"Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies"

One. Two-hoo! Three! ... *Crunch*

Three.

A-Hahaha! Absolutely beautiful.

"Ruth Malhotra is a senior at the Georgia Institute of Technology, majoring in International affairs and public policy. As a conservative activist, Ruth has fought hard to confront leftist bias and advance conservative ideals by promoting academic freedom and intellectual diversity both within and beyond the campus."

intellectual diversity eh?

I feel better already.

First thing I'ma gonna do is start me a congregation of Thugees who worship the death goddess Kali. Then we's a gonna kill all a' them gay bashing fundies and plead freedom of religion, because, you see, and this is the beauty of it, my diety requires their blood. This is gonna be sooooo much fun!

Hey! Who's up for reviving Qetzlcoatl while we're at it and building us some kinda honking huge pyramid of skulls?!

so not gonna happen

xpost

this is all pretty obvious, i guess, but i never hear it argued when conservatives bring up the diversity garbage to support bigoted acts, when it'll probably trump them on their own playing field.

major x-post

yeah it's the old "moral relativism" idiocy -- if you don't buy into their absolutism, then that must mean that there are no moral standards at all. i can't decide if conservatives actually think that's how liberals think -- like, if they just honestly don't understand how pluralism and diversity are active values, not passive ones -- or if it's just a cheap rhetorical tool. probably some of both.

However he has always been two dimensional.

haha xpost

xpost that's an onion headline from the good ol days, huk

ACLU president Nadine Strossen told reporters that her organization intends to "vigorously and passionately defend" the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party's First Amendment right to freely express its hatred of the ACLU by setting its New York office ablaze on Nov. 25.

- a Congresswoman's hair;
- a pro-war protester's clothes;
- a college Republican's skin.

HOORAY I AM TEH EGALITARIAN OF TEH ILE

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is committed to insuring the ongoing viability of constitutional freedoms.

By specializing in constitutional law, the ACLJ is dedicated to the concept that freedom and democracy are God-given inalienable rights that must be protected.

The ACLJ engages in litigation, provides legal services, renders advice, counsels clients, provides education, and supports attorneys who are involved in defending the religious and civil liberties of Americans.

As a non-profit organization, the ACLJ does not charge for its services and is dependent upon God and the resources He provides through the time, talent, and gifts of people who share our concerns and desire to protect our religious and constitutional freedoms.

It's run by a guy named Jay Sekulow, who went from being just a head "Jews for Jesus" guy to an extremely connected theocratic legal type

If you would like to contact me (you know you want to!), send me an email at: [email]@mail.gatech.edu

(xpost: hahahahahaha)

Mine was xposted with that, and I've just now recovered enough to post myself.

I hope the next conservative nutcase with minimum backstory will turn out to be hot, for a different pop psychology over the internets challenge

OMG Ethan you totally had your way with this girl, admit it.

Well I hope Ruth understands that the trade off with this will be that we can discriminate against her for choosing to be a bat-shit nuts Christian.

This is absolutely a no-problem tradeoff for people in her position, which is precisely why they can argue for this sort of thing. What's being argued over here is a set of rules to govern discourse, and the set of rules she's advocating is one in which is a-ok to condemn or attack anything that can be construed as a decision. She can attack your "decision" to engage in a gay "lifestyle"; you're equally free to attack her "decision" to be a Christian. (There's a lot pent up in that word "decision" in both cases; as for the formulation above, it's always been okay to attack someone based on the "bat-shit nuts" part.) But in this country, only one of those is a viable option, because one is a minority position and the other is not. Attack homosexuality and you have a real effect, or the threat of one; even when you're not denying homosexuals rights or housing or concrete things, you're marginalizing them and denying them some measure of full participation in society. Attack Christianity as a whole -- as an identity, and not as particular bat-shit ideas and behaviors -- and even apart from the sinking-to-her-level bit, the result is different: (a) you're not going to get very far anyway, because you'll be attacking a majority position, (b) as a result of that, you marginalize your own position and weaken your own standing by turning yourself into a radical, and (c) you only empower Christians like her to revel in their beloved "victimization," which is fun for them because it doesn't actually come with any actual messy victimhood. That's exactly the irony here: Christians know they aren't even close to ever being victimized in any meaningful way. And just as a practical example, let's think of that famous old ILX thread: if a gay couple is walking down the street, and you pass by in your car and yell "I hate fags," well, depending where you are, they may well duck; they'll know very well what concrete effects, physical or emotional or otherwise, that belief can have on their lives. Pass by some people near a church and yell "I hate Christians," and, well, that's a hurtful thing to do, and you may genuinely hurt them, but not in anything like the same way -- in plenty of cases they'll be happily indignant about the whole thing. Because they know they're safe from it -- they're in a position where the possibility of actual serious victimhood is the furthest thing from reality. Which is exactly what gives them this ironic capability to inflate tiny negotiations of their own rights into capital Oppression. It's like that old weird conversational habit: "Your grandmother died in the Holocaust? I know exactly how you feel -- my boss makes me say 'Happy Holidays' to customers."

Point being: you turn this back on her and she wins, absolutely and in every way. She can argue for a set of rules that doesn't provide protection for minority positions and minority existences, because (apart from ethnicity) she doesn't have either. (Ethnicity is neatly excised from the set of rules she's arguing from -- it's not a "decision" or "position" -- but of course one reason you don't often see, e.g., recent-immigrant ethnic minorities arguing for this sort of thing is that they tend to have experience of what it's like to be on the culturally marginal side of things. Very broad statement with many exceptions, but still.)

By the way, I think there's a very good non-political reason for pushing tolerance of this sort: the idea is that discussions of these things should be lifted off the bodies of the students themselves! These sorts of rules don't really stop her from arguing, in a classroom setting, all sorts of beliefs about homosexuality; that's a right I think most academics would respect, and it's other people's right to argue back on the merits of the thing. (How much time a professor feels like spending on something like this might be minimal, but I doubt any of them would take any action against her merely for raising such a point.) What rules like this mostly try to establish is that those arguments can't be projected out onto the backs of gay students themselves, as students -- that idea is merely that you have to "tolerate" gay students as equal participants in your educational experience, and that you can't single them out for approbation any more than someone can go around singling out Jews for harrassment. And that's a fair decision, I think, and a useful one as far as maintaining two separate things -- an academic field of open debate and discussion, and a living-together field where all students are equally comfortable to enter that debate in the first place.

unfortunately i don't think that's true. i've spent time as a reporter with evangelical activists, gone to some meetings and had long one on one talks with them, and a lot of them really truly do think of themselves as an embattled minority. which is not hard to do, frankly, because it's true that whatever people tell pollsters about their religious beliefs, mainstream american culture does not on the whole reflect the (batshit crazy) beliefs of evangelical christians. from their point of view, they live in a country where brokeback mountain wins oscars, eminem and marilyn manson sell millions of records, and people keep trying to take "god" out of the pledge of allegiance. their sense of persecution, however wrongheaded it looks to anyone who's not an evangelical christian, is not just a pose.

So I'm not saying it's fake, I'm saying it's dependent upon lack of actual victimhood. I mean note how in this instance you have the supposedly "victimized" party pushing for a set of rules that allows for more attack, for less protection. This position can be attractive for many reasons, but it's especially attractive when you know you're well positioned for the fight! And her tone would probably be very different if there were any real possibility that she would be denied housing, sprayed with a firehose, randomly beaten, or anything else from the world of serious hardcore victimization.

ysi?

I knew whose post this would be from "This is absolutely a no-problem tradeoff for people in her position, which is precisely why they can argue for this sort of thing."

Wait.

You had to read it? I just measured the paragraph height. And gypsy is oll korrect about the evangelical take.

Although I take your point, Nabisco, I'm with Gypsy on this. The issue for a lot of Christians is that my neighbor may be killing unborn babies, or "I can't protect my children from an environment that is 24-7 Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore not just tempting them to sin but practically press ganging them into it, and thereby damning them to eternal flames." For them these things are actual victimization. And unless you buy into their beliefs, this is impossible to understand.

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/images/qutb.jpg
sayyid qutb

xpost gah can you guys imagine what will happen when these evangelical cultists have something to REALLY complain about? (anything at all)

That's actually totally dependent on their rhetoric: when other people have similarly abstracted objections to the dominant culture, they do not describe it as victimization.(*) They do not argue that people as a whole have a right to live in a country that conforms to their deepest religious values -- they believe that they in particular have that right. They are not good at explaining why they in particular should have that luxury: they've appealed to tradition ("this is a Christian nation"), democracy ("we're the Moral Majority"), divinity, and prophecy. And stuff like what we're seeing here is an attempt to appeal to something entirely new, which is the modern political rhetoric of minority rights and "victimization."

But like I said, I think my point's being missed here. I don't doubt that they honestly feel victimized -- or more accurately let's say "marginalized," which they often really are. My point is that it's much easier for them to take up arms and fight these battles when they know that sense of victimization/marginalization isn't likely to hit them in the real concrete places: it doesn't hit their pocketbooks, their homeownership, their physical safety. I don't know how much they're consciously aware or this or not, but I think it's definitely at play, and I think it's part of why they're eager to fight these battles. It's easy to fight "victimization" battles about the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments in courthouses or college speech rules or Brokeback Mountain -- those battles are more fun when you don't fear for the real bread-and-butter stuff.

(*) Abortion is the one issue where, given their beliefs, I can entirely understand why they would legitimately feel that a grand victimization was taking place.

The glamorization of "persecution" is a component -- and a vital one--of the culture "wars". It allows a participant to view himself (or herself) as a "soldier" carrying out God's work -- and losing.

This is the important part.

If you're losing your struggle, you get to break the rules, cheat, lie, do anything to win. Winners have to play fair, but if you can somehow twist things so you become oppressed, you are granted moral license to do, well, anything.

It's the glow of martyrship without the ickiness of actually being martyred.

And that feeling, that shock of indignation, that swell of righteous anger: it's addictive. It's a sure-fire hit on the crackpipe of certainty. It's why all fanatics sound the same -- their leaders all use the same tools.

Plus, i just like the phrase "crackpipe of certainty."

Hence my shame - it's down to sentence structure and word choice alone now.

xpost

In my experience they aren't aware of it at all -- or maybe would agree w/ you if you pointed it out but it would never occur to them to raise the point themselves. I've had people express gratitude for not living during the days of Roman persecution and almost in the same breath warn me about how alientated I would be when I went to college where professors would try to tear my faith down in front of the class and essays I wrote touching on my personal religious beliefs would receive failing grades. Funny they didn't seem all that obsessed with PEER PRESSURE, just that evil, prejudiced faculty who would hate fun and kittens and God.

Aren't they missing the point? Shouldn't they be getting drunk / high / knocked up, if only to make their eventual 'redemption' that much more poignant?? Surviving the heart of darkness & whatnot?

What are they doing at college anyway? I half-mean it - if it's the belly of the beast and all, what's the point? To "get an education" without getting educated?

(It's also galling, like I was saying, that the new appeal for "protection" of a Christian minority seems so opportunistic, intellectual speaking, coming as it does on the heels of a long period where the primary argument was that people with these beliefs were a majority, and had some sort of historic birthright to the culture of this nation.)

HEY don't make fun of the late and lovely bovine TARA!!!

(Attaching "fundamentalism" or "extremism" helps specify, but there's still some sting there when the word next to it is something you technically are.)

what's really weird is that they're actually making both of these arguments simultaneously -- that because their views are shared by the majority, they should not put up with being oppressed and victimized by the minority. that was the crux of the "war on christmas" argument, that a very small percentage of nonchristians were successfully beating down the vast majority of godfearing jesuspeople.

there's also of course the fact that a lot of their views really aren't shared by the majority -- just because most americans identify as christian doesn't actually mean most americans hate gays or want to ban abortion, etc. which is why the conflation of fundamentalism and christianity is so problematic -- a majority of people are christians, but only a minority of christians are fundamentalists. but the evangelicals don't like to talk about the other christians who disagree with them, they prefer to identify all their detractors as godless secularists.

xpost...as jon and nabisco just said.

xpost, to nabisco

ding ding ding. At some point, there's a "trying to have it both ways" going on here. On one side, there are repeated claims that "we ARE a christian nation"/"just lookit these polls that say 85% believe in god" vs "'christians' are persecuted once again, just like in jesus' time!

also, in re: the borrowing language of victimization, there's an interest mix of cultural saaviness going on, in terms of knowing enough about the cultural dynamics of using that language with the lack of understanding of how it actually works(or being disingenious about it to use it to your own ends).

xpost

but is it necessarily chutzpah? I thought that the term connoted a sense of self-awareness that your actions were like that.

and i think that a significant problem for these folks is that they lack a sense of irony & self-reflection. It's like all things are plain on their face and with only one possible meaning, since any possible equivocation of meaning or interpretation means that they could be wrong.

yeah, but how long until this chick gets (earnestly) featured on the shouty shows?

Dude, fuck you.

'fucking ga tech' referred to the students not the institution

Dude, fuck you!

Haha, the little I know about Qutb comes from Adam Curtis as well; my confusion was just semantic.

Not very long at all, I expect, nor will it be long until her particular 'cause' gets cited and promoted in the wider Evangelical engagement of academia (I would say assault, but that would be employing the same rhetoric, right? I dunno). From promoting prayer in schools; 'fairness' in promoting intelligent design alongside evolution, even at the college level (!); the demonization of outspoken anti-war academics; and here, the perversion of tolerance -- which I thought to be one of the central values of liberal education... I'm seeing a larger project here that scares me. Even the crazy Domino's Pizza guy's building a Catholic law university.

OTM. They're cunning fuckers.

It makes me want to stand outside Mosques and yoga retreats and even Scientology temples with voter registration forms.

Ah, but they were still religious practices. In God We Trust, etc.

Not that any of that matters, because this isn't really about God. I'm curious how many people would even bother to feel victimized if they weren't being told to.

From the link: "Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom ... completely missing the irony.

Rural Iowa farmboy to a black guy on my residence hall floor, freshman year of college: "You black people are funny, your skin's all dark but your hands are really pink!" Cue a near minute of silence from everyone standing nearby.

There was also a group of Christian youth group kids at the end of the hall who were all kinds of obnoxious. Good times.

If boobies on TV is persecution, I don't ever want to be freed from the yoke of oppression!

Hooray!

Change the "per se" to "at all" and you're OTM.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

this is where it gets complicated...i think ruth is genuine. i think that she views queer folks as being able to change, and her desire to change us comes from love.

but it judges, and judgnig is work for the lord, and because judging is work for t he lord, the opposite is true, as a xian, as a follower of god, i have to understand her position, it is not my view of gods love, we dont agree, but as fellow belivers in christ, we have to sit at the same table, and thats really difficult for me, because my heart is black, and my anger comes quickly...

its r eally easy for us to say fuck you bitch, but i dont think its fair or just. i think shes scared, and i dont think she knows what to do with queer folks

i don't think she's scared, i think she's obnoxious. there's a difference.

its an impt question to her-- how do i live a holy life in a instution that is ungodly. (fuck, its an impt question to me, her ungodly is fags, abortion and tits on tv; my ungodly is imperial war, not taking care of the poor, and being injust to Others; but its the same question)

and im not sure its a question that most moderate/liberal secularists understand.

That's the key bit now, innit? It's not that this is really about religion so much as authoritarianism. God and faith just become the cudgels to beat over the heads of those who don't completely agree and defer to you.

This is what allows these people no right to quarter, to understanding at all, and what's more, by the verse anthony quoted above, not christians.

There's a similar hoo-ha brewing in the UK at the moment, with some Scottish Christian businessmen demanding the right to not serve gays in hotels and cafes that they run.

Apparently it infringes their human rights to make them have sodomites under their roof, or something.

"Oh, Super chicken, those Christian tastes FABulous in a cranberry or hollandaise sauce.."

She should drop her unequally-yoked ass out of Georgia Tech and go to Bob Jones U. or Liberty U. or some other benighted Christian unaccredited craphole, that's how.

Uh, I'm an atheist so I'm not exactly the best source on such things, but isn't the entire world an 'institution' that is ungodly?

a bringer of good news. not a judge. not an enforcer. not a crusader.

jesus probably would've hung out at pride alliance. not that he was or wasn't gay. but just that his style was hanging out. being friends. with everybody.

i understand the knee jerk fear ruth might have. what happens when one persons religious beliefs contradict anothers? they have a right to their beliefs. they have a right to their speech. but then you get into nebulous things like hate speech and discrimination and things get scary. suddenly you'll probably find that your traditional religious beliefs and the constitution are at odds.

take afghanistan. dude was a muslim. now a christian. you've got moderates... moderates! calling for his execution. a democracy? what? majority rules. true. but the minorities have to be protected to some degree.

so what happens? do you rob the majority of their religious rights? or do you protect the minority?

the case here in the US is at least a little less extreme... but we can't let "homosexuality is a sin" automatically become hate speech. "queers burn in hell!" sounds more like hate speech. "love the sinner" vs. "hate the sin". even "hate the sin" sounds a bit bad.... "discourage the sin"... or better yet "encourage the not sin"....

the religious left desperately needs to answer or provide a good retort to this kind of bullshit. christians need to be assured that they can have their religious beliefs and preach them on sunday and not be labeled bigots. but christians also need a thorough education on how to approach the sin in their neighbor.

"a bringer of good news."

m.

where did the non-existant liberal hippy jesus come from? he was TOTALLY self-righteous and arrogant. one of his big talking points was that he was against divorce ffs!

The idea of "what Jesus was like" will vary pretty widely depending on which Gospel you're reading, but seeing as it's accepted that Jesus kept the company of whores, tax collectors, and Samaritans, it's not like the idea of a socially and politically liberal Jesus was invented out of whole cloth as you suggest. There is a whole colonialist theme running through the Gospels that has been extrapolated by others, particularly scholars of Liberation theology.

I'll let you dig your own grave with that "authorial intent" argument. I want no part of that mess.

im quite aware of why there are liberal interpretations of jesus, i just think that in an effort to combat fundamentalist interpretations liberals often overstate their case.

i'm aware that jesus as an idea or archetype or example can and has been used to good ends and all that, im just saying the actual jesus (as best as we can infer from the gospels and extrapolate from archeological/historical data) doesn't seem all that progressive when held up to a modern lense. he seems to have been one of many ascetic jewish reformer/preachers whose little cult happened to win history's lottery (thanks to a guy name paul).

The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.

I suppose formals/proms/homecomings are "sex nights" because they promote heterosexual relations 1000x more than gay rights groups promote homosexual relations.

The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality."

What a hideously constructed excuse for an argument. THIS JUST IN: Students who love milkshakes subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of milkshake-loving."

liberation theLOLogy

Once I threw up on a Bible in a hotel. I was all staggery drunk, and trying to steady myself I reached for the bedside table and pulled the drawer open just in time to let loose.

It was an accident, honest.

which would be vaguely awesome.

being against divorce and adultery/fornication is fairly sexually repressive by today's standards... but by all accounts he was into hangin with the sinners... that was my point. he was also all about social justice, the poor, nonviolence, anti-materialism, etc. pretty liberal hippie sounding to me. that's not exactly country club stuff. a pro-family hippie perhaps?

i hear yer point...and do understand that jesus probably would've not allied himself to the left or right as we have it today.
m.

It's quite the striking image though, even if entirely inane. I hope that when they called her in to the Dean's office they scolded her, reminded her of the campus policu on tolerance and any student code she may have agreed to, and then gave her a C+.

"Ruth, you clearly have passionate opinions about this subject, which should be all the more reason to find a way to express them clearly to others. Unless the clarity of your expression and the rigor of your argument match your vehemence, you risk looking like a tool."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/09/opinion/edwills.php

Jesus liked to throw shit around in the temple though. If we start asking "what would Jesus do?", then probably both Ruth and tsk-tsk liberals are closer to the corrupt priesthood than anything else.

[His disciples] never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?ex=1144987200&en=4d49edd66477d90d&ei=5087%0A

"Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but rather intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind the myth of neutrality are often afraid of intelligent engagement. Unwilling to be challenged by alternate points of view, they don't engage contrary opinions or even consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult--'you intolerant bigot'--than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. 'Tolerance' has become intolerance."
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5359

"It used to be in our country you could think what you wanted and say what you wanted. If you wanted to be a bigot or a racist that was your own business. You couldn't perform acts of bigotry but it was your privilege to think and talk any way you wanted."
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5131

Character - a mature expression of virtue, warmth, and personal depth

'Christian ambassadors' = so much is clear about worldviews. YOU DON'T SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS WHEN YOU WALK OUT THE DAMN DOOR EVERY DAY.

"Greetings, person who is not me and who I am therefore scared of and alienated from. Please accept my Agnostic Passport."

I agree, 'diversity' is a value, but how does a country decide what should and shouldn't be supported under it? what is bigotry?

The "classical rule of tolerance" that I posted above is not bigotry, but following it doesn't mean allowing some behavior that is immoral. Immoral behavior should be discouraged and moral behavior should be encourage.

what behaviors are moral or immoral?

moral relativism as a policy or philosophy falls in on-itself, so as in the quote below "moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation" can decide morality. In a democracy Christians should be free to use their beliefs (i.e. the Bible) and reasoning to contribute to decisions about morality.

One should argue that Christians should believe in absolute morality or have any say. They should just argue what they believe is moral. Of course there are some ambiguous areas of morality, but reason and public opinion will then help with this.

"Moral neutrality seems virtuous, but there's no benefit, only danger. In our culture we don't stop at 'sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as [we] do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves,' as Wattleton says, nor should we. This leads to anarchy. Instead we use moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation to encourage virtue and discourage dangerous or morally inappropriate behavior."
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223

(big x-post)

"One shouldn't argue that Christians should believe..."

I prefer to deal with people as people and not 'ambassadors' for a lifestyle.

This says it all.

[Shouldn't that be "(i.e. Jesus Christ)?"]

DO U SPEAK FOR ALL XTIANS? WTF!

WHY U HATE RELIGIOUS HETERODOXY??

XOXO
ELMO

Instead of using Scripture for morality we can ask: "what is best for the public good?"

homosexuality is unhealthy, and can spread AIDS to other homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike.

Also, what kind of environment does encouraging homosexuality give a community?

I was quoting from the Christian's sacred text, which I'm pretty sure speaks for all Christians.

x-post homosexuality is unhealthy, and can spread AIDS This is just fucking stupid.

"So in reality those that don't hold the Scriptures as teaching morality cannot be easily convinced of certain things a Christian would think as immoral."
Uh, sorry if that inconveniences you. Welcome to the Enlightenment.

PAPERCUT OH NOES

1) more disposable income = active economy = more jobs
2) more artists = better local culture = increased tourism
3) fewer babies

????

-- A Nairn (moreta...), April 12th, 2006 8:03 PM. (moretap) (later)

It's about time tbh.

:(

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=820

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defense_Fund

And so we should be able to agree that she's fighting to do something well beyond disapproving of homosexuality and voicing that disapproval. She's fighting to be able to deny rights and privileges to other students. I should think this falls under even Nairn's definition of a breach of "classical rules of tolerance."

"Sklar and Malhotra were forced to paint over part of their written protest of “The Vagina Monologues” and their diversity bake sale was shut down by the university. On such occasions, Malhotra was warned by a university official not to do this again."

and the school's "illegal refusal to fund certain types of student organizations"

Yeah see I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

MY MOM IS CHRISTIAN
YOUR TEXT DOES NOT SPEAK FOR HER
QED

I define Christian as anyone who self-identifies as a Christian and who professes to have faith that the Bible is the word of God and Jesus was the son of God. And believe me most (if not all) Christians DO NOT see eye to eye on what the Bible sez!

From my experience, this is always exaggerated. Orthodox interpretation is pretty well recognized for most matters. It is when people add or take things away and impliment their own opinions not based on reasonable hermenutics, that varying beliefs arise; and this happens less often for the essential beliefs.

(Also that phrase "reasonable hermeneutics" is doing a lot of work in your last post -- who exactly is the arbiter of reasonableness on this one? And was this person asleep during the Reformation?)

And while you may be convinced that the differences are minor, believe me: their theologians don't think so.

(Ha: especially when you consider the interesting interpretations of Christ's teachings it would take to want to turn people away from a Christian group!)

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1528281/20060410/index.jhtml?headlines=true

what about their religious rights?
m.

THERE'S AN ONIMO MOVIE!

I didn't mean to mislead when I presumed the incident that the case concerns: the censorship of public written speech and the disruption of fundraising. In any case, I think this case is going to be judged on the use of university (and/or public) funds and facilities.

Malhotra claims that her right to freely practice her religion is being denied, but whatever her religion, the university has no obligation to abide the use of university funds or spaces for her to proselytize, especially with a message that could offend or intimidate certain (gay) students. The onus would be on Malhotra to justify that she was absolutely UNABLE (for whatever reason) to freely express her religious views in ANY other setting, by any other means, or with any other funding. And if the court does find that the school's policy restrictive, it's bad precendent. The court would have to injunct some oversight into which groups would be exempt from the policy, essentially deciding what is a valid religion and what is not, and that's not a job they want to do.

("Freedom of expression" doesn't extend to calling out fags with scripture and call it "witnessing," anyway. IMHO.)

Before this thread is kaput, I just want to repost what I think is the most important quote I posted upthread.

"The classical rule of tolerance is this: Tolerate persons in all circumstances, by according them respect and courtesy even when their ideas are false or silly. Tolerate (i.e., allow) behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good. Finally, tolerate (i.e., embrace and believe) ideas that are sound. This is still a good guideline."

The distinction between tolerating ideas and tolerating people is important.
When following the classical rule of tolerance, one bases what ideas they tolerate on what is moral and consistent with the common good and what is sound, but no matter what ideas these are they should tolerate persons in all circumstances.

and tolerating an idea is an even weirder concept, because, you can't like actually do anything to it, given that it's not in the world where you can, uh, kick it or (barring destroying free speech) effectively ban it, or, uh.

I dont understand why some christians feel the need to obsess so much over the private sexual lives of others. You wouldnt ask your pastor if he fucks his wife in the ass, now, would you? Why the hell is it anyones business just because the two people involved happen to both be men?

bunch of different reasons, probably, among which is the one that some of these folks that sex is a dirty, dirty thing that should only be for procreation, or else you should get punished(with STDs, child birth, etc).

I hear that a lot, and that's not it. It's that sex is a beautiful, special thing that should only be for procreation, in which case they're half right, or maybe right by a plurality. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, but not because he thought they were awesome and approved of them. It's because he accepted them and offered to forgive them for what were the most mortal of sins. Christians have sex, don't think otherwise. Adn as long as they;re married, you better believe they cut loose.

this part must be a joke.

what do you want to say? be clearer

I agree with that, that's why I was interested in hearing about legal aspects of hate speech in the United States

I'm pretty sure that if a person convicted of, say, assault is known to have directed "hate speech" at the victim up to or during the attack, then the assault is considered a "hate crime" and punishment may be stiffened during the sentencing period of the trial.

(This is based on hazy recollections from a 9AM civil liberties class, so feel free to correct if I'm mistaken)

2) that the AP reporter went straight to a Scaife/Coors-funded rightwing fundie thinktank for the religious conservative rejection of some folks wanting to have fun in a public(secular?) event

3) that this is an interesting mix of secular/religious/pagan/christian dealies going on all at once.

4) that just wanting to bring yer kids to the fuckin' WH Easter Egg thing is now apparently a political act

Any good student knows that making a claim without any proof or evidence is worth less than an "F" grade. And just because you shout something at the top of your lungs, it doesn't actually make it true. I could never understand how people, who claim to be 100% heterosexual, can definitively tell you how a person can be gay, as if that person were the foremost authority on homosexuality.

What is with her obsession with gays? Did her ex-boyfriend dump her for a guy? She needs some serious psychological counseling.

pasolini's 'the gospel according to st. matthew' to thread!

so, uhm, should we make the usual obvious distiction here? I mean, of COURSE, we're not talking about all or most christians, but the group best defined as "batshit fundies"; the ones who have the massive authoritarian streak, etc etc etc

The purpose of this post is only 50% so that I could use the word 'nabiscine'.

Many Christians think one main purpose of the government is to approve of doing good and disapprove of doing wrong. It doesn't matter if it is public or private, just if it is right or wrong. How does the government decide what it should approve or disapprove of? public opinion. Some of the public holds to an absolute morality others a relativistic. Those who hold to an absolute morality can use reason to better investigate and define right and wrong.

What is with her obsession with gays? Did her ex-boyfriend dump her for a guy? She needs some serious psychological counseling.
haha i never knew a nairn was so repulsive

see, these veer towards intolerance of a person, not just an idea. Was she or I ever intolerating a person? Or was it just about an idea?

most people with common sense know that homosexuality is not a choice.

Appealing to common sense doesn't really benefit an argument. How do we know if it is common sense or common ignorance? I was under the impression that there is no scientific proof of this, and I assume that it is more complicated than just that no amount of choice is involved; some parts nature and some parts nuture; the whole spectrum.
But even if there is zero choice involved it doesn't effect Christian morality. A Christian believes no one can choose not to sin. By their nature they are sinful in different ways.

I can echo this.

Attack homosexuality and you have a real effect, or the threat of one; even when you're not denying homosexuals rights or housing or concrete things, you're marginalizing them and denying them some measure of full participation in society.

In the pragmatic sense, this is true and what makes it difficult to talk about the idea of homosexuality. People (and Christians especially) need to be much more careful and gentle when disagreeing with the idea of homosexuality. They need to be aware of any potential consequences of what they say, and try to minimize them.

But, one can't expect a Christian to change what they hold as God's unchangeable word, or for them to reinterpret it however society dictates. (many Christians do, and they lose some of the true meaning)

So, then I ask, in the free exchange of ideas, how would you like to see a Christian talk about their disagreement with homosexuality?

That last bit, thankfully, doesn't hold true for too many people, although I have seen quite a few comments to that effect on ILX. But I do think that a big part of the current problem in social discourse comes from how alien "belief" is to some people. (And on the other side of the fence, perhaps, the understanding that one does not have to attend church every Sunday to have a sound moral compass.)

(And, BTW, I say this all as a fairly committed non-religious "liberal.")

Serious question, do you think that you could choose not to be?

ok, yeah, this book looks interesting and informative.

Humans develop their morality through interactions with other humans and with the world a human divorced from this then he can be neither moral or immoral and probably not even human. Morality is by its very nature relative, noe this doesn't mean that we should make the morality that we work into law some kind of lowest common denominator public opinion, no we can enshrine an ideal into law, but that ideal should not be clouded with the petty and base and should be based upon the consesnsus of society not on 1700 year old books, even if some people choose to be informed by them.

i chose every day--sexuality is a social construction, and a seires of negotiated power positions.

(last time i thot about not fucking men, last sunday, farm girl and farm boy, strangers, the boy a sold sqaure of corn fed muscle, short, hairy, blonde, and casual in his eroticism, the girl, tall, big, huge tits, large ass, r crumbs wet dream, cover alls and a tight red t shirt, wanted to go upstairs then and there)

There's a time for all of these things, on a forum like this, arguing about issues, how do I help the poor and sick? I guess I could turn off the computer and go find some people to help. That's what I was doing the last 3 weeks, and I hope to do a lot more of that in my future.

Yeah, it's like Jesus said: Yea, thou shalt get Caesar to do God's work for him.

Some of the public holds to an absolute morality others a relativistic.

Christians, like pretty much everyone else, belong to the latter group.

Nairn, you suggest that homosexuality is not "for the common good" as an example. But then you came up with zero plausible reasons why. "They spread AIDS" is, frankly, a positively hateful (let alone ridiculous) thing

Trayce, I didn't say "they spread AIDS." I said that "homosexuality is unhealthy, and [homosexuality] can spread AIDS to other homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike."

What I meant by this is that 'male-to-male sexual contact' is the cause of the most transmissions of AIDS (around 58% of all the transmissions even though only 5-7% of males are self-identified as homosexuals)

as written about here:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

How is any of this hateful or ridiculous? If anything, diminishing the significants of how homosexual activity can result in the transmission of AIDS is more hateful. It could lead to less prevention education directed at homosexuals and then more infections. (but I assume your motives behind these thoughts are good, so in reality not hateful)

and in response to Ed's statements about moral relativism,

we can enshrine an ideal into law, but that ideal should not be clouded with the petty and base and should be based upon the consesnsus of society

the consensus of what society?

The Southern U.S. had a consensus that slavery was perfectly fine before the Civil War. Many of the people on trial at Nuremberg said they were just following the rules; the consensus of their society. I think as a person questions the view of relative morality more thoroughly and honestly they will notice some kind of appeal to a 'higher standard.'

a) homosexual sex practices are more dangerous than heterosexual ones, or
b) homosexuals practice unsafe sex more often than heterosexuals.

or is this just something its impossible to get reliable data on?

[And by a) I mean some very complicated calculation of (frequency of oral x oral transmission rate) + (frequency of anal x anal transmission rate) vs. (frequency of oral x oral rate) + (frequency of vaginal x vaginal rate) + (frequency of anal x anal rate). Or whatever the math would be.)]

definitely NO.

"b) homosexuals practice unsafe sex more often than heterosexuals."

In some respects YES, but the other reason is rather obvious historically - AIDS/HIV struck the gay community first, and established itself rather firmly and has thus been more difficult to eradicate.

But look at international statistics, the vast majority of infections are from plain ol penis-into-vagina sex.

No, at least not any way I can think of it. That's why the complicated math. Presumably in some ideal world you could survey a group of homosexuals about what kind of sex they had and how often and get some representation of the statistically average person's practices... "has oral sex X times/week, etc." and then do the same with a group of heteros of the same number.

"a) homosexual sex practices are more dangerous than heterosexual ones, or"

definitely NO

Ergo transmission rates for anal and vaginal are roughly the same. (Or chance of transmission or whatever - obviously raw numbers make no sense as you point out.)

Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to collect talking points for the religious right. I'm just curious, that's all.

No, at least not any way I can think of it. That's why the complicated math. Presumably in some ideal world you could survey a group of homosexuals about what kind of sex they had and how often and get some representation of the statistically average person's practices... "has oral sex X times/week, etc." and then do the same with a group of heteros of the same number.

"a) homosexual sex practices are more dangerous than heterosexual ones, or"

definitely NO

Ergo transmission rates for anal and vaginal are roughly the same? (Or chance of transmission or whatever - obviously raw numbers make no sense as you point out.)

Sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to collect talking points for the religious right. I'm just curious, that's all.

Circumcision, Fidelity More Effective HIV Prevention Methods Than Condoms, Abstinence, Researchers Say

Oh, Nairn! By stooping to use statistics to prove a moral point, you are acting like the worst kind of moral relativist! If sexual activity can spread AIDS and spreading AIDS is "not for the common good", then all sexual activity that could conceivably spread AIDS is "not for the common good", not simply homosexual activity.

Even if heterosexual activity could claim that it is ' 500% less likely' to spread AIDS, that does not make it '500% less bad' unless you accept that the morally relativistic term '500% less bad' is meaningful.

therefore, stop spreading the damn gospel and rape will end

...David Parker was jailed last year after he refused to leave a school when officials declined to exclude his 6-year-old son from discussions of gay parents. Parker initially complained after his son brought home a "diversity book bag" with a book that depicted a gay family.

Their attorney, Jeffrey Denner, said Lexington violated the rights of privacy and freedom of religion of his clients -- all identified as devout Christians in the lawsuit -- by unilaterally deciding how and when lessons about gay marriage will be taught...

Damn those schools acting all unilaterally! Only I as a parent can decide when and IF my child is to learn about the Teapot Dome scandal, as well as pre-algebra! anything different is obviously violating my rights.

A TikTok'er is exposing churches that refuse to help a hungry baby
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/a-tiktoker-is-exposing-churches-that

For the past week, TikToker Nikalie Monroe has been running a fascinating social experiment to find out if religious groups are actually willing to live out their stated values.

She recently told her followers about how SNAP benefits were set to expire because of Republican cruelty, leaving a lot of people without vital resources to feed their families. (That video received under 1,000 views.)

Then, instead of just explaining the problem, Monroe tried a different tactic: She started calling local houses of worship while pretending to be a new mother who couldn’t afford formula for her baby.

Would they help her out?

She recorded their conversations and posted them online—along with their names and contact information. It should have been great publicity for those religious groups! After all, this would be an easy way for them to live out the Gospel message, right?

(results are about what you expect)