not understand those who cloak themselves in his righteousness by saying it is against their beliefs to bake cake for a gay couple or to supply flowers for their wedding. I have searched far to find the scripture where Christ advises his follows to withhold their services to those who do not share their beliefs. But I surely am amazed at the ability of those who cloak themselves in his righteousness to twist those beliefs into such a pretzel. And as the cliche saying goes “what would Jesus do?”. I have been taught he would be upset with this defense.
@kellis1231, did you post this while you were supposed to be in church?
I think it’s probably clear to most that your mind is made up on what you feel Christ would want. I think it’s also probably clear to most that you haven’t searched Scripture as far and wide as you claim (or if you have that your eyes are blinded).
If I’m wrong and you actually would like to be taught about these things, I’m confident there would be godly people here who would love to help you learn and (most importantly) help you find a church with godly men who will actually teach you what Christ wants…but I think the more likely reality is that you just want to share your displeasure and opinions on why you feel the article is wrong. So instead of spewing more characters that could very well be a waste of time, I’ll stop here for now. I hope God will give you eyes to see.
So. Do you have a problem with Rasmusen - something he said? And if so, what? You have a problem with Tim Bayly’s defense if Rasmusen? If so, what exactly?
Also your comment about baking a cake for a gay couple… When do you see Jesus helping people sin or celebration sin?
No, He didn’t.
Dear Kathy, of course you are criticizing me and Eric and everyone who doesn’t agree with you in your summaries above concerning Who Jesus is. And here I am criticizing you, personally. Which I ought. What you demonstrate is a complete ignorance of the Bible, and particularly those parts of the Bible which tell the biography of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. It is the habit today of the conceited modern to think he knows things he has neither read nor studied, and this is what you demonstrate to those reading your words. So rather than engaging you at the point of your ignorance and trying to correct you, I plead with you to correct your ignorance by finding a man of God preaching the Scriptures each Sunday and sit under his instruction week after week until you see begin to see how you have been misled by those who have fed you such assumptions as you demonstrate above. These assumptions have no support from the written text of the four Gospels at the beginning of the New Testament telling Jesus’ story. None, and it would be uncharitable for me not to tell you so. Warmly,
I completely agree with your analysis. The problem is that he unfortunately touched on a topic that resonates with the “alternative” or “alt-right” crowd - the question of supposed differences in IQ in different populations. (The classic popular exposition on this topic can be found in Murray and Hernstein’s The Bell Curve, which caused quite a splash in the 90’s.) This is part of a larger discussion centering around people groups, genetics, and inherited features that can be found under the general topic of human biodiversity (HBD). In any case, our dear brother did not in any way show his support or acceptance for the underlying concept - the quotation marks seem to indicate that he was just pointing out something in the article that could be discussed and argued. It is sad that instead of engaging him in terms of this particular idea with further discussion his opponents simply attacked him without any hesitation. This area is ripe for discussion from a Christian viewpoint.
unfortunately touched on a topic that resonates with the “alternative” or “alt-right” crowd
In any case, our dear brother did not in any way show his support or acceptance for the underlying concept
This is an example of the narrowing of what is called the Overton Window and I would caution against it. The Overton Window is the range of “acceptable” views at any given point in a given society. The modern narrowing of the Overton Window - especially in the halls of academia - is variously called “Cancel culture” or “SJW culture” (social justice warrior) or “grievance culture” etc that treats words, a subset of facts, and ideas as if they are as dangerous as physical violence. This culture appropriated the term “alt-right” and today apply it liberally to well, pretty much anyone who is not a Democrat or a “Chamber of Commerce” style Republican. It is then quick work to bind this term, incorrectly, to a grab-bag of epithets, including Nazi, fascist, racist and bigot.
I was a student at Calvin College in the 90s when Murray visited the area to speak on The Bell Curve. There was something of a tempest in a teapot as many students raised a fuss that someone could actually suggest that there were genetic differences between people. The loudest had not read the book, had not spoken with Murray, and were unfamiliar with the substance of his findings. They were simply so threatened by a perspective with which they reflexively disagreed, that they wanted to deny Murray a platform to even speak aloud.
Thankfully Murray did speak; though that did nothing to arrest the liberal drift of Calvin College’s student and faculty population. It is a different world today. Today he would be called an “alt-right” fascist or somesuch nonsense.
As Christians we are supposed to be people of the Truth. We do not desert people because they hold unpopular or distasteful opinions. We desert them because they hold demonstrably false opinions.
Today, people are being suspended from social media platforms for stating hard facts about the racial distribution of violent crime, or even simply calling a man cosplaying as a woman, a “man.”