Does Loma Linda discriminate based on Federal Protected Classes?

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
Agent B said:
Yep. The main point is yielding excessively to the minority will cause the minority to become the majority and to suppress the powers of the previous majority in a stateless society. Basically, it's the main reason why anarchism is flawed.
Click to expand...

This may have been true for other groups, but you the way you stated it seemed to suggest that atheists have already taken over societies and suppressed the rights of others.
 
Shockwave456 said:
This may have been true for other groups, but you the way you stated it seemed to suggest that atheists have already taken over societies and suppressed the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I didn't mean that (at least in the current era), so I apologize for the misconception.
 
Agent B said:
Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

I believe that he is just an arrogant blowhard who has an ego the size of Texas. I don't think he's a good example of a person overly sensitive to politically incorrect statements.
 
Agent B said:
Yahoo, NBC and Fox News all provide valid evidence to this claim.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Fox News, the channel that invented the otherwise non-existent "War on Christmas" is a source of valid evidence on this matter.

As for yahoo, all I can find on there are inane articles about random wacky things and celebrities.

But seriously though, you are aware that the media likes to blow things out of proportion in order to get viewership and ratings, right? Those stories about people taking political correctness to an absurd extreme only get reported about because they're RARE. Things that are truly common don't get reported on because they're not interesting; hence why none of the murders you ever hear about are the common "gang member kills other gang member" ones that happen in every major city multiple times every day.
 
Agent B said:
He's an example of a group of people who gets easily offended by jokes.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump =/= a group of people
OP =/= a group of people

An example of a group of people would be: midwesterners, white people, people of african descent, women, etc etc etc etc
 
OCDOCDOCD said:
Ah yes, Fox News, the channel that invented the otherwise non-existent "War on Christmas" is a source of valid evidence on this matter.

As for yahoo, all I can find on there are inane articles about random wacky things and celebrities.

But seriously though, you are aware that the media likes to blow things out of proportion in order to get viewership and ratings, right? Those stories about people taking political correctness to an absurd extreme only get reported about because they're RARE. Things that are truly common don't get reported on because they're not interesting; hence why none of the murders you ever hear about are the common "gang member kills other gang member" ones that happen in every major city multiple times every day.
Click to expand...

Yep, the media is the main culprit.

touchpause13 said:
Donald Trump =/= a group of people
OP =/= a group of people

An example of a group of people would be: midwesterners, white people, people of african descent, women, etc etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Donald Trump represents a group of people who insult others but don't like getting called out.
 
Agent B said:
Yep, the media is the main culprit.



Donald Trump represents a group of people who insult others but don't like getting called out.
Click to expand...

I think we have to distinguish ego-sensitivity from disagreement with certain policies or practices. Donald Trump is an example of the former, not the latter.
 
Agent B said:
Well, this is odd.
Click to expand...

you-dont-say.jpg
 
touchpause13 said:
I fail to see how "over senstivity" is a net negative.
Also I'm not sure how disagreeing = attacking.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't have the time to respond to everyone, so I will respond to this one with everyone in mind.

It is attacking when someone can't say their opinion without another person saying that they're sprouting bull****.

The purpose of a response is to state your ideas and have others go off of that without having to say that they have a disagreeable personality and are most likely xyz
 
touchpause13 said:
I resent this generalization

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

I understand. I'm not saying every atheist is like that, I'm saying that the percentages of intolerant atheists and religious people would be similar.
 
Ashley1989 said:
I understand. I'm not saying every atheist is like that, I'm saying that the percentages of intolerant atheists and religious people would be similar.
Click to expand...

I could see this... I'm not sure though just because atheists are such a small group in comparision to xtians

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
touchpause13 said:
I could see this... I'm not sure though just because atheists are such a small group in comparision to xtians

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

I agree.. I was thinking more of the percent of people in each pool. Someone asked for instances where atheists were trying to control the majority and I was trying to say that while it isn't happening right now I do think that there are a good amount of atheists who would like to control/suppress/take away from the majority if they could (just like there are some Christians who would like to take away the rights of atheists or simply ignore their feelings.) I just feel that too often Christians are the only ones seen as the extremists or as intolerant, when I can think of several atheists who are extremely intolerant and/or downright bully religious people.

But, this is all beside the point
 
Ashley1989 said:
I agree.. I was thinking more of the percent of people in each pool. Someone asked for instances where atheists were trying to control the majority and I was trying to say that while it isn't happening right now I do think that there are a good amount of atheists who would like to control/suppress/take away from the majority if they could (just like there are some Christians who would like to take away the rights of atheists or simply ignore their feelings.) I just feel that too often Christians are the only ones seen as the extremists or as intolerant, when I can think of several atheists who are extremely intolerant and/or downright bully religious people.

But, this is all beside the point
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a bit biased on the subject (I was openly not-heterosexual at a catholic high school and I have experienced more than my fair share of bullying in the name of religion)

haha yes it is besides the point, but the point of this thread seems almost too out their to justify giving serious answers to
 
touchpause13 said:
I see where you are coming from. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a bit biased on the subject (I was openly not-heterosexual at a catholic high school and I have experienced more than my fair share of bullying in the name of religion)

haha yes it is besides the point, but the point of this thread seems almost too out their to justify giving serious answers to
Click to expand...

That must have taken a lot of courage to stay true to yourself. I admire that a lot! 🙂
 
Ashley1989 said:
That must have taken a lot of courage to stay true to yourself. I admire that a lot! 🙂
Click to expand...







LaughingMan said:
+1.

Probably would have hid it in that situation.

Can yell you right now--you'll be successful when you stay true to yourself.
Click to expand...

Thanks y'all I really apperciate that
Internet hugs
Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
Ashley1989 said:
It can't happen right now because its very difficult for a minority to suppress the rights of a majority in the type of system we have set up in the US today. With that being said, I've seen enough religion bashing/hating atheists to feel certain that if some actually were in the majority, they would suppress the rights of religious people.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I could see this happening from the way some are so vehement. Atheism, like religion, tends to make some people fundamentalist and dogmatic, which can result in ridiculous actions. Some atheists have certainly shown their colors enough to make it a little unnerving.

Fortunately, Evolution dictates they will never be in the majority because (at least it is thought that) atheists are less evolutionarily fit than theists.

SKaminski said:
As many of you undoubtable know, Loma Linda University is a private, Seventh Day Adventist university located in Southern California.

As many of are also likely to know, the Federal Government protects certain Classes from being discriminated upon, including:


For example, you can not say somebody can not eat at your establishment just because they're black. Similarly, you can not offer raised pricing to somebody because of their Class, either.

I will be applying to med school in the coming cycle, and was looking at Loma Linda Universities Secondary Essay Questions:


Myself being a passionate anti-theist found this to be outrageous.

A real quick headsup: I am not saying that I want to attend this Medical School I am stating that this school is (openly?) discriminating against other regions.

Firstly, the requirement that you abstain from Alcohol is infringement on the expression of religion of ANY other christian organization, as they drink the "blood of christ" which is wine.... and that's alcoholic.

Secondly, Rastafarian's have been recognized in US courts (multiple times) as having the right to smoke marijuana.

Thirdly, without expanding on the idea of 'spirituality', they are potentially infringing on anybody who is an atheist (atheists are a protected class).

Fourth, they recommend a letter from a pastor. By favoring letters from pastors, it can easily be conceived that they are discriminating on individuals who do not have letters from pastors, and thus those who are not religious.

How have they not been sued yet? How is this legal? Are they opening themselves open to legal action? They state that attending church is part of their 'program'. This has to be lawsuit worthy.
Click to expand...


Umm... no, they are not. They are not "discriminating" based upon those criteria. Those are expectations of the program. What they are saying here is, "If you come here, you will be required (not) to do these things. It is a condition of our program based upon OUR beliefs as an institution. Are you okay with that?" If your answer is "no" then you wouldn't be a good fit there. Period. End of discussion.
 
music2doc said:
Fortunately, Evolution dictates they will never be in the majority because (at least it is thought that) atheists are less evolutionarily fit than theists.
.
Click to expand...

care to explain? I'm taking evolution right now and somehow this wasn't covered
 
Seriously.....

I did a double take on that one

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
touchpause13 said:
care to explain? I'm taking evolution right now and somehow this wasn't covered
Click to expand...

Shockwave456 said:
I apologize for my candor, but :wtf:
Click to expand...

I believe he is probably referring to dubious at best anthropological and genetic studies trying to explain how a propensity for religion developed.

Anytime you reduce complex social phenomena (like religion) to a statement like "it's advantageous from an evolutionary point of view," I'm skeptical.
 
NickNaylor said:
I believe he is probably referring to dubious at best anthropological and genetic studies trying to explain how a propensity for religion developed.

Anytime you reduce complex social phenomena (like religion) to a statement like "it's advantageous from an evolutionary point of view," I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

I am. And it is dubious, but I thought I'd see if I could get something a bit more interesting started for conversation than what the OP started (which was a pretty sh*tty topic of conversation).

That said, there is some debate as to whether religion is adaptive because it increases a person's sense of purpose and hope. In essence, the argument goes that as human beings became for intelligent, we became aware of our own mortality. As a result, those who had nothing to hope/live for became less inclined to reproduce and/or be productive and died off (see the VHEMT website for a modern-day version of this sort of thinking -- their group will, naturally, not be particularly self-sustaining....). This left us with people who have a propensity for spirituality. Which is, essentially, to say that atheism is, by its nature, MALadaptive.

While there probably is some degree of veracity to this theory, I tend to think it's BS. Nevertheless, MUCH more interesting than what the OP is obsessed with. 🙄
 
My thought is that the fundamental flaw is assuming athiests can't have hope. And you are correct this is much more interesting

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
touchpause13 said:
My thought is that the fundamental flaw is assuming athiests can't have hope. And you are correct this is much more interesting

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

It depends on what type of athiest you are talking about. For the most part, you're right, but often a negative semi-atheist can be an atheist.
 
Any university which actively pushes a religious agenda onto its students should be shut down.
 
music2doc said:
I am. And it is dubious, but I thought I'd see if I could get something a bit more interesting started for conversation than what the OP started (which was a pretty sh*tty topic of conversation).

That said, there is some debate as to whether religion is adaptive because it increases a person's sense of purpose and hope. In essence, the argument goes that as human beings became for intelligent, we became aware of our own mortality. As a result, those who had nothing to hope/live for became less inclined to reproduce and/or be productive and died off (see the VHEMT website for a modern-day version of this sort of thinking -- their group will, naturally, not be particularly self-sustaining....). This left us with people who have a propensity for spirituality. Which is, essentially, to say that atheism is, by its nature, MALadaptive.

While there probably is some degree of veracity to this theory, I tend to think it's BS. Nevertheless, MUCH more interesting than what the OP is obsessed with. 🙄
Click to expand...

Huh, when I read that post I wasn't thinking that you were talking about evolutionary fitness in the classical sense. While still quite lacking in any actual supporting data, I could certainly see factors correlated with atheism overlapping significantly with factors that correlate with having fewer children.

But our environment has greatly changed, things which may have been adaptive for much of human history likely are not adaptive any longer. Really in American society, the way things work, the most far and away measure of evolutionary fitness - outside of having serious genetic disease - is the willingness to have lots of kids without regard for any other matters.



As for the original topic, I generally agree with the "who cares" sentiments, but there was one salient point made worth considering:
qwerty89 said:
But you have to keep in mind that the number of medical schools is tightly controlled (unlike for undergrad and possibly law schools) and therefore the fact that LLUSM exists will effect the development of other schools.

Even if you had a billion dollars and wanted to open a medical school next door you can't (or at least would find it VERY difficult to do so). People would say "Hey why do we need another medical school here when we already got LLUSM which produces X number of grads each year with y number eventually practicing in the local area...we don't need any more". So if the school's admissions policy favors one group over the other then the group that is not favored does not have any alternatives.

On the other hand if we were talking about a private catholic college that followed strict catholic rules (required mass attendance, confession, etc) that would NOT be discriminatory because nothing would stop (in theory at least) somebody from establishing another private school nearby that was entirely secular, or protestant, or muslim, etc.
Click to expand...

So yeah, if it were undergrad/law/business/whatever else school, it really wouldn't matter. But the limit on seats does make it not completely discountable. To play devil's advocate, take an example of let's say tomorrow the AAMC says they're only going to permit 350 additional seats and that'll be it for a very long time. I happen to be sitting on a massive pile of cash, and I want to open a new private med school, so I snag up those seats (and that's a pretty large class size, just to raise the stakes) since I have the resources to get it up and running within a far shorter time span than any other place could. Its a private school, and I decide it will be affiliated with the church of atheism (lol) and will emphasize and promote strong atheist values (whatever that would be, not that it makes any sense anyway). And just to fan the flames, I'm opening it in Austin, where tons of people have wanted a med school, and I beat out UT-Austin, so now that likely wont happen for a long time and anyone who wants to go to med school in austin has to go to my atheist school, and there aren't any more med school seats to go around if anyone else wanted to build a new one there or anywhere else (or add more seats to another school). Think no one would be pissed?

I'm not saying I'm at all concerned with LLUSOM - I'm not; I don't think it makes up any significant portion worth worrying over. But qwerty's post was a salient point.
 
Temerit said:
I'm actually shocked that people are defending the school.

I find it funny considering that medicine is pretty much antithetical to religion, considering its goal is to fight against God's will.
Click to expand...

🙄 okay then
 
can't tell if srs...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile
 
Temerit said:
I'm actually shocked that people are defending the school.

I find it funny considering that medicine is pretty much antithetical to religion, considering its goal is to fight against God's will.
Click to expand...

You, my friend, have just defined the word "idiot" for all of us. Congratulations! How can we thank you enough?
 
Temerit said:
I'm actually shocked that people are defending the school.

I find it funny considering that medicine is pretty much antithetical to religion, considering its goal is to fight against God's will.
Click to expand...

Lol

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Trump’s order on federal grants/loans
Replies
12
Views
2K
Med Ed
Med Ed
C
Does yield protection apply to international students?
Replies
3
Views
639
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
RedDevilz99
Private (4.7%) or Federal (8.08%) Loans?
Replies
5
Views
772
RedDevilz99
RedDevilz99
chilly_md
2025-2026 Loma Linda
Replies
43
Views
7K
Rchepkwony
Rchepkwony
P
For You: Federal Loan Calculator Spreadsheet
Replies
0
Views
811
pedneuro6894
P
Top