Why don't Fundamentalist schools...

[rmcrobertson]

This is from an alumnus of Bob Jones University--a strong SUPPORTER of the institution.

JONES University


IS BJU ANTI-CATHOLIC?

In 1996, Bob Jones University invited several conservative Republican presidential candidates to speak at the school; several of them did, including Alan Keyes. His speech was kind and moving; he made quite a few followers among the student body and faculty. In 2000, Bob Jones again invited several candidates, and again Alan Keyes was among them. This time, his tune was completely different; in that speech, as well as in following debates and nationally televised interviews, he strongly criticized BJU for their "anti-Catholic" position as well as criticizing George Bush for speaking there. The press gleefully took his charges and ran with them, in an attempt to divide the Republican party and hurt Bush's chances in areas of high Catholic population such as Michigan -- where he lost the primary (Ironically, Michigan sends more students to BJU than any other state). Remarkably, Keyes invited a BJU musical group to perform at a Keyes rally in South Carolina.

On February 22, 2000, Dr. Bob Jones III made the following statement at a banquet in Atlanta, paraphrased here: "Bob Jones University is not anti-Catholic, or anti-Mormon, or anti-Buddhist. We are anti-Catholicism, just as we are anti-Mormonism and anti-Buddhism. We love the Catholic; we stand against the false religion that leads him astray."

If you search the official BJU website, you will find many articles referencing many different religions. While Catholicism is mentioned, it is certainly not singled out; in fact, Mormonism would seem to have many more references. Bob Jones University holds to the belief that the Bible is our standard of authority, and any church which does not agree with God's Word is therefore to be opposed. Catholicism holds many positions contrary to God's Word, so BJU will stand against it as a false faith.

BJU does not hate Catholics nor discriminate against them in any way. BJU has had Catholic students; when my wife was a student, there was a Catholic freshman in the room next to hers. The girl found a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ a few weeks into the year. If you were to visit BJU and wear a big sign that said "I am Catholic," I can guarantee that you would be treated with the utmost sincere kindness and generosity -- just as you would be treated if you did not wear the sign. I'm sure people exist who hate Catholics, but they absolutely are not at BJU. BJ has strong rules and stronger punishments for any student or faculty who display prejudice of any kind against people of other faith or race. This is crucial because BJ is non-denominational and accepts students of many faiths, as long as they are willing to agree with the University Creed. If students or faculty exhibited the attitudes and actions toward Catholics which have been claimed, they would be immediately expelled, no questions asked.

If you have further interest in the views of BJU, please read these articles:
How to Recognize False Religions by Dr. Bob Jones III
If I Were a Roman Catholic by Ian Paisley

The Rev. Ian Paisely, it should be noted, is head of a violent, para-military Protestant self-defense group in Northern Ireland.

Here's another, equally hilarious, "debunking," of what the writer takes to be some unfortunate myths about BJU:

BJU has a dormitory named for Bibb Graves, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan?

Several people have asked me about this, and it is a fair objection which deserves an answer. A quick review of who Bibb Graves was should answer it satisfactorily.
1. Bibb Graves' history

David Bibb Graves was born in Alabama in 1873. He was a Colonel in the US Army during World War I; he was Governor of Alabama for two terms (1927-31, 35-39). He was a progressive Democrat. Bibb Graves died in 1942.

2. Bibb Graves' history in relation to BJU

Bibb Graves was governor-elect of Alabama when Bob Jones, Sr. decided to start Bob Jones College in Florida. Mr. Graves was a solid supporter of Dr. Jones' evangelistic campaigns, and was fully in support of the new college. He took part in the initial groundbreaking ceremony and became a member of the executive board. As a businessman, he was the negotiator for the new property when the school moved to Tennessee. He was a close friend of Bob Jones, Sr. and invested a great deal of his time, money, and experience in the school. When Bob Jones College relocated to South Carolina, the school named one of the first two men's dormitories after him. Dr. Jones Sr. did not approve of all his progressive politics, but they were still close friends.

3. Bibb Graves' history in relation to politics

Bibb Graves served two terms as governor of Alabama and was prepared to run for an unprecedented third term when he died. He was respected by virtually everyone on all sides, in an incredibly rough era when there was great racial and social division in the state. Graves was a social Democrat who was in favor of the New Deal and massive government spending. He was loved and respected as a kind, forgiving man with genuine concern for the people of Alabama. He was instrumental in making changes which allowed the civil rights movement to happen; most famously, he opened Alabama's juries to blacks, which lead was then followed by other southern states. The respect that Alabama had for Governor Graves is evidenced in the state colleges which have buildings and streets named after him: University of Alabama, University of North Alabama, University of West Alabama, Jacksonville State University, Alabama A&M University, Judson College (a women's-only school), and Troy State University - as well as many elementary and high schools throughout the state.

4. Dixie Bibb Graves

Dixie Graves, the wife of Bibb Graves, was fully in support of Bibb's social reform policies and took on an issue of her own -- the suffrage movement. She became president of the Alabama League of Women Voters and eventually became Alabama's first and only female U.S. Senator. In the Senate, she gave the first speech ever by a woman Senator. She actively fought for child labor amendments, human welfare agencies, and literacy groups.

5. Bibb Graves' history in relation to the KKK

Bibb Graves joined the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s when they were a religious group promoting a national ban on alcohol and returning the Bible to the schools. He did indeed become Grand Dragon the Alabama Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, and was in that position at the time he was first elected Governor of Alabama. However, the KKK had shifted focus from the time he had joined from religious activism to racial activism. As he saw this change happen, he quit his position in the group and cancelled his membership. Governor Graves was very active in civil rights legislation, and quickly lost the support of the KKK. When he ran for his second term, the KKK actively campaigned against him. A study of Bibb Graves makes it clear that his early support for the KKK had nothing to do with the race issue, and he left the KKK when he saw what it had become.

6. Summary

One may fairly ask why the government-funded state colleges in Alabama still honor a former Grand Dragon with buildings named after him, and I think the answer is clear. Bibb Graves did more to help the civil rights movement in Alabama than any of his contemporaries. His connection with the KKK had nothing to do with race. He has been judged on the content of his character, and found worthy of honor. When we look back in time, it is easy to forget that we know "the rest of the story." Bibb Graves should be measured by his beliefs, activities, character, and morals -- and when we view him that way, I find that honoring him with a building name is not only acceptable, but worthy.

The same alumnus and supporter goes on to explain that Bob Jones did indeed have a policy against inter-racial dating--and suggests that it still does--but explains that this was in no way whatsoever racist. It was simply part of the University's ongoing attempt to educate students about the perils of "one-worldism."

One can only stand in awe at this level of convolution....course, you'd do it to, if you had to justify naming a dorm on your school after a Grand Dragon. One absolutely loves the note that Dr. Jones' only objection to this guy had to do with his, "progressive politics." But particularly sweet is the assertion that, "Graves joined the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s when they were a religious group promoting a national ban on alcohol and returning the Bible to the schools---" what with the period 1890-1920 marking the high water mark for the highest numbers of lynching per year throughout the United States.

No doubt the Klan had nothing to do with them. And good to see another piece of the long, honorable history of the, "returning the Bible to the schools," movement.

And nothing closed-minded at BJU.

 

[Cruentus]

I mentioned the Bush administration not to turn this into a conversation about him; really many republican elected officials are also to blame. How politics fit into the picture is very pertinent to this conversation.

There is no conspiricy; it is just the way it works. Politicians try to find votes, and in the process they make many promises to special interest groups. The republican party made promises to the christians right, which is how they dominated this last election. Now that there is a republican dominated government, the christian right want to collect on these promises.

Part of the question, I think, was why the recent push to get religion in the government and our schools. The above explains why.

Paul

 

[loki09789]

No, because:

1) You're not a politician
2) You're not giving a speech to a political constituency, you're giving a self-defense demonstration
3) You haven't advertised yourself as being Jewish

...but continue to throw up straw-men all you like. At some point I'll probably get tired of knocking them down.

Straw man.....hmmmmm.

Your criticising my use of analogy as you are applying a "Guilt by association" logic form opinions?

Let me use an analogy that may be more to your liking/comprehension than when I changed Bush to JFK and Fundamental to Catholic, and you didn't catch because you were asking for citation....of an analogy.

As a MA instructor, it may not be political, but I would have an 'agenda' for being at that Jewish center. I would have a 'goal' for being there. Bush giving a speech at any institution is doing so for an overall agenda/goal. Nice hair splitting to avoid addressing the other points though.

Analogy coming!:

I am part Japanese/Okinawan. I am publically recognized as such. I run for office and give a speech in the course of a week at a Japanese community center (with a clear set of ideals that raise public eyebrows in some way) as well as at the JEWISH CENTER, a local college, a Rotary Assocation dinner and a Teachers union assemblage....

Each of those groups has different dynamics/values/philosophies. I am not 'automatically' affiliated, condoning, converting or 'guilty by association' simply because I give a speech at these places.

NOTE: The time, locations, characters in the above are theoretical and NOT REAL for the purposes of illustrating a point.

Simple question:
Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico? Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.

Isolate this one speech and don't look at the entire schedule, fine....awefully 'subjective' in perspective though when you don't consider context, content, timing....and lots of other stuff.

If our legal system ran this way, boy would we be in trouble...."You were there, therefore you are guilty"....

And, again, isn't this the type of 'guilty by association' mentallity that got Jesus in trouble according to NT teachings? Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...

See what I did, I used a biblical and a political reference....I didn't separate my church and 'state'

"Hey, you got your church on my state!"
"Hey, YOU got your state on my Church!"

 

[heretic888]

And, again, isn't this the type of 'guilty by association' mentallity that got Jesus in trouble according to NT teachings? Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...

Actually, if you are going by the New Testament, then Jesus got into trouble because he claimed Unity with the Divine. "I and the Father are One", and all that.

The speculation that Jesus was in trouble because he was a purported political insurgent is not supported by the literature. "Give unto Caesar what is his", and all that. In the story, Pilate wanted to let Mr. Jewish Ghandi go, but the Jewish authorities of the time --- pissy about this feller proclaiming God-Union --- would have none of that.

Granted, I don't believe for a second that a historical "Jesus Christ" actually existed. But, you get the point.

 

[loki09789]

Actually, if you are going by the New Testament, then Jesus got into trouble because he claimed Unity with the Divine. "I and the Father are One", and all that.

The speculation that Jesus was in trouble because he was a purported political insurgent is not supported by the literature. "Give unto Caesar what is his", and all that. In the story, Pilate wanted to let Mr. Jewish Ghandi go, but the Jewish authorities of the time --- pissy about this feller proclaiming God-Union --- would have none of that.

Granted, I don't believe for a second that a historical "Jesus Christ" actually existed. But, you get the point.

Generalization.

I was referring to Jesus, according to NT literature, associating with known tax collectors/prostitutes 'low lifes' by the Pharisee and some everyday members of the Jewish community of his day. It is one of many of the things that he came under fire for doing within the text. If I remember correctly, his response to such criticism was something like "these are the people who need men the most, why shouldn't I be there?"

My point in this reference was to illustrate that just by being there or by being a member under the general community heading of 'fundamentalist' is not enough IMO to condemn Bush, or anyone of being 'guilty of the same mentallity.'

 

[PeachMonkey]

Your criticising my use of analogy as you are applying a "Guilt by association" logic form opinions?

I was criticizing your analogy because it's not applicable. As a martial arts instructor, you don't use space at a Jewish center because you have an 'agenda' to convert the Hassidim to kung-fu badasses... you're using it because it's a community space made available to you. As a politician, however, when you speak to Jews at a Jewish fund-raising event, you have an agenda to reach a Jewish audience. Any "hair-splitting" you mention is a projection.

Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico? Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.

I think it's always important to consider the content and message of the speeches and support given by both the speaker you mention and the parties to whom he/she speaks. To take your analogy further, however, if that Japanese advocacy group had a strident anti-Caucasian policy that suggested that whites were subhuman and that dating and marriage between Asians and whites was unacceptable, I would find giving a speech to that group to be abhorrent, no matter what the content of the speech.

And the fact that the group happens to be buddy-buddy with the candidate would make me feel a bit icky, just as it does with the strong evidence of Bob Jones' happy support and cohabitation with the Bush Administration.

If our legal system ran this way, boy would we be in trouble...."You were there, therefore you are guilty"....

Speaking of straw men. You're rather fond of them on this issue.

Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...

Are there any Christian moral lessons that tie to the concept that a truly moral individual should not consider power at any costs to be a good thing? And that leveraging the power of racist scumbags to get into power isn't the most moral of paths for the righteous man?

 

[loki09789]

1. I was criticizing your analogy because it's not applicable. As a martial arts instructor, you don't use space at a Jewish center because you have an 'agenda' to convert the Hassidim to kung-fu badasses... you're using it because it's a community space made available to you. As a politician, however, when you speak to Jews at a Jewish fund-raising event, you have an agenda to reach a Jewish audience. Any "hair-splitting" you mention is a projection.


2. I think it's always important to consider the content and message of the speeches and support given by both the speaker you mention and the parties to whom he/she speaks. To take your analogy further, however, if that Japanese advocacy group had a strident anti-Caucasian policy that suggested that whites were subhuman and that dating and marriage between Asians and whites was unacceptable, I would find giving a speech to that group to be abhorrent, no matter what the content of the speech.

And the fact that the group happens to be buddy-buddy with the candidate would make me feel a bit icky, just as it does with the strong evidence of Bob Jones' happy support and cohabitation with the Bush Administration.


3. Speaking of straw men. You're rather fond of them on this issue.


4. Are there any Christian moral lessons that tie to the concept that a truly moral individual should not consider power at any costs to be a good thing? And that leveraging the power of racist scumbags to get into power isn't the most moral of paths for the righteous man?

1. Reading Comprehension, in the analogy I was doing a demonstration for the purpose of expressing my 'values' through martial arts AND a little recruiting...not using it as a base of operations..... Politician or not, agendas are being pushed. I was mistaken on the hair splitting comment because you didn't really understand the analogy.

2. And what if the content of the speaker/me/Bush/anyone is simply an expression of a set of values that are his and his alone (even if those values share a common basis with the group - it still can be different), or is a plea for reformation in those abhorable values/practices? You contradict yourself here because at the beginning you say content counts, then you say that just giving a speech and being there is 'icky' regardless of what the speech contains. So, which is it?

3. Or maybe you are not open to the analogies because you are so fixed on your position on this issue that any point will not be acceptable to you?

4. Again, just 'cuz they say it is that way, doesn't mean that the speaker at their place agrees, that the content of the speech (which you acknowledged has to be considered) will be automatic support/approval of the total package of values that the institution holds dear.

 

[Flatlander]

Mod Note:

Please keep this discussion on topic. Feel free to start a new thread on the significance of venues and audiences of politcal speeches with regards to political motivations.

Thank you for your attention.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-

 

[Melissa426]

Each of those groups has different dynamics/values/philosophies. I am not 'automatically' affiliated, condoning, converting or 'guilty by association' simply because I give a speech at these places.


Simple question:
Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico? Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.

OFF TOPIC (sorry, Flatlander, I had it typed before I saw your post:asian: )

If I speak to a bunch of prisoners with the express purpose of introducing them to the Christian way of life and having a definite agenda, will I be accused of associating with and therefore condoning the actions of rapists, murderers, thieves, and gangsters? I have heard the prisons are among the most racist of social environments. Does that make me a racist if I want them to be included in my Christian community?
Hmmm.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[heretic888]

If I speak to a bunch of prisoners with the express purpose of introducing them to the Christian way of life and having a definite agenda, will I be accused of associating with and therefore condoning the actions of rapists, murderers, thieves, and gangsters? I have heard the prisons are among the most racist of social environments. Does that make me a racist if I want them to be included in my Christian community?
Hmmm.

So, if I am to understand you correctly, Melissa....

You're saying that if Bush's speech was about the virtues of religious ecumenism and racial acceptance --- which I sincerely doubt --- then it'd be okay?? But, elsewhise...

 

[rmcrobertson]

So to sum up, there's no problem with the President of the United States, a) giving speeches at schools with dorms named after Grand Dragons and policies that are explicitly racist; b) accepting contributions and support from such people; c) nominating judges to the Federal benches who believe that the IRS shouldn't have pulled BJU's tax-exempt status.

Huh. Must just be me.

One wonders at what point Hizzoner will go to one of these places and give a speech chiding them for their open bigotry and religious intolerance (we did READ the parts on Ian Paiseley and on false religions like Catholicism, didn't we?) and at least mentioning the weirdness of banning jazz (dat DEBBIL music!) as he did with the Urban League during the campaign. Or perhaps it's only black people who need the moral guidance.

Meanwhile back at the studio, here's a little number goin' out to all you good folks from those evil Commie rats, "Nation," magazine (publiched proubdly in and for this country since the 1860s), and their, "The Daily Outrage," column:

** Next year the Bush Administrations plans to spend $270 million on abstinence-only education. As a result, here are some remarkable lessons school children ages 9-18 may learn as part of their curriculum: half of gay male teenagers tested positive for AIDS; the HIV virus spreads via sweat and tears; abortions lead to suicide and sterilization; and touching one's genitals can result in pregnancy. Our favorite stat from the report released by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA): A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." Before that it's just a likely Bush voter.

** Last year seven-year-old Marcus McLaurin of Lafeyette, Louisiana, informed a fellow 2nd grade classmate in the recess line that he had two mothers. "Gay is when a girl likes another girl," he reportedly said. The teacher, Terry Bethea, promptly sent Marcus to the principal's office. "I sed bad wurds," Marcus wrote on an explanation form for his mother Sharon Huff. The next day Marcus was forced to repeatedly write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again," during a behavioral clinic at 6:45 am. In a surreal twist, the teacher is now suing the mother for $50,000 in defamation damages. Fittingly, "union, justice, and confidence" is Louisiana's state motto.

** Meanwhile, Rep. Gerald Allen of Cottondale, Alabama, plans to introduce legislation banning novels with gay or bisexual characters from all state public libraries. If passed, even universities across Dixie would be forced to remove Southern classics like Alice Walker's "The Color Purple," Fanny Flagg's "Fried Green Tomatoes" and Tennessee Williams "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof." Ken Walker of the gay rights organization Equity Alabama says Allen is trying to become "the George Wallace of homosexuality." By 2010 Allen wants to ban every book featuring single mothers.

** Goodbye abstinence and homophobia, hello creationism. The Dover Area High School in southern Pennsylvania recently became the first public school in America to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," informing biology students of the "gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. "Evolution--is that Darwin theory?" asked a shocked 16-year-old. "I don't know what he's thinking." Intelligent design sidesteps the Supreme Court's 1987 ban on teaching creationism in public schools by attacking evolution without mentioning the Lord . For a sign of things to come, click here to see how God created the exploding giraffe.

No problems there that one can see. Bring on the weaseling.

 

[PeachMonkey]

The Dover Area High School in southern Pennsylvania recently became the first public school in America to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," informing biology students of the "gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution.

But Robert, I didn't think anyone actually advocated replacing science with religion in the biology classroom?

Oh, wait, wrong thread.

 

[rmcrobertson]

OH. There are no problems with the State legislature mandating the teaching of pseudo-scientific theories in biology classes.

Again, the general point here is that all these claims of, "fairness," and, "open-mindedness," are simple smoke and mirrors. These folks are about as open-minded as the Puritans, which--to their credit--they make as clear as clear can be.

Bob Jones University is an excellent illustration of the agenda. No outlawing of Catholicism, why gosh no, heaven forfend--just unrelenting presszion until the devotee of idolatry sees the light. No racism, why no not us nohow no way--we only ban jazz, keep dorms named after Grand Dragons, in the interests of opposing one-worldism. One is tempted to get in to the issue of self-hatred, since these guys also ban country music and contemporary Christian tunes....but let it pass.

But does anybody really think that ideas like evolution are presented fairly and openly? How? Their professors must sign statements of faith before being hired. Anybody honestly think you go in to the library, and all the books, from Harry Potter and Judy Blume through to Einstein's letters on peace and Robert Ingersoll's sermons are there?

C'mahn.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Student expectations at BJU:

http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/general.html


I could never go to school there. I'd die on the vine.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Student expectations at BJU:

Wow. Humans send their children there? Unbelieveable. I mean, I believe it exists, but I can't believe there is a market for this. Yikes.

 

[michaeledward]

Wow. Humans send their children there? Unbelieveable. I mean, I believe it exists, but I can't believe there is a market for this. Yikes.

There is a chapter in Al Franken's latest book, in which he, and one of the Harvard students who were assiting him with his book toured Bob Jones University, as potential students. The story he tells is actually very flattering to the individuals who attend the school. The student / tour guide walked them through the entire campus, never letting on that he recognized Mr. Franken. At the very end of the day, the student appealed to Mr. Franken to not ridicule their beliefs. I believe most people of faith are similarly genuine.

It's those who feel they must push their beliefs on others, the evangalists, that bother me. I understand that evangalism is often part of the required service to their faith, but its imposition on others is contrary to our societies rules.

 

[Makalakumu]

So which context should we take it in that the POTUS, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christian, gave a speech at a university that bans interracial dating, jazz, and African-American students?

Or does that sort of atrocious record fall under the "so WHAT!" category when we're dealing with white, anglo-saxon Christians?

Avowed "conservatives" have to blow that stuff off in order to justify themselves. It's a symptom of the apathetic state to which we have fallen. Unbelievable as it may sound, people can choose to go and learn at these institutions...that sounds pretty American. Will these beliefs become more prevelent in our country? The signs are foreboding...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Today's hilarity is:




"Impact of a young-earth creationist apologetics course on student creation worldview"

by Tom Henderson, Steve Deckard and David A. DeWitt

Summary


"Science educators holding an evolutionary worldview are concerned about the teaching of young-earth creationism (YEC) and generally oppose its presentation in public schools. This paper examines the influence of a YEC apologetics course on creation and evolution worldview attitudes of Liberty University students. The Creation Worldview Test (CWT) was administered and a total scale score, along with three subscales scores in theology, science and age, were analyzed. Student pre-test scores indicated some weaknesses, suggesting departure from a solid YEC worldview. Following the course, students shifted significantly toward stronger agreement with the YEC position in total score, science and age. The results demonstrate that when Christian college students are taught from a YEC perspective, they shift toward stronger beliefs in YEC."

The full article, among whose authors is a present Professor of Biology at Liberty University, goes on to detail precisely how to teach students "Young Earth Creationism," in a fashion that cuts way, way down on those pesky doubts. It can be found at answersingenesis.com, and I recommed reading the whole darn thing....

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, especially given the veneer of science and statistics applied to this nonsense....

Again, one would be very interested to read an explanation of precisely how this sort of thing supports the notion, which we hear so often on right-wing talk shows, that it's the creationists who are the open-minded, strictly scientific arguers...

 

[heretic888]

Statistics don't lie.

But, liars can do statistics.

 

[Brother John]

1. Teach evolution.

2. Allow jazz music.

3. Permit students to be out alone.

What up, here, is that there's a lot of kvetching about them damn secular humanists and their political correctness, their censorship, their narrow-mindedness. Well, shoe's on the other foot, now.

What are fundamentalist Christian schools so afraid of? Why do they find it necessary to regulate every aspect of their students' lives? Why should it be impossible for some of us to teach there, though their professors are welcome at any college or university run by secular humanists or Catholics?

I'd say that the primary reason that things are different is that you are comparing a private to a public school.
Besides, the christian K-12 near my home is rather known for it's Jazz ensemble. Their pretty good. (Which is good for me, I love jazz)

Rules are different between public and private schools. IF you wanted and had the means you could open a school that taught people to be communists.
(not that you would, just talkn)

Your Brother
John