Is anyone going to address the fact that this author is a papist but that Harvard was founded by the most Protestant of Protestants?
If you’re the kind of Roman that likes Latin and purposefully uses archaic pejoratives “Muhammadan,” you’re the kind of Roman that thinks that Harvard’s founders were blasphemers that led the “one true [Romish] church” astray.
You’re incredibly privileged that generations before you fought for the religious pluralism that you resent. Without them, you would’ve been socially ostracized at Harvard like John Lee—if admitted in the first place. Remember that *your* people were strangers in this land once. The only reason that they are strangers no longer is because Harvard liberalized.
In short: What a disingenuous and poorly-conceived abortion of an article. The author seriously needs to take some time to pray, take stock of himself, and repent. I seriously question his motives behind publishing this. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I were him or the editor that let this piece go to print.
Is anyone going to address the fact that this author is a papist but that Harvard was founded by the most Protestant of Protestants?
If you’re the kind of Roman that likes Latin and purposefully uses archaic pejoratives “Muhammadan,” you’re the kind of Roman that thinks that Harvard’s founders were blasphemers that led the “one true [Romish] church” astray.
You’re incredibly privileged that generations before you fought for the religious pluralism that you resent. Without them, you would’ve been socially ostracized at Harvard like John Lee—if admitted in the first place. Remember that *your* people were strangers in this land once. The only reason that they are strangers no longer is because Harvard liberalized.
In short: What a disingenuous and poorly-conceived abortion of an article. The author seriously needs to take some time to pray, take stock of himself, and repent. I seriously question his motives behind publishing this. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I were him or the editor that let this piece go to print.
1. Stating that modern Harvard is outright malicious. (Harvard has "nothing but animosity" towards Christianity). Doesn't really leave room for charity.
2. Describing Harvard Divinity School as "neither Harvard, nor divine, nor even truly a school" is a direct and sarcastic insult.
3. Using obviously offensive language, e.g. Muhammadans instead of Muslims. I'm sure the author knows it's archaic and will be seen as disrespectful—he probably just doesn't care.
I'm not saying the thrust of the argument, or even the statements themselves, are technically wrong.
I'm saying the ideas are presented in such a way as to make himself and Christians on campus sound like the bigots they're painted to be.
Fair enough, but animus and malice are not the same. My experience is that Harvard is generally unfriendly to practicing Christians to the point of mockery. The three Divinity School graduates I know are hostile to orthodox Christianity.
When I was in undergrad I knew a traditionally Christian HDS student. Definitely an infinitesimally slim minority.
He said he was regularly confronted by seemingly hostile students and faculty, and argued with them and defended his position. He didn't say disparaging things about them even behind their back, although he could've.
👏🏼
Is anyone going to address the fact that this author is a papist but that Harvard was founded by the most Protestant of Protestants?
If you’re the kind of Roman that likes Latin and purposefully uses archaic pejoratives “Muhammadan,” you’re the kind of Roman that thinks that Harvard’s founders were blasphemers that led the “one true [Romish] church” astray.
You’re incredibly privileged that generations before you fought for the religious pluralism that you resent. Without them, you would’ve been socially ostracized at Harvard like John Lee—if admitted in the first place. Remember that *your* people were strangers in this land once. The only reason that they are strangers no longer is because Harvard liberalized.
In short: What a disingenuous and poorly-conceived abortion of an article. The author seriously needs to take some time to pray, take stock of himself, and repent. I seriously question his motives behind publishing this. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I were him or the editor that let this piece go to print.
Is anyone going to address the fact that this author is a papist but that Harvard was founded by the most Protestant of Protestants?
If you’re the kind of Roman that likes Latin and purposefully uses archaic pejoratives “Muhammadan,” you’re the kind of Roman that thinks that Harvard’s founders were blasphemers that led the “one true [Romish] church” astray.
You’re incredibly privileged that generations before you fought for the religious pluralism that you resent. Without them, you would’ve been socially ostracized at Harvard like John Lee—if admitted in the first place. Remember that *your* people were strangers in this land once. The only reason that they are strangers no longer is because Harvard liberalized.
In short: What a disingenuous and poorly-conceived abortion of an article. The author seriously needs to take some time to pray, take stock of himself, and repent. I seriously question his motives behind publishing this. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I were him or the editor that let this piece go to print.
It's possible to speak the truth without insulting your opposition.
You knew full well when you matriculated that this was the Harvard you'd find.
Articles like this make you feel good, but don't change people's hearts. Just foments anger.
If you want to save Harvard, befriend your political opponents, who currently hold the majority.
The post presented grievances and arguments, but I did not see any insults. What did I miss?
A few things:
1. Stating that modern Harvard is outright malicious. (Harvard has "nothing but animosity" towards Christianity). Doesn't really leave room for charity.
2. Describing Harvard Divinity School as "neither Harvard, nor divine, nor even truly a school" is a direct and sarcastic insult.
3. Using obviously offensive language, e.g. Muhammadans instead of Muslims. I'm sure the author knows it's archaic and will be seen as disrespectful—he probably just doesn't care.
I'm not saying the thrust of the argument, or even the statements themselves, are technically wrong.
I'm saying the ideas are presented in such a way as to make himself and Christians on campus sound like the bigots they're painted to be.
Perhaps that's unfair, but that's how it is.
Fair enough, but animus and malice are not the same. My experience is that Harvard is generally unfriendly to practicing Christians to the point of mockery. The three Divinity School graduates I know are hostile to orthodox Christianity.
When I was in undergrad I knew a traditionally Christian HDS student. Definitely an infinitesimally slim minority.
He said he was regularly confronted by seemingly hostile students and faculty, and argued with them and defended his position. He didn't say disparaging things about them even behind their back, although he could've.
That's what Christians at Harvard should be like.