Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Monday, April 17, AD 2017

With respect to the advice given by the Author—to suspect the Man, who shall recommend moderate measures and longer forbearance—I spurn it—as every Man, who regards that liberty, & reveres that Justice for which we contend, undoubtedly must—for if Men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind; reason is of no use to us—the freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

George Washington, March 15, 1783

 

 

 

The Red Fascists who run The Wellesley News at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, do not think much of freedom of speech.  Here is an editorial they wrote last week in which they attacked speech they disagree with:

 

Many members of our community, including students, alumnae and faculty, have criticized the Wellesley community for becoming an environment where free speech is not allowed or is a violated right. Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers who cannot exist in the real world. However, we fundamentally disagree with that characterization, and we disagree with the idea that free speech is infringed upon at Wellesley. Rather, our Wellesley community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.

Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

  • To discriminate, to discern right from wrong, is not hate, but wisdom.

  • I have nothing postive to say about leftism. This is a good post.

  • Without a doubt, that’s fully in accord with the attitudes of the student affairs apparat at Wellesley as well as an important section of the faculty. None of the rest of the faculty or the administration are willing to do much about it due to status considerations. The trustees could repair this problem, but they do nothing because they are generally hollow men.

  • I don’t need to read the whole article to see just how lacking in logic and clear thinking its writers are. The poor writing reveals the lack of logic, just in the excerpt quoted. I will quote ONE sentence which proves their inability to think clearly:

    ‘Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech’

    Anyone with any understanding of logic would see that the pronoun ‘it’ in the second clause refers, grammatically and logically to the subject of the first clause: ‘Shutting down speech.’ The only rational reading of that sentence is that ‘Shutting down rhetoric is hate speech.’

    Perhaps they are aware that their political stance is hate.

  • One cannot reason with lunatics.

  • “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful or damaging.”

    What a load of excrement.
    Ask Milo Yiannopoulus about free speech on campus’, Berkeley for instance. Outing undocumented immigrants who are students there? That was the chatter the brown shirts​ came up with to pardon the violence they created. The fact is the brown shirts won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t think like them. Seems​ Wellesley is drinking the same kool-aid as Berkeley.

    Poor snowflakes.

  • That is a university? What a pile of excrement that place is.. and so is their thinking.

  • The notion of “Repressive tolerance” is not new. It goes back at least to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay of that name and similar ideas were expressed by Felix Dzerzhinsky at the time of the Russian Revolution.

    Marcuse argues that tolerance which enlarges the range of freedom is an end in itself but it has always been partisan and intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo. For him, the issue is only the degree and extent of this intolerance.

    Hence, “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”

    Marcuse justifies this privileging and protection of radicalism on the Left on historical grounds: left leaning revolutionary movements are driven “from below’” by the masses in a fight against injustice while radical right movements are drive from above by the ruling classes and only result in further repression and control.

    This is what Alain Badiou, the Grand Old Man of the French Left means, with his ridicule of those who want a “decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793” and his insistence that “if you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A.” Hence, his insistence that “”Materialist dialectics assumes, without particular joy, that, until now, no political subject was able to arrive at the eternity of the truth it was deploying without moments of terror. Since, as Saint-Just asked: “What do those who want neither Virtue nor Terror want?” His answer is well known: they want corruption -another name for the subject’s defeat.”

  • Without exaggeration, that editorial is – on its own definition – hate speech. So many times in so many places in so many ages, the Reign Of Terror follows the revolt.So often now saying “what you say offends me” is hate speech. Saying “you must provide me a safe space” is hate speech. Guy McClung San Antonio, Texas ps: No doubt in many of these totalitarian dystopias it would also be hate speech to say “Remember The Alamo!”

  • That last paragraph is a doozy.
    Right now we can’t define what constitutes “free” or what is “racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech”
    What about “shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others”?

    There can be no discourse, no rhetorical discussion, no persuasion about a viewpoint when the audience already knows it all. Knowing it all hampers education.

    Our assumptions or traditional ideas about how teaching and learning take place are usually didactic. Facts are facts-teacher is right, students are spoon fed
    . Not really the best way. It seems that our teacher education programs have not produced vibrancy and challenge in education. I hate to blame the students and call them snowflakes- they just don’t know what they don’t know. The system seems to make teachers want safety in their career more than they want excitement about learning and figuring things out.
    Jesus used rhetoric – parables, questions– to teach his followers and also to teach them to think.

  • They are truly educated individuals–in Fascism.

Leave a Reply

Painful

Thursday, November 12, AD 2015

 

Keely Mullen, featured in the above video, is a junior majoring in political science and sociology at Northeastern University.  Tuition and fees at Northeastern are 42K a year.  Judging from the above video her parents should demand back every penny they have paid to Northeastern in an obviously futile effort to educate their offspring.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Painful

  • The incredibly painfully thing is that she just does not understand. . . anything. And likely never will.

  • It was difficult but I decided to go with Luther as a source for an appropriate response to poor Keely

    Martin Luther: “You are a bungling magpie, croaking loudly!”

  • Stupid dumb idiot liberal progressive Democrat. You cannot educate people like that. Rather, let them use contraceptive and go extinct from not reproducing.

  • I think her ability to subtract was also compromised. That’s grade 2.

    I made my 9/yr old son watch. I made him explain what was wrong with her thinking. A. Immoral, B. Stupid. I pointed out that Truth in this case came in the form of math. Her opinion on justice being irrelevant to subtraction.

    But it will take a while to explain that she is a mortal threat who would kill him if she could. Not ready for that at 9.

  • The horror of it all is that nearly half the country thinks like Keeley. I wonder if it ever occurred to the Social Justice advocates at the USCCB that they have a moral obligation to promote the study of basic economics. Because not doing so will eventually lead to rioting in the streets and much death and destruction.

  • No one should kid themselves. The USCCB supports the Keeleys of the world. I recently had a similar conversation with a leftist member of the one percent. I told him that if he supported these kinds of tax plans nothing was stopping him from voluntarily paying a higher rate. His response was that there is no specific plan in place so the idea of paying more was ludicrous. He then changed the subject.

  • Father of Seven. You got that right. Ironically, the USCCB is responsible for much death and destruction but, like good liberals, they would deny it till there dying breath. And now comes Pope Francis who will, by his words and actions, magnify the dissatisfaction and class hatred. And like Keeley he hasn’t the foggiest idea of what he is doing. We should expect more from our full of mercy Pope which only leads, in his hands, to the breakdown of religion and society.

  • “…political science and sociology… ”

    She obviously wasn’t a difficult opponent for Neil with that sewerage as her choice in life.

  • “I wonder if it ever occurred to the Social Justice advocates at the USCCB that they have a moral obligation to promote the study of basic economics. ”

    Hah! First, they’d have to obtain it themselves, since they are so enamored with failed socialist economics….

  • The most difficult decision this young lady has had to face recently is whether to “Insert Card” or “Swipe Card”.

  • Yes, I was aware of this video between Neil Cavuto and Keeley Mullen of the “Million Student March” organization. Mullen is an example of the perfectly programmed sock puppet of the puppetmasters. She has all the answers in place, even though a few simple facts advanced by Cavuto shake up her yet imperfect automaton responses:

    Cavuto: “How’s it going to be paid for?”
    Mullen: (silence for some seconds..then:) “Good question..”
    [Finally the “program” kicks in: ] “The 1% can pay for it..”
    Later:
    Cavuto: “How much must the 1% pay?…”
    Mullen: “I think enough until every family [is covered for tuition expenses, implied]…”

    Yet later again  :
    Cavuto: “What if the 1% leave the US?…”
    Mullen: “I think there will always be a 1% in the US, the US is a bastion of capitalism (rant beginning, but Cavuto interrupts her, at which point, addressing Cavuto directly:

    Mullen: “People in YOUR position will not want to pay but…” (Uh-oh, be careful, Neil, I think you are making the commissar angry: YOUR name is going on a list.)

    Then later again, after Cavuto brings up Greece and its bankruptcy for all the good socialist “stuff”, Mullen drops this precious pearl  :

    Cavuto: “Keeley, if you took ALL the money from the 1%, do you know it would only fund one entitlement program, Medicare, for about 3 years?”
    Mullen: “So you are going to have to find some other way to get the money…” (Earlier, she had say that the 1%, if they tried to hide the money as Cavuto averred, “would have to be held accountable.”*

    (*I wish Cavuto had pursued this avenue more from our little sock-puppet, because I think it would have shown her latently tyrannical bent. “Accountable” – socialist term for police force and the necessary police state.

    She is a perfect disciple of Trotsky: Now we just need the armored trains loaded with field pieces, machine guns and troops to roll into each town: because if there ARE no 1% to be found (as Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were astonished to eventually find out), YOU and I will be the hoarding 1% and should be held “accountable,” Komrad Kulak. You are hiding “it” under your mattress.
    ……………
    If ever there was an argument for eliminating federal student loan aid entirely, this is it. Look what we got for it.

  • PWP: in your first sentence you repeated yourself at least four times.
    .
    I saw it live on FoxBusiness. It was more than painful. She had nothing but liberal fantasies and lies: completely divorced from reality. Here we see how Obama twice got elected. She is the idiocracy personified. She oozed infallible ignorance.
    .
    Cavuto let her off easy. He could have had her a puddle of tears in 15 seconds.
    .
    If I were her parents, I’d sue for a refund of the tuition from her so-called university.
    .
    They need tor raise the voting age to 35.

  • This video is making the rounds on Facebook, and I assume other social media as well. I think it more likely that she and her parents will sue Cavuto for publicly shaming her (as it were) than for them to sue the school for educational malpractice.
    .
    As for the voting age being raised to 35. Not good enough. I know several liberals over the age of 35.
    .
    People must be a 1) tax payer, preferably filing quarterly, 2) allowed to vote on only those things they have skin in the game for (can’t vote on property taxes-a local tax, I grant-if they don’t own property. Bonus: own your own business.
    .
    (Granted, I know a liberal who is a business owner, aged north of 35, and files quarterly, but at least he is voting for his own destruction and not just mine. )
    .

  • I stopped listening when at a minute ‘n change when she didn’t know how she was going to pay for free tuition, cancellation of student debt and a $15 minimum wage.

    Seems there’s a lot of that waah waah, but I want it! going on at our institutes of higher day care these days.

  • Seems there’s a lot of that waah waah, but I want it! going on at our institutes of higher day care these days.

    See one wag’s definition of ‘feminism’ as practiced by Sandra Fluke: “an open mouth saying “I want…””

    I couldn’t stand to listen to her for more than a few seconds. I doubt she even understands the distinction between ‘income’ and ‘wealth’ or why one has more of a skew distribution than the other.

  • DJ Hesselius, they are all voting for their own destruction. Due to mal-education and societal resilience they just don’t see it.

  • Tuition and fees at Northeastern are 42K a year. Judging from the above video her parents should demand back every penny they have paid to Northeastern in an obviously futile effort to educate their offspring.

    Around about 1986, Frances Fox-Piven and Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a letter to the editor of The New Republic complaining about an article by R.M. Kaus. In said letter they said everyone should receive a guaranteed income of at least 1/2 of personal income per capita. This frankly lunatic idea was offered by two women who have between them a doctoral degree in sociology and a doctoral degree in biochemistry.

    Education is specialized and there’s always much you don’t learn. It takes a special sort of stupidity to come up with an idea so lacking in sense as these two broads were hawking. There’s not much Northeastern can do about that short of compelling everyone to take economics courses. They called the 300-level microeconomic theory course one place I know of ‘the weed out course’. Economics is not for everyone.

  • People must be a 1) tax payer, preferably filing quarterly, 2) allowed to vote on only those things they have skin in the game for (can’t vote on property taxes-a local tax, I grant-if they don’t own property. Bonus: own your own business.

    It’s hard to tell if you’re particularly serious, but you seem to have confused talking points with social reality and accounting with economics. Any working adult is paying Social Security taxes, anyone who rents an apartment is contributing to his landlord’s property tax payments, and anyone who purchases something other than groceries is paying sales taxes (IIRC, where you have inelastic supplies the bulk of the economic impact is on the consumer, which would be the renter in the case of real property).

  • It’s not that lunatic an idea if your goal is to break the system.
    .
    Kind of like how Obama’s only an idiot if you think he thinks about the country more or less the same way you and I do.
    .
    Clearly, he doesn’t.

  • Face it, in my lifetime we’ve gone from the “Greatest generation” to the “Flakiest generation.”

  • It’s not that lunatic an idea if your goal is to break the system.

    None of them have a clue what the system is. Obama can at least hire Larry Summers to explain it to him. BO has never suggested anything as nutty as the Piven-Ehrenreich brainstorm and neither did George McGovern, who got flayed for a negative income tax proposal which conceived of replacing a mess of welfare programs with a tax credit the value of which was fixed at 24% of personal income per capita.

  • Although McGovern’s plan was inspired by Milton Friedman’s earlier negative income tax proposal, Friedman nonetheless opposed McGovern’s plan because it did not in fact replace the entire mess of welfare programs (most importantly social security) but instead ladled on top an expensive additional one.

    That said I entirely agree with the point of your comment.

  • Has everyone missed her comment about her family being hard-working, and receiving “numerous forms of public assistance”? Yet she
    attenda]ends a college that charges $42K a year!

  • We are receiving no assistance here of any kind, and we just got word our oldest was accepted to a good school that is roughly the same price as the one this girl is attending. He is balking at the price tag, even though we received word he is due for a very generous scholarship.

  • Has everyone missed her comment about her family being hard-working, and receiving “numerous forms of public assistance”? Yet she attenda]ends a college that charges $42K a year!

    Well, I know a school principal in Massachusetts who was on Food Stamps for a time… in 1986. If you own a house, people can find out a certain amount about your finances with the click of a mouse. Robert Stacy McCain has already doxxed her family. She attended a private school and her parents live in a home which has an assessed value in excess of $900,000, so this is all amusing in a way that’s brutal to a youth of that age. Teaching your children about the public world and about politics and religion is a peculiarly paternal task. Mr. Mullen either confounded her, crapped out or failed.

  • Confounded.

    “Steve Mullen has posted numerous photos to his Facebook page showing his participation at Chicago’s Million Student March. In one post, Mullen notes that his daughter helped launch the Million Student March initiative: “This is a movement that my daughter Keely has initiated along with one of her fellow student colleagues. They are gaining traction in what promises to be the next national crisis. We need to demand a serious discussion of what we plan to do re: the cost of education in order to give these young people entering life a fair shot. Please spread the word!” In another post, Mullen responds to a friend who questions why his daughter attends such an expensive university: “She includes her personal situation only as one illustration. The larger point has to do with the corporatization of higher ed, the lack of a national commitment to help with education, and the ‘special projects’ that tuition money is going to fund. Much of their tuition goes into institutional spending that has nothing to do with teachers salaries or directly affects the learning that is going on.” Steve Mullen lectures on art and technology at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He lists in his biography a musical background and notes he co-wrote classic rocker Eddie Money’s hit song “Endless Nights.” He lists a bevy of Fortune 500 clients, including American Airlines, Walt Disney Co., Exxon-Mobil, Reebok and McDonald’s. “Mullen identifies as trans-feminine and “gender-mobile,” prefers “they/them” pronouns, and works to be an ear and an advocate for the wide diversity of student identities at SAIC,” his bio states. He didn’t immediately respond to a message left on his home answering machine.”

    – See more at: http://newbostonpost.com/2015/11/12/boston-activist-says-tax-the-rich-no-apologies-to-dad/#sthash.totUjzAY.dpuf

    With a dad like that it is no wonder that daughter is screwed up.

  • DJ Hesselius: I do hope this “good school” produces in your son a better result than this idiot girl! Thirty-five years ago we sent our daughters to a very “good school”, and did not have the foresight, nor see the necessity for warning them that the professors would brainwash them, and that the girls would have absorbed the right way to live and think from our examples. WRONG! That “good school” turned our daughters into liberal, abortion supporting women.

  • I previously cited scientific evidence that one in three liberals is a blatantly stupid as the other two.

  • Donald McClarey & Steve Phoenix, your posts are both spot on, and after reading them, I find that I need a drink. But we should never give up.

Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  In modern society those who prate the most about tolerance often tend to be the most intolerant.   Case in point, what is happening to Jennifer Keeton, a grad student at Augusta State College, studying to be a school counselor.  She is a Christian and believes that homosexual conduct is wrong.  Her faculty has decreed that she must undergo “sensitivity” (read re-education a la the Red Chinese) training to alter her views on homosexuality.  It was suggested that she go to a local gay pride march among other activities.

The Alliance Defense Fund, the same group representing Dr. Ken Howell, who ran afoul of the thought police at the U of I, is representing Keeton.  Go here to read about the lawsuit they have filed on her behalf.

Shockingly, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by a grad student, Julea Ward, at Eastern Michigan University who was faced with precisely the same situation facing Keenan.  Go here to read the details at the blogprof.  Go here to read the Alliance Defense Fund’s, which represented Ms. Ward, overview of the case and their intent to appeal the decision.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

  • This society is in for a rough ride and it may be a good thing. We will have to see.

  • Professional schools are becoming notorious for this kind of thing. Future educators, doctors, lawyers, and counselors beware!

  • Things haven’t really changed that much from what I recall. Liberal college profs (a bit redundant) always try to push their view and punish those who disagree. Professors did not really want you to think, they just wanted you to spit back what they vomit out to you. Most were there just for a piece of paper to get a job anyway, so it went in one ear, onto the test paper, and out for good. So much for their “indoctrination” attempts.

  • First, ‘it’ was illegal.

    Then, “not that there’s anything wrong with ‘it’.”

    Then, ‘it’ became sacrosanct.

    Next, ‘it’ will be mandatory.

  • Wow, nice strawman you set on fire. The standard is not that counselors cannot hold a negative opinion of their clients’ behaviors.

    The person in question holds the belief that homosexuality is a personality disorder along the lines of sociopathy. This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community. Persons wishing to graduate from a counseling program must evidence that they understand and work within the psychiatric community. She is more than welcome to be christian or prolife or conservative, but defining something as a personality disorder that is not a personality disorder disqualifies her from receiving accreditation from this program.

    As for “it” will be mandatory, give me a break! I promise you that gay stormtroopers in lavender uniforms will not be breaking into your bedroom to force you to have gay sex and abortions until 2013 at the earliest. Calm down.

  • The pschological communicty did view homosexuality as a disorder until the (?) 80’s. Changed their view not so much on solid evidence as changing social norms. Much the same as medical societies opposed abortion until it became the social norm.

    Up till now, medical societies respected the conscience of individuals in regards to abortion and contraception. This is changing now, particularly with the support of the Obama administration. May very well be that the psychological community also will seek to impose their perspectives on practitioners.

    Though with the Nov. elections, the political ability to affect this will probably change. So it won’t be 2013. Likely later when the Dems have a solid majority again.

  • The person in question holds the belief that homosexuality is a personality disorder along the lines of sociopathy. This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community. Persons wishing to graduate from a counseling program must evidence that they understand and work within the psychiatric community.

    Do you think that prior to 1970 people who didn’t believe that homosexuality was a psychological disorder shouldn’t have been able to be psychiatrists?

  • Personal Failure: How can you make such a promise?

    Anyhow, it was a joke. They can take our money. They can take our lives. They can’t take our religion.

    Anyhow, anyhow, gay stormtroopers will have to fight their way past the pooch – slobbering all over their trendy clothes.

  • “…slobbering all over their trendy clothes.”

    Well that should stop them. 🙂

  • This is counter to current views in the psychiatric community.

    In order to diagnose someone as ill, you have to have a conception of what it means to be well, which requires an assessment of proper dispositions and behaviors. The question arises as to why the norms favored by the current cohort of the mental health trade are properly enforceable on the rest of the society through state licensing. Why cannot state legislatures properly declare their own norms? (Or, perhaps, shut down the licensing boards and incorporate into law the idea that the ministrations of these characters will be compensated by re-imbursements from insurers when clergymen are so compensated).

  • The standard is not that counselors cannot hold a negative opinion of their clients’ behaviors.

    That is exactly the standard they’re employing. Can you imagine a school coming up with a re-education plan for someone who thought that gender identity disorder is no such thing? Yet it’s on the DSM-IV list.

  • The APA reclassification was due to political pressure, not any change in the medical facts. Much like the ACOG position on the necessity for late term abortions.

  • College counseling programs rely for foundational medical and scientific credibility on the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

    Removal followed a two year campaign Newsweek described as ongoing disruptive, chaotic attacks on psychiatrists and physiologists. Yet throughout these disruptive attacks, no academic papers were presented at conferences refuting any research previously done. Eventually attacks forced sufficient abstentions and apprehensive responses for a third of APA’s 17,000 plus membership to vote removal.

    After this decision a new task force was established to ensure perpetual sanctity for the APA action. No research papers would again arise to confirm initial therapy success rates of 30% to 60 %, substantiating that 7 of 10 homosexuals could eventually walk away from the lifestyle forever. This task force would set peer review standards mandating pre-ordained theses, acceptable flexibility in design definitions, and acceptable human data points. Psychology and Psychiatry chose to abandon scientific rigor in exchange for popular societal and political acclaim.

    Psychology and Psychiatry have always had a tenuous hold on claims they were sciences with the standing of Chemistry and Physics. On the scale of intellectual rigor, their research more often resembles oral history, and seldom, if ever, approaches the determinism found in a Chemistry laboratory.

    Developments in statistics should have enabled them to a least determine there is a marginal or significant propensity for a particular disorder, for its behaviors, and for selecting methods of treatment. Responsible research would also acknowledge those pesky humans, who in spite of their genetics and upbringing, decide to live positive lives without APA professional help.

    Instead, Psychology and Psychiatry have chosen to abandon all pretense of scientific rigor in exchange for popular societal and political acclaim. The barriers erected to meaningful research about homosexuality remind me of Genesis 3:23-24. In these verses the Lord God banished humanity from the Garden of Eden and placed an angel in the Garden to keep humanity away forever. By their actions, Psychology and Psychiatry appear to consider the accoutrements of a religion to be more attractive than those of a science.

    When Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers seek counseling degrees they find their Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion threatened by college departments. For many followers of desert religions, who seek degrees homosexual behavior is unacceptable. Instead it resides among the myriad sins entrapping humanity that lives in a fallen world with a fallen nature. These college professors cannot accept any position, which might contradict their embrace of what is essentially a secular humanist religious position.

    For believers foundational scholarship concludes homosexual relationships separate believers from God. The Old Testament, holy to “People of the Book”, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is spoken of as masculine, and all humans become feminine in relation to Him. In addition to creating all things, God created the single institution of heterosexual marriage as the earthy manifestation of the relationship of absolute unity and love He seeks with each person. Classical Semitic theology emphasizes searching for and identifying with God in the spiritual dimension. Spiritual life for these, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers means any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must proceed from that basic understanding in order to be a valid derivation. Therefore after this ruling, when believers reject homosexuality in counseling rolls or in common life expressions, they become guilty by popular acclamation of at least cultural prejudice, if not criminal behavior.

  • This has been going on for years: what you can’t pass in law because of constitutional rights and protection create in policy and enforced that as law bypassing constitutional representation, rights, and protection. If it interes with inaliable rights and liberties the policy should not be permitted to stand and incur tort. Policies are judicially standing without civic representation. You see this in police enforcement, schools, jobs, etc…the courts are using this avenue to circumvent our executive branches of govt. to create policies and illicitly enforcing them as laws in our judicial branches…this stinks of treason and Masonic manipulations. So the court dismiss or refuse to hear the case a departmental policies are created in the private sector by individuals without representational election becomes law…ludricrous…

  • Last time a society became tolerant of those engaged in Sodomy, Hitler and his SA (that’s German for Sodomite Army) were elected.

    Tolerance is merely the nice way to get you to go along with evil. I for one am happily intolerant – what are you gonna do about it?

  • Pingback: Faculty Committee Finds That Dr. Howell’s Academic Due Process Rights Were Denied « The American Catholic