LUCOM standards

[787593]

Well to be honest, I consider Catholics to be a bit outside of Christianity. A lot of their beliefs are completely apocryphal and not scripture based (or in opposition to scripture). But to say they aren't going to Heaven because they disagree with you on some things is ridiculous.

Definitely on some issues. Salvation by grace alone vs. works righteousness comes to mine.

I'd still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ though

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Definitely on some issues. Salvation by grace alone vs. works righteousness comes to mine.

I'd still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ though

Yeah. I mean it's stuff like that where I'm like, did you even read the Bible? But yes, I still consider them bros and sisters.

 

[ritts]

What's silly is insisting that someone who believes God created the universe must believe that Genesis is a literal account. As I said, none of the Torah scholars that are widely studied believe that, and none of the Rabbis or pastors that I've ever had believe that. In fact, it says that God did not want us to concern ourselves with the details of creation and instead to just know that He was responsible.

Not to get into too much of a debate (please feel free to pm me if you want to talk about it--I love having intelligent conversations about that stuff), but so many things in Genesis are obviously allegorical, so why do we insist that Christians must think the creation story is literal?

Sorry to intrude but wouldn't YEC's believe more in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Sorry to intrude but wouldn't YEC's believe more in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Yes, but they hardly make up a majority of Christians/Jews.

 

[ritts]

Yes, but they hardly make up a majority of Christians/Jews.

Interesting, I wasn't sure about the young vs. old distribution. The timing is less important than the belief in creation

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Interesting, I wasn't sure about the young vs. old distribution. The timing is less important than the belief in creation

Yeah. As I've said, the majority opinion in Jewish philosophy is NOT YEC. There's nothing in Jewish creationism that precludes evolution/Big Bang Theory also being true. That means, of course, that there should be nothing in Christian philosophy either, but I have seen far more YECers in Christianity than Judaism. Just my experience.

 

[localmotion24]

this thread is hilarious.

you guys make it seem like falwell jr is in our class or is teaching us. also, i love that people who have never set foot in our medical building continue to scour the internet to find whatever they can to judge us.

i personally am not a christian (though i was raised catholic) and while there are things I do not agree with liberty, it's really not as bad as this thread or certain posters here make it seem. as many of you will find out throughout your careers in medicine, there are going to be people who do not agree with you especially when it comes to religion or politics.

with regards to the alcohol, sex, and gunner stuff, you guys need to relax. no one really cares that much about your personal life. people are too busy with school to worry and tattle on each other.

 

[MaximusD]

I know. Apparently they have the same rules for all students.

Absurd. Just my opinion that this would not be a good school for aspiring doctors with open minds and hearts.

Doctors are ADULTS; PROFESSIONALS.

 

[MaximusD]

this thread is hilarious.

you guys make it seem like falwell jr is in our class or is teaching us. also, i love that people who have never set foot in our medical building continue to scour the internet to find whatever they can to judge us.

i personally am not a christian (though i was raised catholic) and while there are things I do not agree with liberty, it's really not as bad as this thread or certain posters here make it seem. as many of you will find out throughout your careers in medicine, there are going to be people who do not agree with you especially when it comes to religion or politics.

with regards to the alcohol, sex, and gunner stuff, you guys need to relax. no one really cares that much about your personal life. people are too busy with school to worry and tattle on each other.

Does that excuse the policy?

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Does that excuse the policy?

I don't think the policy really would be that bad if it were limited to on campus behavior. The fact that you even could get into trouble with the school for what you do at home is beyond me.

 

[787593]

I don't think the policy really would be that bad if it were limited to on campus behavior. The fact that you even could get into trouble with the school for what you do at home is beyond me.

Agreed, drunk sexytime is no bueno in an anatomy lab

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Agreed, drunk sexytime is no bueno in an anatomy lab

You'd be surprised at how many adults don't think that way.

 

[MaximusD]

Agreed, drunk sexytime is no bueno in an anatomy lab

LOL! That would be considered unprofessional at most schools, I'm sure!

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Does that excuse the policy?

Yes actually, as a private school they can do whatever they want. If you don't like it then don't apply there, I don't know why people are up in arms about it.

 

[freak7]

Agreed, drunk sexytime is no bueno in an anatomy lab

I have a joke to make here, but it's both inappropriate and extremely unprofessional.

 

[freak7]

Yes actually, as a private school they can do whatever they want

I mean... no.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Yes they can actually with regards to these policies. It is perfectly legal as a private religious institution to have policies against alcohol, pre-marital sex, and all that stuff. It is even legal to enforce it outside of campus as long as you are an enrolled student there. If you don't like it then do not apply there, it's really that simple.

I mean... no.

 

[787593]

I have a joke to make here, but it's both inappropriate and extremely unprofessional.

PM PM PM!!!!!

 

[freak7]

Yes they can actually with regards to these policies. It is perfectly legal as a private religious institution to have policies against alcohol, pre-marital sex, and all that stuff. It is even legal to enforce it outside of campus as long as you are an enrolled student there. If you don't like it then do not apply there, it's really that simple.

I'm just saying that "whatever they want" is a very blanket statement. I know what you mean, but what you said and what you meant are two very different things.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I'm just saying that "whatever they want" is a very blanket statement. I know what you mean, but what you said and what you meant are two very different things.

Let's not be pedantic. That's what gets threads down the wrong track.

 

[freak7]

Let's not be pedantic. That's what gets threads down the wrong track.

I actually have a list on my computer of frequently misused words. I am the face of pedants.

 

[MaximusD]

Yes they can actually with regards to these policies. It is perfectly legal as a private religious institution to have policies against alcohol, pre-marital sex, and all that stuff. It is even legal to enforce it outside of campus as long as you are an enrolled student there. If you don't like it then do not apply there, it's really that simple.

Yes, they can. But we can all ridicule it heavily.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I'm just saying that "whatever they want" is a very blanket statement. I know what you mean, but what you said and what you meant are two very different things.

Well well aren't you you just the life of the party

 

[787593]

I'm just saying that "whatever they want" is a very blanket statement. I know what you mean, but what you said and what you meant are two very different things.

No, a blanket statement would have something to do with blankets.

Just ask Linus.

 

[tony101]

What's silly is insisting that someone who believes God created the universe must believe that Genesis is a literal account. As I said, none of the Torah scholars that are widely studied believe that, and none of the Rabbis or pastors that I've ever had believe that. In fact, it says that God did not want us to concern ourselves with the details of creation and instead to just know that He was responsible.

Not to get into too much of a debate (please feel free to pm me if you want to talk about it--I love having intelligent conversations about that stuff), but so many things in Genesis are obviously allegorical, so why do we insist that Christians must think the creation story is literal?

Well many Christians do take it literally, such as my father who takes many stories and ideas of evolution as a joke because he takes them all literally.

Anyways, I would never go to that school, I mean unless you had absolutely no choice in med schools, like no other interviews. But this sounds insane, you can't have sex? I have to say, classic that they band sexual activities and somehow believe they deserve to own you in the bedroom. It's sort of insane to hear of this in the United States.

 

[tony101]

Um, yes. That was kind of my point, lol. I even used the term anecdata. My point was that if a few people take it literally, that does not mean that most do. It doesn't mean anything. It means those people take it literally. When the majority of Jews and Christians view it as allegory and the most respected and deferred to Torah scholars take it as allegory, that actually means something.

This is something I really wonder, how do you know most take it allegorically? I mean it sounds like you think the majority of your group takes it alegorically but realistically thats just you arguing it anecdotally. You would have to have a massive survey, follow correct procedures(random assignment, random sampling, etc.) and then have a sample size able to generalize. There isn't really any evidence to suggest that most people take it alegorically, because most Christians I know do take it literally (although many don't follow it which is annoying). Anyways, while my father is a great example, many siblings and friends do take it literally.

This thread is derailed and I'm not helping

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

But this sounds insane, you can't have sex? I have to say, classic that they band sexual activities and somehow believe they deserve to own you in the bedroom. It's sort of insane to hear of this in the United States.

It's not really that insane. My undergrad has the same rules. If you go to a religious institution based on a certain belief, where these rules are based on the premise that God has laws and certain things are ok and others are not, then it makes sense that the institution would have those rules in place. It's not about "owning you in the bedroom" it's about trying to make rules that adhere to God's laws. It is completely fine to not share that belief, but if you don't then I don't know why on earth someone would apply here and then get all grumpy about the rules that they knew about before even applying. At my undergrad you literally sign a contract that outlines very clearly what the honor code is and that you are aware of what it says, basically if you get in trouble for doing something that is on the list then it is all on you because you knew very clearly what the expectation was before even starting.

There isn't really any evidence to suggest that most people take it alegorically, because most Christians I know do take it literally (although many don't follow it which is annoying). Anyways, while my father is a great example, many siblings and friends do take it literally.

They actually have done research, not on this directly but in a number of Christian sects over half of the members believe in evolution, some sects more than others. It would be a logical assumptions that the people who believe in evolution do not interpret the Bible literally. If most people you know are literalists then you must be in a very bible thumping region, most likely with a lot of baptists.

 

[CastleG8]

Random question, but do Southern Baptists have a gripe with Catholics?

Many of them have a problem with Mormons. I can tell you this from personal experience.

 

[MaximusD]

It's not really that insane. My undergrad has the same rules. If you go to a religious institution based on a certain belief, where these rules are based on the premise that God has laws and certain things are ok and others are not, then it makes sense that the institution would have those rules in place. It's not about "owning you in the bedroom" it's about trying to make rules that adhere to God's laws. It is completely fine to not share that belief, but if you don't then I don't know why on earth someone would apply here and then get all grumpy about the rules that they knew about before even applying. At my undergrad you literally sign a contract that outlines very clearly what the honor code is and that you are aware of what it says, basically if you get in trouble for doing something that is on the list then it is all on you because you knew very clearly what the expectation was before even starting.



They actually have done research, not on this directly but in a number of Christian sects over half of the members believe in evolution, some sects more than others. It would be a logical assumptions that the people who believe in evolution do not interpret the Bible literally. If most people you know are literalists then you must be in a very bible thumping region, most likely with a lot of baptists.

Guess what? I'd wager that the institution receives federal funding for its residency programs and for its research, guaranteed. I'll bet if this went to court, LUCOM would lose quickly.

 

[787593]

Well many Christians do take it literally, such as my father who takes many stories and ideas of evolution as a joke because he takes them all literally.

Anyways, I would never go to that school, I mean unless you had absolutely no choice in med schools, like no other interviews. But this sounds insane, you can't have sex? I have to say, classic that they band sexual activities and somehow believe they deserve to own you in the bedroom. It's sort of insane to hear of this in the United States.

Banned*

 

[787593]

They actually have done research, not on this directly but in a number of Christian sects over half of the members believe in evolution, some sects more than others. It would be a logical assumptions that the people who believe in evolution do not interpret the Bible literally. If most people you know are literalists then you must be in a very bible thumping region, most likely with a lot of baptists.

Who is "they?"

Can you link to the research?

Thanks.

 

[787593]

Many of them have a problem with Mormons. I can tell you this from personal experience.

I actually don't know a single Christian who considers the church of LDS to be a part of their Christian faith...

 

[Dr. Rafiki]

Guess what? I'd wager that the institution receives federal funding for its residency programs and for its research, guaranteed. I'll bet if this went to court, LUCOM would lose quickly.

I'd wager that they don't. In fact, I know they don't, nor do they receive any state funding as they are entirely private. Their funding comes from their insanely large alumni base and tuition from 100,000+ undergrad students each and every year. (Minus tax breaks from filing as a non-profit, but if you think they'll be losing litigation from whining students not able to have sex, despite clearly signing off on that rule as part of student conduct, based on tax filing status then I don't even know what to tell you bud.)

It's no coincidence that Liberty is the largest university in VA (and largest Christian university in the entire world) and has nearly matched rotation opportunities and hospital affiliations of VCOM-VA in less than 4 years. The opportunities for medical students based on funding from the school alone are literally endless. But, you know, this is SDN so *insert baseless reason for hating lucom here*

 

[MaximusD]

I'd wager that they don't. In fact, I know they don't, nor do they receive any state funding as they are entirely private. Their funding comes from their insanely large alumni base and tuition from 100,000+ undergrad students each and every year. (Minus tax breaks from filing as a non-profit, but if you think they'll be losing litigation from whining students not able to have sex, despite clearly signing off on that rule as part of student conduct, based on tax filing status then I don't even know what to tell you bud.)

It's no coincidence that Liberty is the largest university in VA (and largest Christian university in the entire world) and has nearly matched rotation opportunities and hospital affiliations of VCOM-VA in less than 4 years. The opportunities for medical students based on funding from the school alone are literally endless. But, you know, this is SDN so *insert baseless reason for hating lucom here*

There are very few institutions that teach medicine that aren't federally subsidized in a major way. Does the school benefit from residency affiliations that are medicare-funded?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Guess what? I'd wager that the institution receives federal funding for its residency programs and for its research, guaranteed. I'll bet if this went to court, LUCOM would lose quickly.

They wouldn't. They would never lose a lawsuit becaise some students are complaining about an honor code that they agreed to.

I actually don't know a single Christian who considers the church of LDS to be a part of their Christian faith...

You need to meet more christians then.

 

[Dr. Rafiki]

There are very few institutions that teach medicine that aren't federally subsidized in a major way. Does the school benefit from residency affiliations that are medicare-funded?

The school hasn't graduated it's inaugural class and therefore doesn't list what residency affiliations they have acquired. A quick Google search will also lead you to that fact.

Given the volatile nature in which the federal government has treated Christian organizations for the past 8 years, I'd bet probably not.

 

[787593]

You need to meet more christians then.

Why?

 

[MaximusD]

They wouldn't. They would never lose a lawsuit becaise some students are complaining about an honor code that they agreed to.
.

Thank God we have a legal expert among us!

You are probably right, but it will eventually be challenged if a medical student in otherwise good standing is punished in a way that impacts their career. 5-15 million dollar career pathway -- not to be taken lightly.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Why?

Because there are plenty of Christian's who think mormons are Christian. As they should, becaise mormons are most definitely Christian.

Thank God we have a legal expert among us!

You are probably right, but it will eventually be challenged if a medical student in otherwise good standing is punished in a way that impacts their career. 5-15 million dollar career pathway -- not to be taken lightly.

Not if they signed a contract, which I don't know if they do or not. But I would also like to point out that Loma Linda has the same rules and hasn't had any issues.

 

[787593]

Because there are plenty of Christian's who think mormons are Christian. As they should, becaise mormons are most definitely Christian.

Why are they most definitely Christian, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[freak7]

Not if they signed a contract, which I don't know if they do or not.

Not all contracts are legal. Contracts are not magically immune to litigation just because one is signed.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Why are they most definitely Christian, if you don't mind me asking?

In an attempt to not turn this thread into a religion debate you can PM me if you want to discuss it further but a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, and the LDS church most definitely believe in Christ.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Not all contracts are legal. Contracts are not magically immune to litigation just because one is signed.

No but it is an honor code that was accepted openly and admitted to be known beforehand by the student signing that they knew what the expectation was. Throw on top of that the fact that the rules have a basis in religious belief that the parenting institution owns and there is no legal ground to stand on.

 

[787593]

In an attempt to not turn this thread into a religion debate you can PM me if you want to discuss it further but a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, and the LDS church most definitely believe in Christ.

I feel like that's a weak description of Christianity but whatever haha, I appreciate the response.

 

[freak7]

Please don't change the wording around. I specifically used your wording from:

Not if they signed a contract, which I don't know if they do or not.

To make the point:

Not all contracts are legal. Contracts are not magically immune to litigation just because one is signed.

Which you responded by misrepresenting what I had said and changing the argument from a contract back to an honor code again by saying:

No but it is an honor code that was accepted openly and admitted to be known beforehand by the student signing that they knew what the expectation was.

So I ask: please stop making arguments and assertions if you are unwilling to defend them without shifting the focus of the discussion.

Moving on.

Throw on top of that the fact that the rules have a basis in religious belief that the parenting institution owns and there is no legal ground to stand on.

That's just false. Ironically enough, freedom of religion is somewhat limited in the US. See Reynolds v. United States. The use of a religious belief as a cover-all defense just doesn't work as seen in that case. The case said that the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating on or against an opinion, but not actions. To quote:

"the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
and (albeit a slippery slope argument)
"to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Edit: Look, I'm not trying to even attack LUCOM in this, but many of your defenses of it are kind of irrelevant. You're arguing the wrong things here and making too many sweeping generalizations that aren't true in every case.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

So I ask: please stop making arguments and assertions if you are unwilling to defend them without shifting the focus of the discussion.

I never did, you sign a contract to live the schools honor code. That is what was meant, and you can argue all you want that it wasn't exactly spelled out in my comments but you and I both know what was meant.

If you can give me an actual court case where a student signed a contract to live a schools honor code, then violated said honor code and was subsequently dismissed, or put on probation, etc, and then successfully took legal action against the school then I will gladly agree with you. This is what we are discussing, and I stand by what I said. If you do not like a schools policies, then do not go there expecting to get an exception when you break said policies and receive the stated consequences.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

I feel like that's a weak description of Christianity but whatever haha, I appreciate the response.

This is the literal definition: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

 

[tony101]

It's not really that insane. My undergrad has the same rules. If you go to a religious institution based on a certain belief, where these rules are based on the premise that God has laws and certain things are ok and others are not, then it makes sense that the institution would have those rules in place. It's not about "owning you in the bedroom" it's about trying to make rules that adhere to God's laws. It is completely fine to not share that belief, but if you don't then I don't know why on earth someone would apply here and then get all grumpy about the rules that they knew about before even applying. At my undergrad you literally sign a contract that outlines very clearly what the honor code is and that you are aware of what it says, basically if you get in trouble for doing something that is on the list then it is all on you because you knew very clearly what the expectation was before even starting.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules are insane, you may want to say those are the rules you are told but still, they are ridiculous. Umm I disagree, I feel they are trying to pry into your social life. If you aren't hurting anyone, and doing things in the privacy of your bedroom, what do they care? I suppose that is a running theme in religion, but that's for another time.

They actually have done research, not on this directly but in a number of Christian sects over half of the members believe in evolution, some sects more than others. It would be a logical assumptions that the people who believe in evolution do not interpret the Bible literally. If most people you know are literalists then you must be in a very bible thumping region, most likely with a lot of baptists.

Where is this study? Where is this research? What was the sample size? What were the methods? How was it acquired? Did they just ask 50 Christians in a small town? I mean where is the research? People repeatedly saying "Most believe it" or half of people believe in evolution doesn't really prove anything. Where is the sample size? I mean I have a study that shows over 50% believe in Noahs Ark story that was 100% true, does this mean over 50% believe it literally? Not really, because the study was done in a few cities. Again where is this study everyone keeps talking about?

I have to be honest, I get you keep saying people signed the code or "honor code" or whatever it is, but the point is, I think it's ridiculous that they are trying to regulate your sex life. I get if they said "you can't drink in public" or "can't have sex in public", okay that's fair. But you can't have sex in your room even if it doesn't hurt anyone? Just because a rule exists doesn't make it right in any way, shape or form. I hope LUCOM isn't this bad because that is a disgrace for a medical school.

 

[freak7]

DISCLAIMER: I have not stated my opinion on LUCOM's honor code, positive or negative. Please do not feel any further need to tell me that if I don't like it, then I shouldn't go there since I haven't stated that I like or dislike the code (IIRC)

If you can give me an actual court case where a student signed a contract to live a schools honor code, then violated said honor code and was subsequently dismissed, or put on probation, etc, and then successfully took legal action against the school then I will gladly agree with you.

Of course I can't provide that information as the only cases against them are currently in the courts. See: Baylor, BYU-H.

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees though. IMHO Reynolds applies to honor codes. It's pretty easy to see how an honor code could go awry. For example (keep in mind this is an example and I am not saying that LUCOM's rules are or are not anywhere near this crazy, I'm just trying to show you): Let's say XCOM is a private religious institution. XCOM has an extremely large donor base and can stay afloat without receiving a penny from the state or federal governments. Said religion values human sacrifice and decides to make students sign an honor code where they sacrifice their firstborn. One student decides to not sacrifice his firstborn and brings the case to court. Do you believe that the court would say "Well gg. Religious freedom, go kill your kid"? In fact human sacrifice was explicitly referred to in Reynolds as an example of a rule that the Court would not want to be protected seeing as the First Amendment only applies to the belief and not necessarily the practice.

You keep taking the side that since it's a private religious institution it can have whatever provisions it wants in its honor code and the courts would always rule in their favor but that is just false. Is LUCOM's honor code crossing a legal line? Maybe, I don't know. That's why I haven't stated my opinion on the matter. What does matter is the fact that LUCOM is not immune to litigation on the sole basis that the students signed an honor code or that it is a private religious institution. LUCOM may be immune litigation against its honor code because of other reasons, but as I said in a previous post, you're arguing the wrong things and that's what I take issue with.

 

[tony101]

DISCLAIMER: I have not stated my opinion on LUCOM's honor code, positive or negative. Please do not feel any further need to tell me that if I don't like it, then I shouldn't go there since I haven't stated that I like or dislike the code (IIRC)


Of course I can't provide that information as the only cases against them are currently in the courts. See: Baylor, BYU-H.

I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees though. IMHO Reynolds applies to honor codes. It's pretty easy to see how an honor code could go awry. For example (keep in mind this is an example and I am not saying that LUCOM's rules are or are not anywhere near this crazy, I'm just trying to show you): Let's say XCOM is a private religious institution. XCOM has an extremely large donor base and can stay afloat without receiving a penny from the state or federal governments. Said religion values human sacrifice and decides to make students sign an honor code where they sacrifice their firstborn. One student decides to not sacrifice his firstborn and brings the case to court. Do you believe that the court would say "Well gg. Religious freedom, go kill your kid"? In fact human sacrifice was explicitly referred to in Reynolds as an example of a rule that the Court would not want to be protected seeing as the First Amendment only applies to the belief and not necessarily the practice.

You keep taking the side that since it's a private religious institution it can have whatever provisions it wants in its honor code and the courts would always rule in their favor but that is just false. Is LUCOM's honor code crossing a legal line? Maybe, I don't know. That's why I haven't stated my opinion on the matter. What does matter is the fact that LUCOM is not immune to litigation on the sole basis that the students signed an honor code or that it is a private religious institution. LUCOM may be immune litigation against its honor code because of other reasons, but as I said in a previous post, you're arguing the wrong things and that's what I take issue with.

That would be the greatest ruling ever. "Well gg. Religious freedom, go kill your kid", like wow would the entire courtroom be blown away lol