New Online DBA being launched

Hi, Rich. One has only to look at Regent’s mission statement, to see that it operates from a Christian worldview. A growing number of schools, such as Liberty University, Christendom College, Patrick Henry College, Ave Maria University, and Hillsdale College, share a similar worldview. You say the worldview shared by these private institutions somehow interferes with those who might want to approach their studies from a different worldview.

Prospective DBA students, not sharing Regents Christian worldview, have many other institutions to which they may apply.

Nothing personal Rich, but you remind me how Ann Coulter describes the difference between conservatives and liberals in Treason, so I’ll share it with you again:

Since we’re on the subject of great conservatives, I should mention that all of William F. Buckley’s work is available online here:

http://www.hillsdale.edu:8088/Buckley/Standard/SelectCatalog2.jsp

 

Charles: Your quote of Anne Coulter's quote "quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is : Conservatives believe man was created in God's image; liberals believe they are God. All their other behavioral tics proceed from this one irreducible minimum. Liberals believe they can murder the unborn because they are gods. They try to forcibly create "equality" through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They can lie, with no higher power to constrain them because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the U.N. and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans -- they are gods.



Cehi: Please pardon me. I am not questioning anyone's faith, however, I am a bit confused with the significance of the above quote. What is the point, that, Anne is right or wrong? All I know is that the above is an inductive statement that is not supported by any fact. I hope you can clarify further what you are driving at. Thank you.

 

Yes, that Paul

Yes, I do. The vast majority of the New Testament (which is, for all practical purposes, modern day Christianity) was written by or references the thoughts of Saul, later known as Paul. Without this fellows evangelization and, later, the strong arm of the early church, Christianity would likely have gone the way of Zoroastrism and a number of other similar and unheard of now-defunct religions.

In my mind, Jesus laid it out pretty clearly. Love your neighbor as yourself. There isn't much more to what he said that isn't covered by that. The rest of Christianity came from the apostles, who Jesus constantly chastised by telling them that they didn't "get it".

If a college said they were religious, and loving your neighbor as you love yourself was the order of the day as far as ethics are concerned, then I could certainly buy into that notion. But Christianity and Christian thought has transformed from one pretty simple fellow wandering the desert to an economic, political and cultural juggernaut that doesn't resemble the life of Christ in too terribly many ways. That said, I wouldn't want to be burdened with Pauls ideas in the name of ethics.

To each his own.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics in business school

Really, how about...

That's not criticism?

You've just set the whole body of religious faith from a Christian point-of-view for the last 1970 years on its head and impliedly equated it with some kind of ancient myth with no more hold on the truth that say, mythologies about Zeus. I suppose in your enlightened mind, that's just a statement of irrefutable truth. Again, Rich, how in hades do you know?

You don't, so quit acting like you do.

And your opinion that evidently one can't have a legit education which has religious underpinnings--as if religion weren't the foundation for many of our ethical mores and the founding of our country--because the matter's unsettled (at least, according to you, in your mind), is absurd.

Rich, for some people, the matter is settled, and there's no reason to presuppose that their education is any less valuable or valid than yours because they elect to have a couple Christian ethics classes on their way to the DBA.

You entered this thread with one intent--to act like an ass and take a couple snide shots at a religious system with which you disagree. Just look at your original post--totally out of left field, appropos of nothing other than your personal slanted views.

I'm no Pat Robertson afficionado, and I think a lot of what passes for religion on TV is bilge--they'll never get my money. But I'm not so closed-minded as to tell someone that if they want to have a business degree with a Christain or Jewish or Buddhist slant to the ethics portion, that this somehow makes theior degree religious and devalues it. That's bunk.

 

Re: Yes, that Paul

Yeah, sure, the early church, at least after a few centuries, did some strongarming, but to blame Paul for that? Sure the Catholic church became a juggernaut and ate up much of the land and money of the peasants throughout the medieval age, but somehow I'm not seeing the connection between Paul and diddly squat when it comes to those later events.

It's too bad that throughout history, political-minded, machiavellian maniacs have co-opted religion for their own ends and that it continues today. But you is blaming the wrong boy for that.

 

Little Fauss said:

Little Fauss, I said:

Perhaps it reads to you that the strong arming of the church, which came much later than the apostle Paul, was to be attributed to Paul. I did not mean this at all. My point is that most of Christianity today comes from the New Testament of the Bible, and Paul was a far greater influence on the texts that comprise the New Testament than Jesus ever was. Paul was a zealot, and the beliefs of so many past and modern day Christians follow in that tradition of zealousness. I wouldn't want to sign on for that. I did once in my life and now I know better. As for blame, I don't want to blame anyone. I say "Live and let live", and I'll do it my way, that's all.

 

Hi, Cehi. Simply this- Rich seems to imply that people have no business expressing a Christian worldview in academia. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a private institution not incorporate its stated worldview into its programs.

The quote is significant because Ann Coulter points out the one attribute common in all hardcore liberals; they think their gods. The so-called tolerant liberals have no tolerance for an opposing worldview.

Now, please allow me to ask you a question. Why do you think so many people find it socially acceptable to be so hostile toward Christianity and certain Christian institutions?

 

Yeah, alright, Paul was a zealot. I suppose that's obvious; the dude was about the biggest thing in Pharasaic Judaism in that part of the world, famous at 30, prestigious Roman citizenship, the world his oyster, then he jettisons the whole thing--at least in the minds of his Jewish scholarly contemporaries--by saying Jesus was the Christ.

Family disowned him, he got thrown into prison several times, beaten, finally beheaded (so some scholars say) for these beliefs, but he never backed down. That's a zealot!

But if you have things you really believe in, you better not back down, or I'll know you don't really believe in them. There isn't anything wrong with standing by what you believe (as long as it's right).

So in my mind, the only way Paul messed up is if what he believed wasn't right--that's the $64,000 question.

BTW: Jesus was a zealot, that's why they nailed the guy up. He wasn't some kind of peaceful hippy who said live and let live no matter what. He said I'm the only way, there isn't any way to heaven but me. Take it or leave it. That's a ZEALOT!

 

Charles: "Hi, Cehi. Simply this- Rich seems to imply that people have no business expressing a Christian worldview in academia. I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a private institution not incorporate its stated worldview into its programs.

The quote is significant because Ann Coulter points out the one attribute common in all hardcore liberals; they think their gods. The so-called tolerant liberals have no tolerance for an opposing worldview.

Now, please allow me to ask you a question. Why do you think so many people find it socially acceptable to be so hostile toward Christianity and certain Christian institutions?"



Cehi: Thank you for the clarification. Now, regarding your question, I think hostility should not be allowed to be directed to any group or category. I think the answer lies between who is right or wrong as individual perceive it. There are so many beliefs. However, I think individual faith should never be challenged by anyone in as much the particular individual faith does not become an inductive doctrine that is required to be accepted as is, by the opposition who are deductive thinkers. The exception, I feel, are for those who are willing to follow those inductive doctrines. For me, I believe that there is someone bigger than me....this does not mean that my believe should approved or rejected by anyone.

I thank you and appreciate your feedback. Much regards. Thank you.

 

Common ground?

Hi Steve,

Let me see if I have this right. Here we have Dr. Rich Douglas stating that a private regionally accredited institution of higher learning should be prevented from utilizing standard degree nomenclature because he is disturbed at the thought of the institution teaching from a Christian worldview, and you see Ann Coulter as the problem?

Can you tell me exactly what common ground you would suggest in this case?

 

I am a conservative, and an active duty soldier, that being said I have had circumstances in pursuing higher education where this is not a good combination. I have often found that groups that push hard a point of view (whether far left or far right), regardless if they preach tolerance, are often the least tolerant. Just my two cents which at present value means nothing, lol...

SFC William Parker

 

Another view

I took a look at the curriculum for this progrm, and I'm a bit puzzled. I come from a fundamentalist Christian background as well as being a business school academic. What I'm somewhat amazed at is the lack of courses in business functional areas (e.g. finance, marketng, etc.) in this program. Just 12 hours in a functional area won't count as "doctorally qualified" by some of the RA groups. Also, there isn't any breadth - just one field. The research content is fairly standard - but 6 credit courses in just one semester? Also, 45 months to complete the program is pretty short.

I don't have a problem with the Christian ethics perspective - but hanging the word "Christian" on a curriculum shouldn't mean that other areas get shortchanged.

Regards - Andy

 

Hello all,

I needed to get back into the fray with education related topics for a while.. I've been spending too much time in the political discussion boards arguing with BLD.

In regards to this degree, I see nothing wrong with it. Regent University is RA and is a private, religous based school. It is known for being overly religous, and many people I know have begun their online DSL online to find that they were uncomfortable with its religous overtones and dropped out. Others enjoyed the program.

Now I am an agnostic and would not feel comfrotable in such a session, and would find myself arguing with the professors on every point, much like the situation described by Dr. Douglas.

However, for these reasons, I wouldn't attend the program. I'd go somewhere else where I would be comfortable.

Thus, one who enrolls in Regents should know what they are getting into. If religion isn't their cup of tea, then they should go elswhere.

 

A person's beliefs are a private matter. I happen to believe that every aspect of life is guided by the Holy Spirit and his Word. Personally, I would say to exclude that aspect from business would hinder me from receiving many of the blessings I could benefit from in my business endeavors. I favor the fact that Regent University is offering a DBA with a Biblical approach. For those of you that disagree with me, simply choose another school. Many of you are scholars and well read and I admire you. But I happen to find the most widely read book that has ever been written on the face of the earth, "The Holy Bible" can't and will not be ignored. Thank you and God Bless those being critical. Have a Great Day!

 

Dr. Rich Douglas:

The Christian worldview presented in Regent's proposed DBA is consistent with all of Regent's programs. Perhaps Dr. Douglas will share with us why he is not offended by Regents other programs.

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/

http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/mission_statement.cfm

Ann Coulter's observation about liberals highlights the basis of Dr. Douglas' attack on Regent's DBA. In short he thinks religion is bunk.

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8151&highlight=bunk

I fully support anyone exercising his or her First Amendment rights, so I feel pretty good about exercising my own. The Ann Coulter’s observation may explain Dr. Douglas' irrational hostility toward all religion.

 

This is unfair. I didn't criticize religion. I criticized its introduction into an academic curriculum. And not as a subject for study, but as a tenet of faith one must accept to pursue the rest of the curriculum.

I don't care what people believe. I truly don't. But when it is foisted upon others (as is the case when it permeates an academic curriculum), I draw the line.

In academic situations, beliefs, values, facts, etc., are open to discussion and debate. But when a particular religious point of view is mandated in what should be an arena for debate, that is wrong. There is no opportunity for debate. If Regent's curriculum provided for a debate on the concept of Christian ethics' impact on business decision-making, fine. That's academic. But that's not what is there.

It's not religion, per se, it's the pre-supposition I oppose.

 

Rich,

Again, the proposed DBA curriculum is entirely consistent with Regent's mission:

Now if I were hunting for a DBA program, but not interested in Regent's Biblical perspective, I would look elsewhere.

 

Yes, Charles, I already know the DBA is consistent with Regent's philosophy. But it is inconsistent with academics, as is any approach tinged in such a manner.