The Fifth Estate

Is The U.S. A Christian Nation?

2009-07-28T06:35:00.001-07:00

As a member of American evangelical culture, I heard the same question multiple times over Independence Day weekend: is the U.S. a Christian nation?

Yes, it's a loaded question, and yes, the debate has raged for years.

It, along with the issues of abortion and whether or not Al Gore invented the Internet, will fester until egos dissolve and we can dialogue effectively our intellectual and thoughtful reasoning behind our opinions. So basically never.

Originally I wrote several long paragraphs detailing the path to the conclusion I've come to. Instead I have a simple answer with a relatively short explanation.

(Drum roll, please.)

Is the U.S. a Christian nation? No.

Is that a bad thing? No.

The majority of a population checking a certain box on a census form (or that one group assumed the beliefs of an entire population) does not warrant the notion that a certain country "is" one kind of religion or another.

The majority of Americans subscribe to a faith falling under the umbrella term "Christian," just as most Israelis read the To'rah and the mainstream beliefs in Iraq follow the teachings of Mohammad. All three religions are diverse and have several, in some cases many, branches.

An example closer to home would be an examination of Campbell's student body. Statistics will tell you most students checked "Baptist" on their application, but that certainly doesn't mean the statement "Campbell has a Baptist student body" is anywhere near true.

What about the Methodists, Catholics and atheists at Campbell?

And what about the Taoists, Hindus, and Buddhists in the U.S.? Their religion should be part of the country's image just as much as Christianity should be.

And why is it okay for the U.S. to not be a "Christian nation"?

For starters, there's no reason any country need be defined by a certain religion. A country's religious make-up is one of many facets of its culture, just as race, gross domestic product, and average family size are.

The mainstream evangelical movement makes a big deal about the religion of this country because it thinks the answer determines its success in being evangelical. It's mistaken.

Secondly, bundling countries into teams based on religion is only going to exacerbate global political tension. Defining the U.S. as "Christian" fuels the fire in the Middle East, just as labeling Israel "Jewish" intensifies the crisis and heartache on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Think of other situations when a certain philosophy defined a geographical area. Northern Ireland and Ireland. North and South Korea. The North and South in the U.S.

I'm not too sure why some evangelicals so wholeheartedly believe the U.S. is a Christian country. After all, evangelicals are the ones asking the question. No other group is wondering.

Is it just convenient for an evangelical to convince oneself we can proudly go about life believing God is going to back us up in every battle and resuscitate the economy to persuade the world the Great Experiment and capitalism rule the day once again?

Maybe.

Or perhaps it's to hold on to the status quo. To grasp with knuckles whitened a time when every family went to church on Sunday and Blue Laws weren't necessary because the Sabbath was a day of rest for everyone.

Except for Jews whose Sabbath is Saturday, and for Muslims who formally recognize God five times a day with prayer.

And except for families who couldn't afford to take a day off work. Whose inclusion in the church succumbed to a stigma against the poor.

And except for citizens whose heritage didn't include Christianity.

And except for fellow Americans not believing in God at all.

So, except for those minorities, someone can generalize the entire country, all 300 million people, by saying the U.S. is a Christian nation.

I guess some people like to round up.

Groupies

2009-03-21T06:40:00.000-07:00

News travels fast on a small campus, but these days it travels even faster via Facebook.

Apparently well-known history professor Dr. Rorin Platt recently received some bad news from Campbell about his future with the university, though no one seems to know exactly what that news is, whether he lost is tenure or was just plain fired.

To no one's surprise, disgruntled Campbell students formed a Facebook group protesting the university's actions regarding Platt.

I have never had a class with Dr. Platt, nor am I a history major. I don't have an opinion about how excellent or horrible a professor he was, but I have a few things to say about the Facebook group and also about the group's goal to confront the administration on behalf of Dr. Platt.

People often throw Facebook communication to the side as petty and of little consequence, but whether you type a sentence into cyberspace or write it in a letter, words are still expressions of opinions and thoughts, which speak volumes about one's character.

This is my spiel:

1. Maintain a realistic perspective. After someone dies, gets fired or leaves abruptly in another way, people extol that person's graces and relay only the "good times." When people say Dr. Platt is one of the best professors Campbell has, remember how humans cope with loss and take into account his followers could be wearing rose colored glasses.

2. Despite Campbell being a non-profit institution, it still has to run like a business in order to stay in the black. When the university hires new faculty it's making an investment. When a professor frequently arrives considerably late to class, demands coffee runs from students and makes inflammatory remarks (as group members and other accounts have expressed), that investment isn't returning much profit becuase the professor isn't performing well.

The point? Regardless of Dr. Platt's quality of teaching, the university simply could have seen the situation as business.

3. A group member cited an apparent heart condition as reason for Dr. Platt's frequent tardiness, then mentioned the Americans with Disabilities Act as reason why the professor should remain at Campbell, implying Campbell was unaware of the legislation and in fact wasn't complying with it in the case of Dr. Platt.

In order for the university to comply with anyone's disability, that person much file the disability with the government. Secondly, the ADA requires employers to provide accommodations, like a wheelchair ramp or elevator. It doesn't require the organization to keep the employee despite poor performance.

4. An SGA member in the group cites personal communication between Dr. Platt and Dr. Greene, the university provost. My first thought was, why is a student aware of such communication? If he wasn't fabricating the quote from the letter, he was arrogant enough to attempt to impress the group with his inside information, though simultaneously revealing that he either read the letter without Dr. Platt's knowledge, or Dr. Platt showed him the letter. Neither occurrence was smart. The latter only speaks against Dr. Platt and the former speaks against the writer himself.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

5. The writer of the aforementioned posting also insulted Dr. Greene and Dr. Hammond, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The group wants to approach the administration about its decision-- and offensive slings from the SGA Executive Vice President are going to facilitate its cause? I don't think so.

6. This is (sarcastically) my favorite part of the entire group-- when the SGA Executive Vice President insults fellow students with an elitist, and once again, arrogant attitude. He condemns those apposing the group as below him.

"...they prove how those individuals go to 'Camp Campbell' not Campbell University and are taught by 'Camp Councilors' not true professional that are professors like Dr. Platt."

Translation: If you didn't like Dr. Platt, you somehow attend a different Campbell University run like a camp instead of an institute of higher education.

Ladies and gents, that's not even the kicker. After a long paragraph of run-on sentences and what's supposed to be inspirational rhetoric about justice, he snidely brings down community college students when referring to those who haven't researched Dr. Platt's background.

"Again this is evidence that some students just do not belong at a University, maybe a community college."

Translation: If you don't support the group, then obviously you haven't researched Dr. Platt (how silly of you), which makes you so dumb you should be in a community college, which apparently is below the writer's standards of education. Considering the poster's syntax and composition abilities, that's quite funny.

7. Last but not least, the group wants to meet in person to discuss how to officially show the administration its disapproval. Good for them. I'm always a fan of fighting the man, but once again, let's be realistic. I don't think the administration played rock-paper-scissors to come to a conclusion. As we saw from one person's unwise citation of personal documents about Dr. Platt, the administration spent several months on the matter and had personal meetings with the professor. I doubt a few angry students are going to prompt anyone to reverse the decision.

(Photo credit: http://cdn.davesdaily.com/pictures/401-protesting.jpg)

Heaven knocks all too soon.

2009-02-27T12:29:00.000-08:00

A well-known mother in my small hometown just died of cancer. Her teenage children mourn her absence.

A daughter in my church back home perished in a snowmobiling accident last week. She had two small children.

A friend's fellow church member recently committed suicide, leaving his wife and three young children behind.

I didn't personally know any of these people. I selfishly thank God for having no such grief and heartbreak in my life. Then my thoughts turn to the families and friends of those lost and I can't bring myself even to begin to imagine or picture what such a life-wrenching event would be like.

I remember very well the woman from my hometown. She had cute kids with bright blonde hair just like hers. While I didn't see her often enough to miss her whenever I visit home, I'll always look at her kids with a sorrowful heart. She'll miss their graduations, weddings, birthdays, and her own future grandchildren.

Her kids won't ever again wake up to her making pancakes, nor will they again catch a glimpse of her stuffing Christmas stockings. They won't have that encouraging face on their first day of college or see her tears of joy on their wedding day.

The same void will cast a shadow over the lives of the other three families.

Their spouses said "I do" with visions of a lifetime together. They weren't expecting "until death do you part" to become real for several long and beautiful decades.

Death takes away life and sometimes inspires new life. It has this strange power over mortal humans make us double-check priorities and relationships. Today I'm thinking of those families often, but in a week will I feel so connected, or will I become raveled up and tangled in my own life once again?

Death makes us think outside our own lives. For a few minutes or a few days the world shatters and falls around us. We either grieve for a loved one or grieve with a loved one.

In a few years those families will have coped with their astounding lost and while their hearts will be tender, they will be healed. All we can do is be their support and pray for peace in their lives.

NUMB3RS

2009-02-21T19:20:00.000-08:00

I don't like math because I'm not good at it. Plain and simple. Despite my distaste for graphing calculators and whatever else math people do, I appreciate the powerful ability of numbers to universally communicate a message when words aren't enough.

Below is a list of stats from a book I recently finished, "The Sea Is So Wide and My Boat Is So Small, The: Charting a Course for the Next Generation" by Children's Defense Fund President Marian Wright Edelman.

I understand that coming down on the U.S. is easy for other countries and Americans alike because it's the "superpower" or whatever, and blaming the big kid is the quick and easy band-aid when someone gets a black eye. Regardless, these stats point a finger at U.S. legislators (and partly U.S. citizens) for losing sight of the big picture.

Excerpt (p. 93):

"Is this country living its creed and preparing for the future?

How America Ranks Among Industrialized Countries in Investing In and Protecting Children

1st in gross domestic product

1st in number of billionaires in the world

1st in number of persons incarcerated

1st in health expenditures

1st in military technology

1st in defense expenditures

1st in military weapons exports

22nd in low birth weight rates

25th in infant mortality rates

High in relative child poverty

High in the gap between the rich and the poor

High in teen (age 15 - 19) birthrates

Last in protecting children against gun violence

The United States of America and Somalia (which has no legally constituted government) are the only two United Nations members that have failed to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

....

If we compare just black child well-being to children in other nations:

62 nations have lower infant mortality rates, including Sri Lanka.

Over 100 nations have lower birth weight rates, including Algeria, Botswana, and Panama.

Black women in the U.S. are more likely to die from complications of pregnancy or childbirth than women in Turkmenistan."

Interpret the information as you like.

My three favorite letters

2009-02-19T19:23:00.000-08:00

Ah, SGA...how you bring such joy to my heart.

My own pride sucked me into the SGA drama vortex in my freshman year when I became vice president of my class. I didn't return to SGA after that year but being on the school paper and maintaining SGA-born friendships means I still hear a lot of stuff about SGA, good and bad.

SGA executive elections take place next week. The positions up for grabs are president, veep, men's campus coordinator, women's campus coordinator, executive secretary and executive treasure. But everyone knows the hot ticket is the spot for president.

I'll refrain from recounting the horror stories from the last two or three SGA executive elections and instead say my piece about this one. I think a lot of people are unaware of a few different things going on.

1. SGA is an extra-curricular activity. Yes, it's important, but hand painting enormous signs isn't worth it, and neither is asking for campaign moola from Campbell graduates. I doubt they give really a crap.

2. What would you say if George Bush ran again under a campaign of "change"? You'd say that's pretty silly-- how could he make so much change after already being in office for so long. Consider the slogan of select SGA candidates and question it against the time they've already been in the higher echelons of SGA.

3. To clarify number one, although SGA should not be anyone's life substance, it's a unique combination of legitimate student voice and an honest example when higher ups say they listen to students. It's easy to say administrators never listen, but think more critically-- administrators have kids either our age or older than us, and a few of Campbell's administrators were once students here. I doubt their hearts are frozen over. That said, if students are going to give up just because they think no one listens the first time around, then we don't deserve representation before decision makers.

Campbell students hear a lot of bad press about SGA. Sometimes it's because SGA shot itself in the foot and other times it's because someone's running their mouth. Anyway, I think students don't see the good guys (and gals) in SGA who aren't there for a the reputation, resume booster, or opportunity to dress up. I personally know many SGA members who genuinely want to represent us and improve our school because they love it, not because they have something to prove to the world.

I guess my point is that even though certain people in SGA give it a bad name, we should still appreciate its value and purpose and support those in it for the good fight.

Elections are Tuesday, Feb. 24 in front of D-Rich.

Diagnosis X: Crappy Infirmary

2009-01-27T07:44:00.000-08:00

I've been to the campus infirmary a couple times over the years, once for the flu and once for pharyngitis. The building's title now is actually "Student Health Services," a euphemism the newly erected sign proudly proclaims. Students prefer the old term because it's what they know.

I personally had great experiences with the infirmary staff and felt the RNs and P.A. did a good job, but others have different stories. This blog isn't about the quality of care or the competency of the infirmary staff. It's about the condition the building itself, the infirmary's hours of service and how both are negatively affecting the health care of Campbell students.

What does an "infirmary" make you think of? For me it conjures images of the medic tent in M*A*S*H-- improvised medicine and inadequate facilities. The new title of "Student Health Services" was an obvious attempt by the university to alter negative perceptions. I think a more appropriate name would be "Medical Instrument Museum."

I pass the infirmary almost every day and can say with absolute certainty that it sticks out as an eye sore. Every other building on campus is new or newly renovated, and is also an example of either Georgian or Neoclassical architecture. The infirmary, on the other hand, is possibly a spawn of the 1960s mod era. I like the Beatles as much as the next person, but the infirmary doesn't give an impression of professionalism or even cleanliness.

The infirmary's appearance is small beans compared to my biggest complaint about it: the hours of service. One of my friends had an asthma attack on a Friday afternoon and had to have a friend drive her to urgent care after heading to the infirmary's locked doors. I'm not saying we need service 24/7, but normal hours would be nice.

If classes run from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., I don't see why a campus health facility shouldn't. The Friday hours (or lack of) and weekend closing are especially ridiculous. Illness and injury don't go on vacation when the infirmary shuts its doors. The alternative to a closed infirmary is to hit up the nearest urgent care and spend money when the infirmary's care would have been free.

Campbell is a suitcase school, meaning most of its students pack up and go home for the weekend. While the majority of students hit the road Friday afternoon, the school shouldn't leave out-of-staters, internationals, and other stationery students in the dust by assuming they won't get sick or hurt over the weekend. Just because the university can't profit or break even by providing health services over the weekend doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Health in the U.S. is a standard, not an option.

Okay, the hours and look of the infirmary aren't the greatest, but I haven't even discussed the interior of the building. I know I sound like whiny girl who watches too much What Not to Wear, but I think you can agree with me that an establishment's decor, like a person's outfit, demonstrates purpose and ability.

The infirmary would have looked great during the LBJ era. The furniture is old, varnished wood. The lobby is cramped and poorly lit. The exam rooms contain thick, dust-ridden curtains and dated medical cabinets and containers, with a box of rubber gloves and an informative poster here and there. Walking into an exam room is a blast from the past.

Should I be able to get past the aging equipment and be optimistic? Maybe, but I prefer to be in a medical facility that at least looks to be safe and clean. The avocado green Q-tip container might be sterile, but it sure isn't convincing. For a university with such a great pharmacy school, undergrads sure do get thrown under the bus when it comes to health care.

Yeah yeah, everyone knows the infirmary is weird and I'm just repeating what everyone else thinks. Well, I think there's more to it than it just being an old building with insufficient hours. The university has managed to update every major building except the infirmary. It's capping the undergraduate student body at 3,600 (a goal it will reach and sustain in the next few years) and doesn't seem to have a plan for a new healthy facility.

Last year the SGA president cited the school's 25-year plan in saying the area behind the infirmary down to Highway 421 will be paved over and become a giant parking lot...doesn't sound like they're leaving much room for a bigger infirmary. Does anyone know if the infirmary is accredited? If so, the website certainly doesn't boast of it.

I polled my Facebook friends for 13 hours, January 28-29 to get their opinions on the infirmary's service, appearance, and hours. Here are a few reactions:

"Bad, worse, and worst. People don't get sick on the weekends?"

"They are good at training you to use crutches... and it would be nice for them to be open on weekends... at least like sat mornings or afternoons... or crazy concept after 5 on a week day?"

"[The appearance, service, and hours] all suck!"

"Something needs to be done about health care at CU. It might be different if we were in Raleigh and had readily accessible other options that weren't the ER. But we're not." (From a medical school student at ECU)

"I liked being felt up and insulted."

I think the brand new student gym is (awesome, and) one half of a commitment to health. An updated infirmary should be the other half.

God's a Financial Planner, Too.

2009-01-09T12:30:00.000-08:00

If you're looking for a Campbell-related post, sorry to disappoint, but this isn't one. The first three days of the semester haven't sparked any controversy to my knowledge, but some light reading has catalyzed my thought processes.

The Bible is full of men and women who risk humiliation, ostracization and death in order to fulfill God's purpose for them, which is usually revealed through a special revelation. The Old Testament, or Tor'ah in the Jewish faith, is especially rich with such accounts.

The Book of Haggai ended up towards the end of the Old Testament, the first half of the Bible which details God's work on earth before the arrival of Jesus. (The New Testament, the second half, recounts Jesus' life and the beginning of the Christian church.)

Haggai is a pretty weird name. It's not on the top ten baby names, and it sounds like the word "hag" or the phrase "hey guy." Haggai doesn't, however, have the strangest name in the Bible.

Haggai was actually an ancient prophet whose purpose was to convince the Israelites, the people Moses led out of Egypt, to rebuild the holy temple after the Babylonions destroyed it.

The events of the Old Testament took place thousands of years ago, so what do they have to do with anything in the 21st century? Well, that's the funny thing about the Bible. Its lessons have no expiration date.

Everyone is aware of the increasing unemployment rates and recent bank and auto bailouts. Two and a half million Americans brought home pink slips in the last year (click here for source). Quite frankly, Americans aren't used to being the ones bleeding on the side of the road with no help. The country has been a superpower for several generations, so people are accustomed to a relatively comfortable lifestyle-- namely, employed and eating three times a day in some sort of abode.

The story of Job would be a good one to comfort the financially distraught, but I recently read through Haggai (it's only a couple pages) and found this passage to be appropriate:

Now this is what the LORD Almighty says: "Give careful thought to your ways. You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it."

Okay, heeding such advice would have been more helpful back before the government started wiping business' tears and changing their diapers. However, hindsight being 20/20, we can hopefully learn from our screw ups and better the future.

In the passage God is warning the Israelites to be grateful for what they have and preserve their blessings instead of squandering them away. I think it speaks to irresponsible spending and irresponsible loaning, both of which are coming back to nip the U.S. (and other countries) in the "butt-tox," as Forrest Gump would refer to one's hind quarters.

Yeah, yeah, we're a capitalist country so we need to spend in order to stay afloat, but don't buy five pairs of shoes when you only need rain boots. Don't blow your paycheck on a new iPod when your savings account is skimpy and the utility bill is on the table. That's God's message to the Israelites.

God is telling the Israelites that they have more than enough to live comfortable lives, but they take their success for granted and lose it in the long term.

The lesson? Be grateful for what you have and appreciate its value for the future.

The First Amendment is Campbell's Last Priority

2008-12-18T20:13:00.000-08:00

Most musings in this blog will be about Campbell University, my beloved but flawed (like any human-run institution) mini-universe until May 10, 2010. This post is one of those musings.

"The grass is always greener on the other side," which is why students of a given university or employees of a given company always gripe about their own situation and long for membership to another school or job. Perhaps the plight of student journalists is much worse at another private Christian school. Regardless, I'm not at any other school, and improvement is not a spawn of complacency.

Being in college is like getting to know a person-- you start off on a high, spend a lot of time together, then slowly realize each others flaws. Campbell, my friend...that time has come.

That time actually arrived a year ago when I became editor-in-chief of The Campbell Times, but obviously at that point ethical obligations prevented me from publicly venting my frustrations with the second largest Baptist university in the world (first is Baylor University in Texas).

This post is not a list of everything wrong with Campbell. Such a list would be highly subjective and would serve no edifying purpose. The post is a methodical and thought-out evaluation of what I've found the university's opinion to be on 1) the role of the press, and 2) freedom of the press.

Free speech and anything else to do with the good ol' First Amendment carries heavy baggage and often opens up a huge can of worms. Although I prefer to open cans of whoop-ass, this post won't be overly complicated or intricate in political thought. As usual, just my spell-checked ramblings on problems I see in certain situations and what I believe potential solutions are.

Why should non-news geeks care about what Campbell thinks of the press? To begin a sentence like Sen. McCain, "my friends," because "freedom of the press" isn't just protection of the nosey guys with cameras and notepads. It's the protection of the intellectual representation of the people-- the last line of defense against "the man," as hippies and other iconoclasts like to say. It's no coincidence the only successful democracies involve some sort of free press. If the press doesn't have rights, then neither do the people.

So, finally, to begin my cyber-monologue: My first memory of Campbell coming down on our school newspaper takes place first semester freshman year, a couple weeks into my stint with the paper. The editor created a "Rants and Raves" section designed to harvest likes and dislikes about Campbell, more or less sparking a printed conversation. While garnering likes took some work, the dislikes came more easily. The editor made sure she printed an equal amount of both opinions.

The particular "rant" lighting a fire under the administration's bottom was a letter from a recent graduate saying the religion department didn't do enough to help him get a job. After the issue came out, the editor received a letter from a member of the administration saying the newspaper should be "salt and light," implying that printing so-called negative information was a poor Christian witness on our Christian campus. Translation: printing information putting Campbell in a bad light makes you a bad Christian.

As far as I know The Campbell Times flew under the radar until I became editor in the spring of 2007. I headed up a strong, young staff of freshmen and sophomores, most of whom I had known since my first day in Buies Creek. As young adults tend to do, we decided to buck the status quo and give The Campbell Times a face lift. A few cosmetic updates in the layout made a huge difference, but what made a "blip blip" noise on the administration's Students Thinking for Themselves Radar was a result, naturally, of doing a relatively good job at what journalists are supposed to do-- printing the noble and almighty truth. Okay, Buies Creek isn't exactly a hotbed of hard crime, but secrets, scandals, and accompanying brick walls abound.

A Campbell professor recently analyzed the past year's issues of the newspaper and found 91% of its stories to be either positive or neutral in relation to Campbell. That's good when the newspaper staff needs to defend itself to the administration, but in the world of journalism, the newspaper was being way too nice. Frankly, it was 9% away from being a public relations publication.

We didn't publish more biting stories because Campbell sets up purposeful road blocks to prevent students, parents, and the press (student and professional) from discovering and obtaining certain information. By "road blocks" I mean it trains employees when to say "no comment" and when to spoon feed just the right info to journalists and other inquiring minds. Another great road block is flat out refusing to contact a student reporter.

Sometimes the school has the right to protect certain information. Other times, it's being a typical Christian university by promoting a gilded reputation of harmony and success, and in the process withholding potentially damaging information people should know.

Universities, like governments, are businesses at their core, Campbell included (despite its non-profit status while being the largest private employer in Harnett County). I understand it doesn't want negative information to become public. It needs to give incoming and returning students motive to fill out their checks every semester. At the end of the day, Campbell needs to be in the black, so its sugar daddies need to think the best of the university as possible.

The Campbell Times hasn't printed anything libelous or defamatory. It has, however, printed stories challenging some of the university's decisions. For example:

1. "Financially up the creek on campus" evaluates university housing costs against off-campus housing costs, proving off-campus living to be much more affordable.

2. "Campbell student faces theft, other charges" reports that a pre-pharmacy student was arrested for stealing and distributing prescription drugs from the Walgreens where he worked. A brilliant follow-up story, "Student claims unfair expulsion following drug charges," nailed Campbell for expelling the student before he had a trial and for its nonsensical alcohol and explosives penalties.

3. "Construction woes theme of fall semester." Campbell has several ongoing construction projects, all of which have interrupted normal foot and vehicle traffic.

4. An editorial entitled "Responsibility" quoted the student government vice president's slip of the tongue and challenged the student government and the administration to be proactive.

5. "Students cry injustice over Sauls renovation." The top floor of a three-floor male dorm became a posh female floor while the guys were left with the remaining 1950s horror hospital conditions.

There are a few others but I don't have them on my computer to reference. Anyway, you can see the type of stories we had weren't going to hit the AP wire and take the country by storm, but they weren't the usual warm fuzzy fluff The Campbell Times was accustomed to printing. They very subtly defied Campbell's ability to pull off a smile and wave with each passing day, no questions asked. Obviously a story here and there about parking problems and student government making an ill-calculated move wasn't going to bring Campbell down in flames. A few "higher-ups," as I dubbed a few people in my last and only editorial, strongly disagree.

In additon to that letter a couple years ago, the administration has communicated several times to professors its disapproval of the newspaper. Using the chain of command as its excuse, it never addresses issues with the editor or even the adviser-- just the white males who make the decisions.

The student newspaper has two purposes: 1) to be a learning experience for journalism students, and 2) be a source of information and to promote conversation among the student body. One member of the administration literally thinks the newspaper should serve to build up the university with stories putting the school in a favorable light. He believes all communication representing the school should convince readers it's the Wonka Land of higher education. The former dean of admissions banned one issue of the paper from the Admissions Office for its apparently inflammatory content that would, undoubtedly, convince every potential student to throw their Campbell brochure in the recycling.

To wrap up this song and dance, my conclusion is that Campbell doesn't think a free exchange of thought is necessary. A free press is an American value, and one every campus should embrace. Campbell also doesn't allow the newspaper to accrue its own advertising money, but that's another issue. It sees the press as an unnecessary sore spot and an obstacle to its objective of brainwashing its students and its Uncle Pennybags.

All of that sucks for The Campbell Times, but it means something greater to the student body. It means we should question what Campbell, or any other agenda-minded institution, says. What is it hoping to achieve by putting out certain information? Could there be another side? Who is this affecting? The paranoid phrase "question everything" applies to Campbell. Not all of its administrators are Grinching the First Amendment, but we need to be aware that the author of every sentence we ever read or every speech we ever hear crafts each word with an intent, and we shouldn't fell prey to that intent for the unforgivable reason of blindly and deafly following a wayward shepherd.

Despite all these paragraphs parading one single issue, I do enjoy Campbell and it definitely has a lot to offer. Its take on the press certainly doesn't make it a substandard school. I chose to go there for what its world class professors and small community atmosphere have to offer, not the decisions the administration makes.

I have no idea if anyone but my Facebook friends and Campbell students will read this, but regardless, I challenge Campbell to think outside of the box. Break free from the stereotype people hold over Christian schools and embrace criticism. If the criticism is true, learn from it and move on, having improved. If the criticism isn't true, ignore it and move on, knowing you're doing something right.

PS- Campbell, you're welcome-- I pitched your web site at the beginning. How about some more scholarship moola?

Merry Capitalism

2008-12-16T17:35:00.000-08:00

If you're one of my three avid readers, you know it's been a couple weeks since my last post. The excitement of Christmas along with no longer being at school slightly but temporarily diluted my (idealistic) zeal for changing the world with this blog.

It's a quiet night at home in Massachusetts. My five young Oklahoman cousins and their parents just left, so I now find myself with time to think and form complete sentences without cute smiles or a candy request interrupting my synapses.

As I recently admitted to a friend, my economic knowledge is very limited. Numbers are not my medium of thought, and the only money I manage is my checking account and the occasional game of Monopoly. Nothing fancy. That being said, I'm one of the many Joe/Josephine Shmoe Americans with an opinion about the recent auto industry crisis.

I see capitalism as an economic expression of Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest." If your business appeals to the people and profits, it survives. If the people don't need your business, you go broke. A failed business, however, means more than a disappointed owner and a notch in Darwin's belt. It means layoffs for employees and consequently less spending money in the regional and national pot. Bad news bear for a consumption-based economy.

So, the big question: should the government back up the auto industry in order to prevent massive job loss and further exacerbation of the already bruised economy, or should the auto industry stick it out and take one below the belt?

The U.S. needs to decide what it wants to do-- be capitalist through and through or wean itself on to a planned economy, which is what the bailout would do in my opinion. I think the country needs to see beyond the current problems and consider the potential consequences down the road. The long-term consequence of skipping the bailout is sustained capitalism with jobs lost and then recovered. That situation heavily outweighs the short-term consequence of job loss and discontent. The market always bounces back. People just need to be patient, which of course is easier said then done.

Furthermore, the auto industry big wigs are aware that our economy is rooted in the market and isn't guaranteed. It's no secret the economy isn't always a 5-star deal. The auto guys are whining and crying because the market isn't putting them in the black-- are you kidding me? That's what they signed up for. Their goal was to succeed in capitalism, and they failed. They shouldn't use the government as a crutch. They should accept defeat and either join the winners or go up for bat again...on their own dime.

That can sound like a cold analysis from a college student not even old enough to buy a drink. I'm not forgetting the auto part suppliers, manufacturers, and assembly line workers, nor the sly salesman. But they wouldn't be the first Americans to lose their jobs, and the auto industry isn't the only place to work in this country.

Finally, to restate my disclaimer, that's just my perspective as an average young American relatively unfamiliar with the inner-workings of economics and finances...and whose generation is next up in line to take over. Light a candle at Mass and rub your lucky rabbit foot, because in 15 years my college classmates will be old enough to run for president.

Giving Kansas and Christianity a bad name

2008-11-21T13:08:00.000-08:00

This just in: America is afraid of Islam.

A Kansas minister recently posted a sign outside his church informing passers by that, apparently, president-elect Barack Obama is a Muslim.

"America we have a Muslim president this is a sin against the Lord! Ex. 20:3."

Click here to see the CNN video.

In the video the minister explains to the CNN reporter that because Obama believes in "many paths to the same place," or universalism, he is therefore a Muslim. The pastor doesn't, however, explain why he thinks Obama is a Muslim and not a member of any other faith.

It seems the pastor simply picked the faith which with he is the least familiar. If the pastor really knew what he was talking about, he would know Islam is a monotheistic faith. It speaks against false idols and polytheism just as strongly as Christianity does. So... if Obama were really a Muslim, he wouldn't believe in universalism.

The reporter properly brought up the age-old struggle over "separation between church and state," the phrase derived from the first sentence in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." James Madison, an anti-federalist (meaning he liked small government), pushed for the Bill of Rights to counteract the strong federalism of the Constitution (meaning it supported big government).

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was, and is, to make sure the government doesn't abuse its power to manipulate the people. In case the of the separation of church and state, the "Founding Fathers" wrote that part of the amendment to ensure the government couldn't control any religious institution. The motivation behind the amendment was the British government's control over the Church of England, which even today the Queen of England heads up. At several points in time the Church of England outlawed other forms of Protestantism (recall the reason for the Pilgrim voyage) and Catholicism. Obviously the FF's had good reason to protect religious institutions aginst the soon-to-be American government.

What does that brief history reminder have to do with the Kansas minister and his illogical and unintelligent sign? Even if Obama were a Muslim, the First Amendment prevents him from legislating his faith. Even if Obama were a Muslim, he couldn't funnel money only to mosques, he couldn't outlaw other faiths and he couldn't order a genocide against Christians. That's all to say even if those acts were on his to-do list. You don't see George Bush requiring Bibles in schools and replacing the Pledge of Allegiance with the Our Father.

So why did the minister declare Obama to be a Muslim? Because he's scared of Islam, along with most of the country. He's scared that evangelicals will lose their grip on the country just because its future president isn't a cookie-cutter Protestant. Obama's faith is foreign to the minister, so he took advantage of Obama's Muslim heritage and Arab name, found an Old Testament verse to support his thinking, and slapped it up on a sign. And he knew people would buy it, because that's all gullable Christians need to attack another faith-- a random Bible verse and fear.

The pastor didn't say Obama's Jewish, which Americans would accept because our culture is predominiantly Judeo-Christian. He picked a religion he knows Americans at large either disapprove of or just plain hate.

Obama may not read the King James Version and hear fire-and-brimstone sermons, but that doesn't mean he's not a Christian. No human in this world can know the heart of anyone else, including that of Obama. If the country held open season on McCain's faith, I would have the same opinion.

Christmas Tree Lighting 2008

2008-11-17T19:41:00.000-08:00

Campbell's second annual Christmas tree lighting took place tonight on Fellowship Commons. Traditionally (if something is a tradition in its second year) the event is in memory of a member of the Campbell community. This year the lighting was dedicated to Dr. Lewis Fetterman Jr., a pharmacy professor who passed last year in a car accident.

Everyone loves a nice Christmas tree, myself included. The Christmas tree is a symbol of the holiday season, accompanied by unity, togetherness, and all-around warm fuzzies. I think the tree lighting event and the tree in general are great ideas. The presence of the tree (and it's cute fake presents) remind students that hope lies a couple short weeks away when Christmas break begins. It also unites the university community for one cause-- to celebrate the Christmas season, which is especially prevalent at Campbell. And, of course, the free commemorative t-shirt and holiday-themed snacks don't hurt either.

Having stated my support for the event itself, there are strings attached. I do feel the need to criticize the Student Government Association's (SGA) role in it. My opinion is simple: the purpose of SGA is to act as a representative middleman between the student body and the decision-making adminstration. Any event not related to that purpose is, in my opinion, a deviation of SGA's mission and therefore unecessary for SGA to be a part of.

The biggest flaw I see in the tree lighting event is the cost: the tree, shipped from Shoals (where the White House also buys its Christmas tree and is the hometown of SGA Vice President Eric Paul Hardy) cost about $2,000. A member of SGA told me the entire event, including man hours to put the tree up and dress it with who knows how many lights, brought the grand total to a little under $7,000. Number crunch: SGA's semester budget is barely over $30,000, meaning the cost of the tree lighting event is slightly less than one-quarter the entire semester budget (23% to be exact).

The student body elects SGA representatives to act on their behalf before the administration-- to be a voice among our elders. Over-spending on a pretty tree we'll enjoy for two weeks doesn't seem to be an adequate way to represent the student body. Like I said, I love the tree idea. But if it's going to be a community event, I don't see any reason why it can't be the administration's responsibility. At the very least SGA could invest in a quality artificial tree that won't have to be shipped in from Shoals (132 miles from Campbell according to Google Maps) ever year. Obviously my opinion won't move mountains (or mole hills), but if SGA has established that it will be in charge of the annual tree from now on, a sensible decision would be to get the aforementioned artificial tree, and I would have no problem with that.

Whenever citizens think the government spent money frivolously, we make a list of several hundred things the money could have been used for instead. In the case of the tree, SGA could have funneled the money toward the numerous poor families in Harnett County. I think sponsoring a family's happier-than-normal Christmas is a great way to represent the school. I doubt the student body would speak against a project like that, even if it cost $7,000.

And so my first real post comes to a close, along with my opinion of tonight's lovely, though pricey, Christmas event. At least the shirts are cool.

Here goes nothing

2008-11-17T11:53:00.001-08:00

This is my inaugural post as a blogger. I have no idea how many people will read this besides my mom and boyfriend, but hey-- it's worth a shot.

I created this blog for two purposes: 1. To express my opinions of the goings-on at Campbell; and 2. To hopefully offer the school's student body and organizations a unique perspective-- fresh off the mind of an actual student and former member of SGA, CAB, and the Campbell Times.

I just spent two semesters as editor-in-chief of the Campbell Times, the university's student-run biweekly newspaper. Being editor, among other things, meant keeping my opinions secret from readers in order to prevent any doubt as to the objectivity of the newspaper. Now that my time as editor has come to and end, I have returned to the life of a normal student: ranting and raving at will.

Okay, "ranting and raving" is an exaggeration. My blog will be an intelligent and eloquent expression of thought, not an illogical upchuck of anger and disdain.

Here goes nothing!