How Conservative is Princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
81

<p>Again, you are being one dimensional. While I have insulted you, I have done it because I truly think that you are retarded...not really, but you get my point of how little I think of the intellectual value in your comments. Really, just because someone is more conservative than liberal does not make them a full out holy roller hick lynch-mob-loving fool. Respect other people's opinions. I don't insult your opinions, so don't insult Dbate's opinions. That is what I was originally trying to say. And our is a plural word, you should use your unless you'd like to establish a poll, which I don't think this board has the capabilities of...nonetheless, **** and get back to topic.</p>

<p>As to not be hypocritical about that last comment...</p>

<p>It seems as though Princeton is the most conservative relatively out of the Ivies. Not really sure about Dartmouth, which was previously stated as a more conservative Ivy. I can say for sure that Yale or Brown would definitely have a much smaller "conservative" minority. Really, at any college, the vast majority of students will affiliate themselves with more liberal political leanings.</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
"When the majority of people call you a bigot... then yes, you probably are one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL (10 char)</p>

83

<p>I already figured that the faculty would be liberal at Princeton, but what is the extent of political activism, that is what I am concerned about. I doubt that people simply having other opinions would affect me greatly at all, but it would get annoying constantly hearing gay-pride/abortion/pro-Obama rallies and the such as a common occurance.
So how much activism does princeton have?</p>

84

<p>You guys need to stop playing the religion card with marriage. "Marriage" has been around for tens of thousands of years. Before Christianity and Judaism. It was around even during times of paganism. So don't give me this talk about marriage is tied to religion.</p>

<p>Churches don't give marriage certificates. Governments do, so your argument about civil unions is severely flawed.</p>

<p>Second, you definitely do not have to be religious to get married. Are we to suddenly tell the 1 billion Chinese that they can't marry because they are atheist? Oh wait, at least they have some guts for simply stating that gay marriage would be against tradition and that gays shouldn't have equal rights. </p>

<p>But you guys hide behind this veil of religion, always trying to tie marriage with religion simply because your parents and family members have marriage ceremonies performed by priests and in churches. Get over yourself.</p>

<p>But wait... You social conservatives simply will not admit that because if you do, you'll know that you nothing more than bigots hiding behind religion.</p>

85

<p>@sadface: Since you bring up the Chinese, I just wanted to remind you that the first time China's government evaluated gay marriage was in 2003 and they rejected it. The issue came up again in 2006 and was dismissed as well. Don't forget ppl can be bigots hiding behind atheism.</p>

86

<p>I find it interesting that with all this talk of marriage no one has gone to the origins of marriage according to Judeo-Christian belief: how God the Creator planned for marriage, not how people through-out history (even in later Bible passages) chose to alter God’s plan with their own practices. If you are taking a historical view, than Genesis needs to be included.</p>

<p>15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. </p>

<p>[By giving Adam this opportunity to name the animals and see each had a male and female; Adam began to desire a mate as well. This was God’s intent for Adam from the beginning. God planned to fill his need]</p>

<pre><code> But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib ] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
</code></pre>

<p>23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. </p>

<p>[Obvious reference to the future as there are no mothers or fathers at this time. One Flesh: emotionally, physically etc…=Marriage]</p>

<p>25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Genesis 2:15-24</p>

<p>Just another perspective… Some people view marrigae as something God initiated, rather than man initiated. Having that view-point then, which they are entitled to have, frames their thinking about marriage in our society today.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]

No it means you don't understand history. Even if a single solider could read the Catholic church had the means of getting into Heaven because they regulated who could recieve last rites and the sacrements that Church teaching said was neccessary to enter into Heaven. So even if thousands of soliders could read they would not challenge the pope himself.
If you ever read or actually study the politics of the Church and the Reconquista you would know that it was not based on Biblical principles but on principles of power and economic conquest that was fueld by ignorance of the actual words of The Bible and manipulation by Church officials like Torquemada.</p>

<p>I will put it in a way that you will probably agree with. George Bush instituted policies that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis does that mean that the US government is corrupt? Or maybe that the constitution is corrupt? He used as a JUSTIFICATION WMDs but does that mean that the WMDs existed? Nope. Likewise the clergy that called for torturing and war used The Bible as a justification despite the fact that The Bible does not call for these actions and people consented to thier will, just as the US army consented to the President's will.

[/quote]

I’ll try to steer the argument off of the tangent that we seem to be going down. You said that Christians “don't kill people of different religions anymore”, but I argued that the Crusades and Reconquista are examples of Christians killing people for Christianity after the Old Testament. Your retort was that these incidents “did not have a basis in the bible”. Now, you should see that I never argued that the bible specifically said, “go kill Muslims and retake Acre and the rest of the holy land” or “kick the Muslims and Jews out of the Iberian Peninsula”. From an atheist’s point of view, this is simply irrelevant. What matters is that the bible could logically motivate Christians to murder in the name of religion.</p>

<p>Let me explain. Using your analogy, the justification for the Iraq war DEFINITELY had a basis in the existence of WMDs. In a similar manner, the church’s justification for the crusades and Reconquista, and the way that they were able to convince millions of Christian scholars to partake in them, DEFINITELY came from the bible. The US Government analogy is flawed though, and here is why:</p>

<p>Is the US Government corrupt? Because we know there were no WMDs and they falsely mislead us, yes. Is the US Constitution corrupt? No, because it wasn’t used as a justification for war, and therefore it has no relation to our argument. Was the church corrupt though in using the bible as justification for war with the Muslims? The sad truth is that no, in this very specific case they were not. The WMDs did NOT exist, and that made the US Government corrupt. But, the bible passage ordering the killing of other religions DOES exist. The church knew this, and so did the educated Christians of the time. Whether or not this covenant was theoretically nullified after Jesus is irrelevant, because Christians continued to employ it practically, and therefore the statement that Christians “don’t kill people of different religions anymore” is simply untrue. The members of these two incidents were CHRISTIANS, and therefore to prove that Christians did not kill members of other religions after the New Testament, you must prove that these millions and millions of people weren’t Christians, and not argue that a certain interpretation of the bible says this doesn’t happen anymore. It did, it does, and it will in the future.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Your posts are showing a complete lack of knowledge of history and of logic. Yes if someone threatens your country you kill them aka WW2.

[/quote]

This is where I have a problem with Christianity. I do not believe that if “someone threatens your country” you should necessarily kill them. Could you imagine the number of wars that the US would be in now if that were the case? You are preaching carnage.</p>

<p>
[quote]

If you knew the Hebrew of the Torah you would also know that killing is a distinct word from war. The Israelite country waged war against others for resources, just like modern day countries do. The dichotomy is that while we used national borders as distinctive aspects the Israelites used religion as it was the only thing that bonded them, and therefore other religions were literally anemic to the identity of thier state.

[/quote]

We are actually in agreement here! Religions were used by old nations as a reason to wage war. I think this is a strong reason to be wary of religion, no matter the time period. But, the original passage, Deuteronomy 17:1-7, is NOT talking about war. It is talking about KILLING. The passage states that people of other religions living among you should be killed just for being of another religion. Therefore, your point that the Israelites were acting through cultural identity to wage war on other nation-states in response to this passage does not hold up with the verse. They were stoning people that did not conform to their beliefs, which I and other atheists find immoral. These people could easily have been practicing their religions in privacy, as the passage only requires “two or three witnesses”, and not out trying to start revolutions. Why then, do these people deserve death? And why would an all loving and understanding God command it of the Israelites?

[quote]

There is no acting involved. In the course of this debate you have shown that you have very little knowledge of history including making errors like this:</p>

<p>
[quote]

"And then let me say that Dbate has this complete inability to see a response when it screams at him in the face. In response to your contention that religion owns "marriage" because it's a religious idea, I came up with the hypothetical suggestion to ban Sundays for non-Christians by the same principle. Anyone can see how ridiculous that this line of argument of "owning" "marriage" was in the first place."

[/quote]

Showing that you don't know that Sunday has nothing to with Christianity and is even pagan in nature.</p>

<p>I asked you to show that gay couples are equal to straight couples in a biological way and so far you have failed to do so, I eagerly await your response. </p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I laughed when I read this. In case you didn’t notice, I didn’t write the statement about gay couples. So I didn’t make that error, you wrongly accused me of it. I would like an apology.</p>

88

<p>You guys need to chill the eff out...</p>

<p>I've been trying to tell you to get back on track and to stop with the useless bigot nonsense. I wasn't saying that marriage is only for religion, but it stems from it. At least that is how I think of it. You aren't a bigot if you don't like gay marriage. You could have valid reasons for it. You are a bigot if you don't like gay marriage but have no explanation to back it up that makes at least some sense. Now get back on topic...</p>

<p>I have no clue about the Princeton faculty, but I'm assuming they lean more to the left as well, but probably not to the extent of the student body. I'm not sure, but I am just speculating.</p>

89

<p>@cicero:</p>

<p>I'd say the faculty is more left than (or about as left as) the student body.</p>

90

<p>Cicero said:

[quote]
Respect other people's opinions. I don't insult your opinions, so don't insult Dbate's opinions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Some opinions are better than others.</p>

<p>If you tell me that you want to kill ten percent of the people in a country, I'll listen to you politely and then, if you seem to be serious, I'll have you institutionalized.</p>

<p>Opposing gay marriage is much less egregious—rather than kill them, you just want to legally denigrate ten percent of the people in a country for no good reason. So I won't call the cops, and I might even end up being friends with you. But you should expect that it'll worsen my first impression of you.</p>

<p>(Note: dunno if the proportion of gays in society is actually ten percent.)</p>

91

<p>In a nutshell: if you're applying to an Ivy, 65%+ (at the very least) of the student body will be pro-choice and pro-gay. If that bothers you, apply elsewhere. Similarly, if you are liberal and do not want to be surrounded by conservatives, don't apply to BYU and Wheaton. </p>

<p>:)</p>

92

<p>I knew someone last year who went to Wheaton, she was a super-Christian and probably one of the most admirable people I have ever met. She went to Uganda every summer as a missionary and to help, Wheaton offers a degree in missionary studies (I think) so that is why she went there.</p>

93

<p>Yes, that makes my point. :) I'm not arguing that conservatives are good or bad, I'm merely stating that if you want a conservative student body and that fact is very important to you, Wheaton's a good choice. An Ivy is not. Conservatives still go to Ivies, of course, but they go knowing what they're getting themselves into, I hope.</p>

94

<p>My problem was never with a liberal student body, but with an activist liberal student body. I mean people have different opinions and especially when it comes to political things there is no 1 right answer, but I really don't want to be in an environment where people attack me for being a social conservative.
I think I am going to employ the situation that I did at the state tourney today. Some people said something bad about social conservatives and I said I am socially conservative, she said why so I said bc I am. Sure didn't answer the question but on topics like these there is no point in discussing it because we wont agree.</p>

<p>As a side note I got 4th in my semifinalist round at state so I am currently the 12th best speaker in the entire state of texas for domestic extemporaneous speaking, which is pretty good considering that 99 people were competing and we all had to qualify for the tournament to even compete. Not that I am bragging or anything ;)</p>

95

<p>Heh, congrats. :) And being an active liberal doesn't necessarily mean attacking conservatives. I'm an active liberal and I generally don't engage in conflict whenever possible. Anyways, to answer your overall question: yes, there are many liberal activists. And conservative activists too, just on a much smaller scale. When making your final collegiate decisions, I would take that into consideration. :)</p>

96

<p>Some opinions are better backed than others, but an opinion alone is not better than another one. If you can give it feasible backing then that is fine. If you cannot back it up with some evidence to support your case then that is just a bummer.</p>

97

<p>Princeton is more conservative than other Ivies. That said, the majority of students are still liberal!</p>

<p>I'm making the numbers up here, but for the purpose of a schematic:</p>

<p>Princeton...35% conservative, 65% liberal or very liberal</p>

<p>Averaged other Ivies...20% conservative, 80% liberal</p>

98

<p>I think it's a little closer to 70%/30%, according to an Obama/McCain poll I saw awhile back. But there's room for error there, so you're about right!</p>

99

<p>^^^But really Obama was so dynamic that I think alot of conservatives especially younger ones voted for him, so the real number of conservatives might be like 35-40% which is huge for an Ivy. Either way I hope I get into Yale or Princeton either would be great.
Good luck to you squaregirl, I really hope you get into somewhere great!!!!</p>

100

<p>Heh, true. And aw, thanks! :)</p>