@OnTheBubble (post#196) The deliberate use of word, “Anglican” by an American - even, by a Virginian - almost always denotes some disagreement with the dominant American branch of the church over the ordination of women and/or gay priests. It is a very potent wedge issue used by some “missionaries” to gain support among African members of the Anglican Communion and they do it in ways that recall the practices of many evangelical groups, namely by resort to a literal interpretation of the Bible…
Biblical literalism could be an issue for the student in some STEM fields like biology and physics with respect to origin of the universe and life.
Great summary @hunt!
@ucbalumnus “Biblical literalism could be an issue for the student in some STEM fields like biology and physics with respect to origin of the universe and life.”
The conflicts with science tend to be related to evolution and the age of the earth, so primarily biology and geology.
How life originated (abiogenesis) is not yet known, although there are many hypotheses, and it appears to have only happened once, since all known biological organisms use the same DNA-centered approach to life. Evolution is distinct from how the first replicating organism came to be. It explains how you can get from that first living organism to all the plants, animals, and other living things we see today.
Evolution is understood in great detail and has been considered resolved science for well over 100 years. While many people claim to disagree that evolution has and is happening, to my knowledge, none of them are doing any substantive research that could discredit the theory, even though it would be very easy to disprove if it were not true. For example, demonstrating one credible occurrence of a human having been eaten by a T Rex would be sufficient to disprove evolution.
In reality, no one is actually doing that work because once they take the time to actually read and understand the evidence for evolution, they can see that it is clear and overwhelming. None of this inherently has anything to say about religion, but some religious people believe that it does.
I’ve been lurking with great interest, originally because it was an intriguing question, and more lately because—as a few people have pointed out anew recently—so many people seem to be projecting their own definitions onto the OP.
For starters, let’s talk conservative vs. liberal.
What sort of conservatism? If the current election season should be teaching us nothing else, it should be that economic conservatism and social conservatism are completely different things, and it’s utterly possible for someone to adhere to the one and not the other. Further, I’d suggest that we’re seeing that economic conservatism isn’t nearly as unitary as we might like to think, too.
And what does it mean to be devoutly religious? I have a friend who describes herself—with a bit of a smile, usually, but she really does mean it, I think—as a “devout Unitarian”. So she’s religiously devout—but certainly not devout in ways that pop culture would lead one to think that a religiously devout person would act.
But even if you say that Unitarians are different, consider, for example, the statements on treatment and welcoming of refugees that have been issued lately by the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, both of which are widely viewed as being quite conservative here in the United States—but those churches’ positions on refugee issues stand well to the left of quite a few left-leaning politicians here.
TL;DR: Maybe we just ought to stop using the words conservative and liberal as if they actually mean anything.
Also, social conservatism has different variants.
@Corinthian I think you and I view “fit” somewhat differently (post #173). Peter Van Buskirk, former admissions director at F&M, has a good definition IMO. A college is a good fit if it:
- Offers a program of study to match your interests and needs;
- Provides a style of instruction to match they way you like to learn;
- Provides a level of academic rigor to match your aptitude and preparation;
- Offers a community that feels like home to you; and
- Values you for what you do well.
To my mind, the question is how much weight does one give each of these factors and should factor #4 outweigh the others? I personally think there is a danger in that. If we send our children off to college hoping they will simply receive a replication of our own world view, then we are not giving them a chance to grow. I don’t see anything hypocritical in finding a good “fit” that at the same time enables them to be confronted by, and think about, new ideas.
With respect to OP’s post, my concern is the third sentence (thanks for reposting @brantly). The sentence begins “HE’D like to attend a strong STEM school” and ends “but WE’D like to find a place where a conservative Christian male won’t be persecuted…”
The issue of what the child wants versus what the parents want comes up time and time again on CC, and often the two “wants” don’t entirely align. In this case we are just hearing the parent’s side. The son and the other parent may not entirely see it this way. I don’t think it is bashing OP to simply make the observation that over-emphasizing Van Buskirk’s point #4 may result in limiting the son’s choices in what he primarily seems to want: an outstanding STEM education.
- It is affordable.
Given that @“Virginia Dad 1819” has left the discussion without specifying exactly what he meant by “conservative, Christian male,” (nor seemed too amenable to other posters’ suggestions about matches/safeties) much of this discussion is academic at best.
I see problems on both sides of the political aisle and its indicative of the political extremism and vitriol that is currently taking place in our society.
On the one hand, many of the opinions expressed in this thread are likely a reaction to the type of “conservative, Christian” values that resulted in an incoming Duke freshman causing a firestorm when he refused to read “Fun Home,” a graphic novel that was required reading for incoming first year students; he and number of like-minded freshmen chose not to read the novel, which depicted a woman masturbating and engaging in lesbian (oral) sex. In refusing to read the book, the student wrote “I feel as if I would have to compromise my personal Christian moral beliefs to read it.” Interestingly, the student says that “(his) beliefs extend to pop culture and even Renaissance art depicting sex.”
At the same time, there are no shortage of instances of left-leaning political correctness run amok on campus wherein people don’t feel comfortable expressing opinions that differ from the mainstream (such as the Occidental student’s experience described above) and speakers that have found themselves disinvited when they were supposed to speak at schools or others that were unable to deliver their speeches because hecklers kept interrupting them.
College is supposed to be a time to learn and grow. Part of that learning and growth stems from being exposed to ideas that run contrary to one’s own.
Any discussion about religion on this forum is usually off-base at best to totally wrong. Lumping Christians together is common, assuming Catholics are broadly conservative or comparing different parts of one denomination or order as more liberal. This always happens in the description of Jesuits being “liberal”. I don’t think too many are aware that the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits, decided to fully recognize women in the society in 2014, just two years ago.
The " conservative " brown robe wearing Franciscans did it in the 1200’s.
Another cool point, is that the progressive Jesuit pope took the name of a Franciscan in order to send a message.
Are people (of any political leaning) more thin-skinned and “fragile” today, or is it just that social media allows the noisiest of fringe political activists to magnify their (usually constant) outrage and broadcast it widely?
@ucbalumnus - probably a bit of both. A while back, the Atlantic Monthly published an article about how college students are being more “thin-skinned” and ‘fragile’," entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind” that is well worth reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
If Atlantic articles are to be relied upon (and I’ll just raise a skeptical eyebrow and leave it at that), here’s a competing one, giving a bit of a historical overview to counter the idea that kids these days are more fragile or self-obsessed or whatever than those of us from earlier generations: [Every Every Every Generation Has Been the Me Me Me Generation](http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/05/me-generation-time/65054/).
(Edited to correct the article title.)
One quick point about Anglican and Evangelical.
There is actually a good bit of overlap for some Anglicans (some is the operative word). One of the most beloved author for many gospel-centered Christians (Evangelical, Reformed, or otherwise) is JI Packer: James Innell Packer is a British-born Canadian Christian theologian in the low church Anglican and Reformed traditions.
His book, Knowing God, is oft read by people in my church community, which has roots in reformed theology.
Just a little FYI.
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Anglicans are very close to Catholics. There is no overlap with Evangelicals except for Jesus.
^There’s quite a bit of overlap once you step outside of the big cities. There are parts of the small town south where the only difference between Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Southern Baptists is how often they celebrate communion.
And what they drink at communion.
I think a lot of people who aren’t involved in organized religion have an inaccurate view of how people in these denominations actually think. It’s a mistake to think that all, or even most, of the members of a religious group agree with (or even understand) the doctrines of that group, and this is even more true with respect to the political positions taken by the denomination. My own denomination, United Methodism, has a bunch of positions on social and political issues, and I would wager that only about one in 50 Methodists even knows what they are.
And plenty of evangelicals are left-leaning too. Jim Wallis of Sojourners (a well-regarded progressive Christian organization) is an evangelical married to an Anglican priest: https://sojo.net/biography/joy-wallis
Coming from a traditionalist Catholic:
If you’re concerned –as some her have mentioned– about Biblical literalism not being taught… well… time to look into oral roberts, liberty, and bob jones.
If you’re concerned about your child being exposed to “micro-aggressions,” see above list also.
The fact that somebody listed jesuit colleges is comical. Jesuits are generally more leftist than Bernie Sanders. The term “social justice” could be traced to jesuit political movements in South America. Nothing against Jesuits, they’re great people, they’re just very fiscally (and sometimes socially) left. Look at their colleges and tell me their not (e.g., Georgetown, Canisius, Holy Cross et cetera).
If your child goes to an actual school, they will face “micro-aggressions.” That’s a BS term for thin skinned emotionalist anyway, but having your worldview challenged is important. Being ‘micro-aggressed’ is part of life. That being said, you can find a good balance. As some have mentioned, Washington and Lee & UVA both have a good amount of conservative, Christian influence. They’d probably be happy at either of those. Wheaton might also be a great fit.
Most schools don’t “forcibly indoctrinate” or persecute conservatives.
However, a lot of schools do have a majority liberal population. If your son is comfortable with that, he should be fine at any of those schools.
There’s always going to be someone who’s gonna try to convince him that God’s not real or capitalism is evil and whatnot. But that isn’t the majority.
I didn’t attend any of those schools but did attend 2 others: one small LAC that would probably be viewed as relatively center-right (probably a smaller version of Rice or W&M) and one large Ivy that is viewed as very liberal (similar to MIT or Penn).
I’m certainly on the right side of the aisle politically, and I go to church multiple times a week. I’d go for any of the schools on the list, but would go to the most prestigious–thus Stanford, MIT, Duke, Penn or Chicago. I wouldn’t factor religiosity or politics into the decision.
In my own experience, the small “conservative” LAC had plenty of Chinos (Christians in Name Only) but the depth of religious activity was very low on campus, and religion wasn’t really a strong presence there. Democrats were definitely in the majority there, too, as “better” schools are generally liberal.
Conversely, the large “liberal” Ivy had a lot more going on on campus, including a lot more religious and political groups, and so the pool of really committed Christians, and thus the opportunities for growth as a Christian, were much larger at the large “liberal” Ivy. There were also a lot more political groups on campus. Thus at the LAC, committed Christian conservatives were maybe 10% of the population of, say, 2000, but at the large “liberal” Ivy, committed Christian conservatives were maybe 5% of the population of, say, 30,000, so that was 1500 similar people to hang with. The typical person knows 150 people, so that’s more than sufficient for a personal network of like-minded people.
I did see some anti-right wing/anti-Christian bigotry at the “liberal” Ivy, but so what? If someone wants to be a jerk, that’s his or her own problem. There was bigotry in both directions at the LAC, unfortunately, too.
When like-minded people are a small minority, they tend to come together and have deeper connections with each other. When they’re perceived as in the majority, they don’t. So if you want your son to bond with other Christians conservatives, I’d say that he may well do that more at a large “liberal” school than at a “conservative” one.
Also, don’t you want more people who share your son’s values in the highest ranks of society? The way to do that is for people like your son to attend the best schools available.