6/24/2006

Progressive Students Fight For Living Wage on Christian Campus

Baylor University

Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas, Waco-based Baylor University is the oldest university in Texas and the largest Baptist university in the world.

Just when you think the entire next generation will be an army of Ayn Rand disciples with MBAs, there is a glimmer of hope that todays students won't turn into OTBL Dr.s Of Liberty.

"In 2004, Baylor Students for Social Justice founded the 1 John 3 Campaign as a response to social injustices it said were occurring at Baylor. The movement has a threefold mission: increase wages of Baylor employees to $10.29 an hour, provide employees with full medical benefits and allow employees to work a 40-hour week."


"Across the nation, campuses such as Stanford University and Harvard University are taking a stand against poverty. Baylor Students for Social Justice members said they believe that as a Christian university, Baylor has a moral duty to challenge social injustice."

Read more about what Progressives students or doing on Campus. The Baylor Lariate

51 comments:

Cato said...

What justifies overpayment for services?

AndyRand said...

What justifies exploitation of honest hardworking poor?
What's your next proposal the 120 hr. week?

Cato said...

No one forces people to take jobs at 3 dollars an hour. If there are people willing to work it, why don't you let them excercise their freedom of choice in the matter? If it turly wasn't a "living wage" at 3 an hour, then why would anyone do it? They wouldn't. If people don't like getting paid that much money and want more, ask for a raise or quit and get another job. Don't cry to a bunch of misguided youth to clamor for better wages, even though there are plenty of people who will do the work for much less.

Your response is as I anticipated; there is NO JUSTIFICATION for forcing someone else to overpay people for their serives.

AndyRand said...

You live in a huge fantasy. It's so simple right, Don't like your job, get a better one. It's just that simple right?

Why don't you let Baylor excercise their freedom of choice?
Pay workers more, or suffer the embarassment of looking like hypocrites. It's all about PR. I think Baylor will choose the former.
It's obvious that empathy is not in your lexicon. I put myself in the shoes of the workers. Working several jobs with little or no benefits, struggling to pay the rent and feed family members. There's no doubt in my mind that a system that fosters situations like this is an unjust one, regardless of your standard of "market based justice".
Yeah I can see the smirk on your face, laughing at my "bleeding heart".

Cato said...

I don't see how someone else's need justifies making me in need of something. Oh someone is poor, lets make other people poorer. I am reminded of an excellent short story where in the future the government makes everyone equal. Only they make them equal by bringing everyone down to the same level. Leg braces on ballet dancers, things like that.

Baylor accpets public funds. You say why can't they use their freedom of choice to do what they want. I don't know about you, but I would rather not have someone do whatever they wanted with my money! They are not even an accountable government body!

AndyRand said...

"Waco-based Baylor University is the oldest university in Texas and the largest Baptist university in the world."
If they accept public funds they are earmarked for specific academic projects. I'm sure building maintainance isn't one of them.
You like to speak in extremes, in absolutes. You paint me into the Socialist box because I'm not a radical free marketeer like you.
There will never be equality, but that doesn't mean the inequalities can't be levelled to a degree.
I don't live by "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."


You like painting people as socialists when you know they are not. That carries a very undesirable stigma with it that you use to your advantage. A very clever, yet deceptive tactic.

Cato said...

There is nothing clever nor deceptive about it. Socialists are the anti-liberals who like government to do things for them.

As for Baylor accepting public funds for building maintence... they do. Only one univeristy in this country, if I recall, refuses students who recieve federal assistance. Sorry, but Baylor recieves public funding. I do not care how it gets there, it's there. And so the American Taxpayer would be Overpaying people for serives (not that this is new but it is still something that should irk every American, especially socialists who really want to see this whole thing work).

AndyRand said...

Care to calculate your tax contribution to Baylor?
Is it 1 mil or 2? This one is a huge stretch. Because a Univ. accepts some miniscule portion of it's funding from you, you have a right to a say in it's day to day operations?
As the TV Guru for your camp says. "Give me a Break"

Cato said...

Well basically Baylor would have to justify to the American taxpayer why people deserved to be overpaid for serives that monkies could do (if only the labor laws didn't prohibit it).

We could easily solve all problems by ending public funding to Baylor.

A few months ago I read a story about some Christian university that kicked out people for being gay. Fair enough, their school their choice... but wait! The private institution received public funding!

UH-OH

This is no different.

AndyRand said...

"Socialists are the anti-liberals who like government to do things for them."

By your definition, a majority of the population better start sporting the hammer and sickle.
Have the government do things for them?
I guess those who wrote Wisconsin's Constitution were Socialists.
Eisenhower would be glad to assume your label when he started the interstate highways.
I'm so glad that we don't live in a totalitarian state like Norway or Sweden.

AndyRand said...

"A few months ago I read a story about some Christian university that kicked out people for being gay. Fair enough, their school their choice... but wait! The private institution received public funding!"

Does God Hate Gays or homosexuality?
Are they kicking out adulterers and wine bibbers as well? How about those who covet? Are they being dismissed?

I actually do see you point on this one, believe it or not.

Cato said...

I know socialists honestly believe they can make a better world and what they are doing is good. And their hearts are in the right place, right? I was having a conversation with someone once and I could help but to laugh when they pulled the "for the children" card. Its so laughable how socialists will use emotion to influence people and use children that way. The person I was talking to got very offended. Not that their offence effected me, but I realized: they actually believe that. I had never considered the possibility before because it seemed so far-fetched, but they actually believe that people should have their rights violated "for the children." But I digress.

Socialism does not need come with totalitarianism. It is why people have advocated it for a long time. But the fact of the matter is it may not come with it, but it will show up.

I think a state that takes away 70% of your wealth is pretty totalitarian.

Cato said...

Actually that school kicked out all "adulterers" for there are people that consider premarital sex adultery and premarital relations is forbidden there. I think their code of conduct is similar to the Orwellian named Liberty Univeristy, which is associated with Jerry Falwell. I used to have a link to their code... which would be funny if it wasn't true.

AndyRand said...

"I think a state that takes away 70% of your wealth is pretty totalitarian."
I thought you said you weren't a wealthy man? How did you get into the Uber bracket?

AndyRand said...

"I think their code of conduct is similar to the Orwellian named Liberty Univeristy, which is associated with Jerry Falwell. I used to have a link to their code... which would be funny if it wasn't true."

I sense some type of attempt at humor here, but it's going over my head.
That vast divide between us sure seems to apply to what we think is funny.

As far as appealing to emotion.
If you believe people are rational you are sadly mistaken.
This administration would be non existent if it were for election cycle terror alerts. $20 says we go red before the 1st weekend in Nov.
Maybe people will catch on to the wolf this time.

Cato said...

andyrand

I am not in that tax bracket. In fact, no one in America is. In Norway most are, if I recall correctly, and your comment about them being totalitarian is what I was addressing. But even if they did have such a bracket in the US I would not be in it, but I would still be saying that it was quite totalitarian.

Cato said...

As for Liberty Univeristy, this is enjoyable reading.

[url="Reprimands"]http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=1378[/url]

Cato said...

Well that didn't work...

http://tinyurl.com/pxmr7

AndyRand said...

Doesn't sound like much liberty at Liberty U?

Just goes to show how conservativism leads to a totalitarian state ;-)

How about that $20 bet?

Cato said...

Well so-called social "conservatives" and socialists are not really all that different. They have slightly different visions but use the same means to ends.

I only bet in games of skill.

AndyRand said...

"Well so-called social "conservatives" and socialists are not really all that different. They have slightly different visions but use the same means to ends."

You've got to be the first (and only) person I've ever heard lump these 2 together.
I have to say that your thinking is anathema to me. I keep thinking there's hope for some common ground but frankly I see none. I'm not saying this out of any personal distain, just my observation.
These world views will just have to battle it out in the idea market.
If you think that the "rising tide raises all boat". I hope you're up in the crows nest, because below that things are sinking fast.

A wise move to not take that bet.
No skill involved in that one. I think my winning would be a sure thing.

Cato said...

I think it is pretty obvious how similar they are. Christianity, after all, has an escatological socialist vision for man, although with one distinction: it is of free will not of coersion by force. In otrher words, the Pope will never take my guest house and give it to Hurricane victims, even though they may ask, while the ATF did take it away.

Anyway, I am not the first to make this connection. Your namesake, for example, spoke of the mytics of spirit and the mystics of muscle as two sides of the same coin. Both want to make the world a "better place." Their visions are eeirly parallel. Just a few differences over why people should do things like, help the poor but they are basically the same thing.

AndyRand said...

So if you become poor through no fault of your own ( which I'm sure you will argue is not possible ) no one should help you? (especially not the government). A self made (or self destructive) being, no if's ands of buts.

My surname is for purposes of belittling only. I'm not fond of Auntie Ayn.

Cato said...

I know why you made your name andy; I am not dense.

No one should be forced to help you, even over threat of eternal damnation, gnawed in the innermost circle of Hell by Satan himself, nor by a gun to your head. You can help people sure. But don't make others people help people. It's their choice, not yours.

AndyRand said...

"I know why you made your name andy; I am not dense."

I like to make myself perfectly clear even at the risk of stating the obvious.

In my view people are lazy. They may intend to help others but they don't follow through. They are also well intentioned. It is more pragmatic for the majority to "consent" to help others through taxes. Since you are still in the minority ( and from my view hopefully that will never change ) we collectively ( yes I know you detest that term )help people in a more pragmatic way.

I know you don't agree with a lick of this so I'm not sure why I bother stating it.

Cato said...

So you have a rather low opinion of your fellow man. I believe in them more, that they can survive without my help. And I can survive without anyone elses. But as it stands, there is a segment of the population that your namesake refered to as the social ballast.

AndyRand said...

Watch out below: Personal Attack coming!

All I have to do is browse over to OTBL and I get all the justification I need for my view of my "fellow" man.(doesn't that imply having some type of community?) Especially that new blogmate Jack.
Now that you've achieved perfection through your brainiac rationality, you just have to clease the earth of the social ballast and all will be swell.
This kind on thinking isn't much different from Lenin's. Just change the variable to bourgeoisie.

In my opinion, my fellow man's worth is not measured solely by ability as you imply.

Cato said...

So you have reached the conclusion that your fellow man is lazy by viewing people who post on a blog fairly regualarly.

That said I really don't know what you are talking about.

Zeek said...

Cato:

In the course of a given day, what transactions in life do you abstain from partaking in because they are a violation of you liberatarian ideals? Likewise, what do you do on a daily basis the enhances your libertarians believes and is an example to you fellow man that will spread the ideals you profess -- and they are ideals.

Strictly speaking, I'm not sure if you libertarians appreciate being collectively lumped in the catchall phrase "fellow man." I'm saying that as a generalization and don't mean to insult your ideals.

Cato said...

No, I do not like being in the catchall "fellow man," because it is not true.

I abstain from public transportation and I argue my opinion every day with people. I also do not recieve any forom of welfare and would refuse it if ever offered. You can choose to believe me or not to I don't really care.

zeek said...

Gee Cato, you don't accept any form of welfare or ride transportation and neither do I. Does that make me a libertarian.

It's that you only personal contribution to speading the libertarian gospel? I've never received or accepted any welfare in my life, but I have used public transportation when it made economic sense.

But then again, if you were driving say from Hudson to downtown Minneapolis, using public transportation does conveniently fit into the picture. Do you ignore any deduction on your tax filing? Those are a form of welfare? Don't you drive down public roads to get to work? That's welfare in the form of pavement, public safety (police and stop lights) and public utilities.

It's so easy to say you don't use public transportation or receive welfare, when 99 percent of the people that live in Wisconsin and Minnesota also don't get welfare or use public transportation.

Cato said...

Well I do not ask any man to live for my life. I just expect the same from them.

I hope that one day all the interstates will be private. I never have said that local roads should be. I favor a heavily libertarian national government (aka, one that follows the Constitution) while the state level I can understand more pragmatic concerns. For example, at a state level, I would favor the vermont model of public schools that has been working for a century and a half (vouchers! ARRRRGGGGGGGGGG Howard Dean never mentioned that!!!!), while at a national level there should be no public education monies spent what so ever. Unfourtently, with out socialist President and his yes-men in the Congress, the education system is even more entrenched in out national government with a "conservative" President than before he took office.

Anonymous said...

Ultimately all people rely on others, along with a social infrastructure. To presume a utopian society would exist in an (or perhaps more appropriatley termed narcissistic) environment like "cato" is a proponent,would never work. We are part of a social species that relies on each other to coexist.
Cato; you were referring to Christian principles, yet I don't identify anything that you have said that meets that criteria. What you seem to be aligned with, fits more into "gnostic beliefs.
One user on "the other blog" identified people as "units". That alienation of people reflects a lack of compassion, similar to what you have said. How does that fit with Christian beliefs? Ultimately; even you will need help from others, some of it via "THE SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT" .

Cato said...

I never said I was a Christian. In fact I thought I have made myself quite clear on that issue.

jpn said...

From what I've been following of the comments of Cato on this blog, I have not seen any place where he cliamed to be a Christian. Likewise, I don't believe I have ever stated that I was a Christian.

Of course, I don't believe Cato has said he was an atheist either.

Anonymous said...

You used the word Christian. Unfortunately my assessment was correct, as your views are not in line with that of Christ. However, if you wish to delve into facts. I'd suggest looking into Christianity. It has historical, arceological, and witness substantiation. Actually, when looking into ancient history, Christ's existence is documented more than any other, including two other major religions.
Checking into Christ may change your views on life. A book that I'd recommend is "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.

AndyRand said...

Annonymous.

You have pointed out something that has baffled and irritated me since Bush and the Republicans came to power on the backs of the "Values voters". Isn't evident to you that conservative Christians have made a pact with the Devil by embracing the Republican Party. Value
voters are mere pawns in their scheme to consolidate economic power. They don't give a rip about your values. They only bring up the issues that conservative Christians are concerned with when there's an election around the corner. Couple that with their Faux Patriotism, hightened terror alert fear mongering and they've congered up a potion that has brought them electoral success for several cycles now.
The Bush appointed head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox,is more of a disciple of Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ, and embrasses the
values you've heard CATO expound upon more than the gospel. They don't care about "the least of my brothers" They care about me, myself and I. The Holy Trinity of Objectivist Ayn Rand Disciples. Here's what someone consolidated about what Christians should believe about the poor.
http://www.justpeace.org/whatGodsays.htm
So why are Christians allied with Objectivists, who beliefs are reflected so eloquently by people like CATO in the following statement?
"I still have yet to have a reasonable explination as to why I should give a damn about anyone else.There is no reasonable explination. It all comes down to emotions, not pragmatism."

Recently I've seen bloggers identify themselves as "Christian Libertarians". What an onymoron.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you. I believe that some Christians have been duped. But remember that the majority of Christians didn't vote for Bush. I, by the way consider myself an Evangelical Christain. I've said it before, "what are the two greatest commandments?"

AndyRand said...

Anon,

You say
"But remember that the majority of Christians didn't vote for Bush."
What are you basing that on? Most of the conservative Christians I've talked to have bought into the Bush/Republican package. Do you know of stats that say otherwise? I'd sure like to see that. When I scanned into Christian Radio during the election it could easily be mistaken for a Bush Campaign ad.

A quick search on the topic revealed this interesting fact about Focus On The Family sending out Michael Moore's home address their mailing list.
http://ichikawa.blogspot.com
/2004/07/fotf-michael-moore-follow-up.html

And another article of interest to Bush voting Christians.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett57.htm


And to answer you're question, I'll to do what I've accused CATO of, taking answers from a playbook.

Mark 12:29-31

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these."

Anonymous said...

How is "Christian libertarian" an oxymoron? It only is if you stipulate Christians want government to do the work of Christ for them. Furthermore, Objectivism =/= libertarianism =/= anarchism.

Cato said...

Testing.

Oh, and anonymous--

I have studied Christianity. I do not deny Christ existed. The Gospels were however all written years later, after the destruction of the Temple, and were made specifically to harken back to the Old Testament. The Chritian escatological vision of the world was thus presented through them, and I do not agree with it.

Cato said...

BTW I am the anon above my last post.


I signed up for this thinking it would get rid of the word verification...

AndyRand said...

The word verification is there for everyone. Do you just find it a hassle or do you suspect some other unexplained purpose for it? (this has nothing to do with putting you in the conspiriology camp, I'm just curious and don't know if it could be used for some kind of tracking? )

"How is "Christian libertarian" an oxymoron? It only is if you stipulate Christians want government to do the work of Christ for them. Furthermore, Objectivism =/= libertarianism =/= anarchism."

Christians ideally are suppose to follow Jesus's example of selflessness. Libertarians from what I can discern and self centered. A
pretty self evident contradiction to me!
You've stated you're not an anarchist,not a libertarian should we try Objectivist on for size?

Large Bro said...

Note on word verification: If you don't use the word varification option on these blogs, you can get buried in spam advertisement. Concerning the options for indentification posting (blogger, other or anonymous), I don't have a clue as to who you are. The e-mail for your comment post doesn't tell. For all I know, you could be Dr. Bill from the OTBL blog.

However, whether the NSA has us monitored, I can't say. I don't mean that I wouldn't say, because I'm sworn to secrecy or something like that. I just mean you know how our government works. (There's an oxymoron).

While I'm at it, Cato I have the receipt for libertarian salad -- it's lettuce alone. I stole that "joke" off the internet. Whatever...

Cato said...

I would go further to say that Christians who want government to do the work of Christ for them are really not Christians for the sacifice and love towards fellow man that the Christian escatological vision demands is only done through free will. How can one give if others are just taking and "giving" for you? You have to do it yourself, and, therefore, libertarians who are Christian could verywell be the "most Christian" of all, since one can assume that since they do not slough off responsibility to some far off government that they do things themselves. Libertatians are not, in general, self-centered. They just want a smaller government that follows the Constitution.

Cato said...

Oh yes --

I find word verification a hassle, yes, and I do understand the reasons for doing it.

I stated I am not an anarchist, not a Libertarian but am libertarian (classical liberal) minded who votes Libertarian, and as for Objectivism I hold many of those morals dear.

Anonymous said...

I assume then you are PRO CHOICE and AGAINST the gay marriage amendment.

Cato said...

OoOoOoOoOo you got me. Well, almost. But a conversation is over when it goes into a shit-throwing competition which inevitably happens when you bring up such, uh "hot-button issues" as they say. So that's all I will go here on those issues.

Anonymous said...

Don't they call this "cut and run"!

jpn said...

It would be "unlibertarian," if you professed the holistic libertarian list of ideals to be against abortion and gay marriage. Unless you where only selecting from the political, i.e., small government, side of the libertarian menu. Although from a smal government perspective, putting restrictions on the freedom of an individual to choose a domestic partner and participate in all the legally established benefits would seem to fall under the political side of libertarianism. Likewise, on the abortion/pro-choice question, I would think putting legal restrictions on what a personal chooses to do with their own body would also be a gross infringement on the ideals of discussed on the political side of libertarianism.

I believe just the title of Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" goes along way answering how a full-blooded libertarian would answer these questions.

I personally my be opposed to abortion, but I don't feel it is my right to impose my beliefs on another individual's freedom to choose that option.

Maybe Cato is really only concerned about the items on the libertarian menu to keep more of his money in his pocket and allow him to carry a gun in the public market place. I've notice numerous instances of this half-breed brand of libertarianism echoed at the ontheborderline.net blog site. Actually, I think arguing this very type of pick-n-choose libertarianism is what got me booted off that site the first time.

If Cato is familiar with that blogsite, he would know that our on going discussions over the past couple of weeks would have had the comments shut off long ago. At the OTBL site, when you question the questioners, it gets ugly first and then silent. Obviously, that leads me to believe the purposes of that site is not to educated and enlightened through debate and discussion, but rather to be a propaganda spoke connected to a larger, more centralized hub of indoctrination.

Cato said...

To assume makes an ass out of you and me said my 3rd grade teacher.

I could care less about homosexuals doing whatever. As for abortion, since I already have to justify extending rights to children who have the potential but not capacity to reason at the time, I cannot think of any good reason to stop such extension just because of the physical location of the child. I don't think other people should be allowed to kill people in Oregon just because they are from Oregon, in other words. The Libertarian Party is split on the issue (some say it's the right of the individual the mother, others, it's the right of the individual, the child, who you seem to discount as not important freom what I am reading here), although all agree that the Federal Government should have nothing to do with it.

I do not what is your problem with individuals having different kinds of thought that do not fit into predetermined molds. Libertarians are all about the individual. They have different opinions, and some of them may be "pick0n-choose." So what?