It's the Same Ol' Game, played over and over again. (Like I said elsewhere, "Hell hath no imagination!") First they demand "toleration", then it's "acceptance", then "approval", and finally "celebration" and active participation.
Funny how it's never considered bigoted or hateful to call for the annihilation of Christianity, or to drive people out of their jobs, ruin their businesses, threaten (and sometimes not just "threaten") them with legal action, call for boycotts (does no besides me see the supreme irony in that?), and even worse... far worse.
It never fails. Every time Christians are called out for practicing their hateful discrimination, they try to make it sound as if they are the victims. Get over it.
Oh dear. Here it is. the knee-jerk reaction. What are we talking about here? We are talking about groups based on a belief to require that their leaders believe what their organization believes.
What we are talking about here is a school-sanctioned organization that practices discrimination in violation of policy. Nobody is telling them they can't be Christians at that school. Nobody is preventing them from forming their own private organization and employing whatever discriminatory membership rules they want. But they insist on practicing their discrimination with the sanction of the school. These people are free to be bigots, but there are venues in which their bigotry is unacceptable. Get over it.
It's also transparently hypocritical. These anti-Christianity leftists are confident that Christian students will never start responding to the leftists' aggressions by the same "rules". But, we all know that *were* the Christian students to play the same game the leftists are playing (*), suddenly, the "rules" would be changed again so as to disenfranchise the Christians.
(*) For instance, were Christian students en masse to join the Moslem Student Union or the LGBTQWERTY Propaganda Co-operative, and elect their fellow Christians to the leadership positions in those organizations, and reorient the official focus of those groups away from whatever the groups currently see as their mission toward, oh, say, supporting the State of Israel, or opposing abortion, we all know that there would be much shrieking and wailing and gnashing of teeth about this “illegal” action by the Christians.
Suppose a bunch of evangelical Christians infiltrated the LGBTQ Alliance at the college and were to try to turn it into the college chapter of Exodus International. The real gays in the group find out about it and kick them out. Would THEY be bigots for expecting the leadership of a gay rights group to support, you know, gay rights????? Suppose the Campus Freethought Alliance were taken over by the local chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ and scheduled William Lane Craig and Pat Robertson to speak.
No, it's only bigotry when religious people do it.
If this supposed "LGBTQ Alliance" was a school-sanctioned organization, they would need to comply with the school's non-discrimination policies, the same as everyone else. If they didn't wish to comply with those policies, they would still have the option of forming a private (non-school-sanctioned) organization.
I am not advocating any special rights or any kind of privilege for one group that doesn't apply to the rest. And if anyone practices bigotry, I have no problem calling it bigotry, regardless of who they are. What is there about my stance that you find intellectually dishonest?
Thick-headed as I am, it took me a long while (too long!) to finally realize I was attempting to conduct a conversation with what is, essentially, a bionic bot. There is no real mind there on the other end of that most ironic moniker. Here we have living proof of Dante's horrifying observation that the damned are those who have "lost the good of the intellect." Not the intellect itself, mind you, but rather any good that may come of it.
C.S. Lewis similarly nailed this image in Perelandra with his truly frightening portrayal of the Un-man, who uses the intellect like a hammer. As long as he wishes to drive in a nail, he'll (grudgingly) make use of it, but once he's done, it gets tossed aside without a second thought.
When it finally sank in that I might as well discuss Aristotle with my cat as try to get through to im-Un-mind, that's when I decided to not deal with him at all. Sometimes I have to gnash my teeth and, like Saint Anthony in the desert, resist the temptation to respond, but by all that is holy (and I mean that quite seriously), I will never, ever do so again. Once down the rabbit hole is enough, and I've definitely been there more than once!
(Excuse me while I sprinkle Holy Water on my laptop.)
Vanderbilt seems to exhibit integrity and honesty on the matter of creedal discrimination. The word 'creedal' has finally been exposed for what it is, a carte-blanche to practice unrestrained and unprincipled discrimination while not calling it discrimination. Vanderbilt saw through the charade and knocked it on the head. Yes, ethics, morality and honesty continues to survive and shine through the religious onslaught of incivility perpetrated onto the community.
Well done, Vanderbilt. The Hydra of perpetual religious bigotry and discrimination must be snared and muzzled wherever it raises it's head.
Victor claims that i would endorse bigotry, and therefore I am intellectually dishonest. Then he claims you would applaud the execution of all believers. He apparently feels that by turning both of us into straw men, he can mount a successful argument against us.
And the religi-bots cackle in agreement on the sidelines, because they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it slapped them in the face. But Victor should know better.
Here is a further discussion of my position with regard to Victor's accusation of intellectual dishonesty.
When I call people intellectually dishonest, I hope it is because of what their actual position is, not because of my presumption of what they might say.
Are you telling me that religious groups can't have conduct codes as well? If someone is openly and unrepentantly gay, and the doctrinal statement of the ecclesiastical organization prohibits such conduct as sinful, then the person does not represent the teachings of the religious organization. Now there are other religious organizations they can lead, such as the Metropolitan Community Church. But it isn't honest for someone who is in a leadership position of a religious organization to openly endorse activity that the group proscribes.
This has nothing whatever to do with the sinfulness or lack of same of homosexuality itself. A person who is a leader in an Orthodox Jewish campus group should not be openly eating McDonald's cheeseburgers, because such cheeseburgers are not kosher. It doesn't matter whether there is anything really wrong with eating cheeseburgers or not, the problem lies with accepting a leadership position in a religious group that proscribes it.
Of course I was exaggerating about Papalinton. (Boy I hope so). But it just seems to me that he never has any trouble with anything that negatively affects religion or Christianity, not matter what it is. There's never any stepping back, and wondering even if the position one is adopting is true or not, whether or not the reasoning used to back it up is sound or not.
VR: "Of course I was exaggerating about Papalinton."
Everyone understands that.
VR: "(Boy I hope so)."
I wouldn't count on it.
VR: "But it just seems to me that he never has any trouble with anything that negatively affects religion or Christianity, not matter what it is. There's never any stepping back, and wondering even if the position one is adopting is true or not, whether or not the reasoning used to back it up is sound or not."
In other words, he's intellectually dishonest on (at least) the matter of "religion" or Christianity.
Moreover, as experience has shown, he'll not only say 'A', whether or not it is a sound or supportable position or (ahem) argument, he'll also turn around and say 'Not-A'.
I just don't get it. Any fool knows that any organization smaller than "Mankind" is going to be somehow selective. You can't be an Baltimorean without living in Baltimore. You can't be a doctor without proper credentials. You can't drive a taxi without a license. You can't (legally) vote in a US election without being a US citizen. To command an aircraft carrier in the US Navy, regardless of your rank, you must first be (or have been) a pilot. To be a Catholic priest you must be ordained by a bishop. To be a leader within a Christian group on at Vanderbilt University, reason and logic demands that such a person be a Christian.
So what's the problem with Vanderbilt? This is anti-Christian bigotry, pure and simple. The agenda is transparent. Any and all anti-Christian groups are welcome, but Satan forbid we allow that detested Christianity on our campus! Heavens! People might actually start thinking, and not just knee jerk follow along with the latest politically correct fad.
23 comments:
Yet, we *all* know that the touted "creedal non-discrimination" really means discrimination against Christians and Christianity.
It's the Same Ol' Game, played over and over again. (Like I said elsewhere, "Hell hath no imagination!") First they demand "toleration", then it's "acceptance", then "approval", and finally "celebration" and active participation.
Funny how it's never considered bigoted or hateful to call for the annihilation of Christianity, or to drive people out of their jobs, ruin their businesses, threaten (and sometimes not just "threaten") them with legal action, call for boycotts (does no besides me see the supreme irony in that?), and even worse... far worse.
Jezu ufam tobie!
It never fails. Every time Christians are called out for practicing their hateful discrimination, they try to make it sound as if they are the victims. Get over it.
Oh dear. Here it is. the knee-jerk reaction. What are we talking about here? We are talking about groups based on a belief to require that their leaders believe what their organization believes.
Does anyone besides me strongly suspect that the anti-Christian tail is wagging the gay rights dog?
It's no suspicion, Victor - it's a fact.
What we are talking about here is a school-sanctioned organization that practices discrimination in violation of policy. Nobody is telling them they can't be Christians at that school. Nobody is preventing them from forming their own private organization and employing whatever discriminatory membership rules they want. But they insist on practicing their discrimination with the sanction of the school. These people are free to be bigots, but there are venues in which their bigotry is unacceptable. Get over it.
It's also transparently hypocritical. These anti-Christianity leftists are confident that Christian students will never start responding to the leftists' aggressions by the same "rules". But, we all know that *were* the Christian students to play the same game the leftists are playing (*), suddenly, the "rules" would be changed again so as to disenfranchise the Christians.
(*) For instance, were Christian students en masse to join the Moslem Student Union or the LGBTQWERTY Propaganda Co-operative, and elect their fellow Christians to the leadership positions in those organizations, and reorient the official focus of those groups away from whatever the groups currently see as their mission toward, oh, say, supporting the State of Israel, or opposing abortion, we all know that there would be much shrieking and wailing and gnashing of teeth about this “illegal” action by the Christians.
Nothing hypocritical about what I said, Ilion. The hypocrisy is all yours. Get over it.
Suppose a bunch of evangelical Christians infiltrated the LGBTQ Alliance at the college and were to try to turn it into the college chapter of Exodus International. The real gays in the group find out about it and kick them out. Would THEY be bigots for expecting the leadership of a gay rights group to support, you know, gay rights????? Suppose the Campus Freethought Alliance were taken over by the local chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ and scheduled William Lane Craig and Pat Robertson to speak.
No, it's only bigotry when religious people do it.
Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking.
If this supposed "LGBTQ Alliance" was a school-sanctioned organization, they would need to comply with the school's non-discrimination policies, the same as everyone else. If they didn't wish to comply with those policies, they would still have the option of forming a private (non-school-sanctioned) organization.
I am not advocating any special rights or any kind of privilege for one group that doesn't apply to the rest. And if anyone practices bigotry, I have no problem calling it bigotry, regardless of who they are. What is there about my stance that you find intellectually dishonest?
VR: "Your intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking."
!! *grin* !!
Trying to play "nice" with these people never had a chance of working.
Ilion,
Thick-headed as I am, it took me a long while (too long!) to finally realize I was attempting to conduct a conversation with what is, essentially, a bionic bot. There is no real mind there on the other end of that most ironic moniker. Here we have living proof of Dante's horrifying observation that the damned are those who have "lost the good of the intellect." Not the intellect itself, mind you, but rather any good that may come of it.
C.S. Lewis similarly nailed this image in Perelandra with his truly frightening portrayal of the Un-man, who uses the intellect like a hammer. As long as he wishes to drive in a nail, he'll (grudgingly) make use of it, but once he's done, it gets tossed aside without a second thought.
When it finally sank in that I might as well discuss Aristotle with my cat as try to get through to im-Un-mind, that's when I decided to not deal with him at all. Sometimes I have to gnash my teeth and, like Saint Anthony in the desert, resist the temptation to respond, but by all that is holy (and I mean that quite seriously), I will never, ever do so again. Once down the rabbit hole is enough, and I've definitely been there more than once!
(Excuse me while I sprinkle Holy Water on my laptop.)
Jezu ufam tobie!
Vanderbilt seems to exhibit integrity and honesty on the matter of creedal discrimination. The word 'creedal' has finally been exposed for what it is, a carte-blanche to practice unrestrained and unprincipled discrimination while not calling it discrimination. Vanderbilt saw through the charade and knocked it on the head.
Yes, ethics, morality and honesty continues to survive and shine through the religious onslaught of incivility perpetrated onto the community.
Well done, Vanderbilt. The Hydra of perpetual religious bigotry and discrimination must be snared and muzzled wherever it raises it's head.
Papalinton: If you had heard that a university had order the summary execution of all religious believers, you would applaud.
Why would I applaud? I don't follow your logic. You are a very strange person indeed, Dr Reppert.
Papalinton,
Victor claims that i would endorse bigotry, and therefore I am intellectually dishonest. Then he claims you would applaud the execution of all believers. He apparently feels that by turning both of us into straw men, he can mount a successful argument against us.
And the religi-bots cackle in agreement on the sidelines, because they wouldn't recognize a valid argument if it slapped them in the face. But Victor should know better.
Here is a further discussion of my position with regard to Victor's accusation of intellectual dishonesty.
When I call people intellectually dishonest, I hope it is because of what their actual position is, not because of my presumption of what they might say.
Are you telling me that religious groups can't have conduct codes as well? If someone is openly and unrepentantly gay, and the doctrinal statement of the ecclesiastical organization prohibits such conduct as sinful, then the person does not represent the teachings of the religious organization. Now there are other religious organizations they can lead, such as the Metropolitan Community Church. But it isn't honest for someone who is in a leadership position of a religious organization to openly endorse activity that the group proscribes.
This has nothing whatever to do with the sinfulness or lack of same of homosexuality itself. A person who is a leader in an Orthodox Jewish campus group should not be openly eating McDonald's cheeseburgers, because such cheeseburgers are not kosher. It doesn't matter whether there is anything really wrong with eating cheeseburgers or not, the problem lies with accepting a leadership position in a religious group that proscribes it.
Of course I was exaggerating about Papalinton. (Boy I hope so). But it just seems to me that he never has any trouble with anything that negatively affects religion or Christianity, not matter what it is. There's never any stepping back, and wondering even if the position one is adopting is true or not, whether or not the reasoning used to back it up is sound or not.
VR: "Of course I was exaggerating about Papalinton."
Everyone understands that.
VR: "(Boy I hope so)."
I wouldn't count on it.
VR: "But it just seems to me that he never has any trouble with anything that negatively affects religion or Christianity, not matter what it is. There's never any stepping back, and wondering even if the position one is adopting is true or not, whether or not the reasoning used to back it up is sound or not."
In other words, he's intellectually dishonest on (at least) the matter of "religion" or Christianity.
Moreover, as experience has shown, he'll not only say 'A', whether or not it is a sound or supportable position or (ahem) argument, he'll also turn around and say 'Not-A'.
I just don't get it. Any fool knows that any organization smaller than "Mankind" is going to be somehow selective. You can't be an Baltimorean without living in Baltimore. You can't be a doctor without proper credentials. You can't drive a taxi without a license. You can't (legally) vote in a US election without being a US citizen. To command an aircraft carrier in the US Navy, regardless of your rank, you must first be (or have been) a pilot. To be a Catholic priest you must be ordained by a bishop. To be a leader within a Christian group on at Vanderbilt University, reason and logic demands that such a person be a Christian.
So what's the problem with Vanderbilt? This is anti-Christian bigotry, pure and simple. The agenda is transparent. Any and all anti-Christian groups are welcome, but Satan forbid we allow that detested Christianity on our campus! Heavens! People might actually start thinking, and not just knee jerk follow along with the latest politically correct fad.
HERE is a must-read article on what's exactly behind all this talk of "bigotry".
Jezu ufam tobie!
Post a Comment