Even the L.A. Times gets it

June 30, 2010

And that’s no little thing. This is what they have to say about the CLS v. Matinez decision, specifically Hasting’s policy vis a vis student groups:

Even if it passes constitutional muster, the “all comers” policy could lead to bizarre results, such as a Jewish group having to admit Christians or a pro-life group being required to let abortion-rights activists seek leadership positions. The best argument against the policy is that it actually undermines diversity by making every student group potentially interchangeable in its membership. A better way to promote diversity of viewpoints is to allow groups on campus to define their beliefs — including religious beliefs — and compete for the allegiance of students. Hastings should give it a try.

Exactly.

Advertisements

Is the Homosexual Agenda Fascistic?

June 29, 2010

As they pursue their agenda, the homosexual lobby attempts to frame itself as advancing fundamental freedoms. They liken themselves to civil rights advocates that came before – those that pursued greater freedom and fundamental rights for racial minorities and for women. To the degree that they can do this, they find great sympathy amongst the American electorate who are ever interested in advancing such freedoms as indicated by our 200+ year history.

But the question has to be asked, does the homosexual agenda actually advance freedom? Two recent events suggest the opposite.

The first takes place in my home state of Minnesota at the Twin Cities ‘Pride’ festival in Minneapolis’ Loring Park, which is a yearly gay celebration event. For the past ten years, Brian Johnson has passed out Bibles at the event, partly in protest of the event. He was even allowed to have a vendor booth there – until last year. This year he sought to continue to pass out Bibles and literature in the public park during the event – and the event organizers then sought a restraining order to keep him from doing so. A US District Court Judge then ruled in favor of the protestor and he was allowed to express himself at this public venue.

In attempting to restrict the rights of Brian Johnson, the Gay Pride Event organizers were actually being consistent with the effects of laws in place elsewhere that presumably protect homosexual rights, as has been noted before on this blog. Already in certain places in Europe one can be arrested for expressing criticism of the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual behavior. This demonstrates how, unlike other civil rights groups, the homosexual lobby seeks not only to prevent obvious discrimination, but they also want require acceptance of their behaviors, affirmation of their lifestyles, and a state sanction of their point of view. As much as this is true they seek to limit the religious and free expression rights of other. But in a recent Supreme Court decision they go even farther.

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled along these lines in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case where a Christian student group was uniquely denied recognition at a University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. They were denied access because they failed to comply with the college’s view of homosexuality by not allowing those who advocated a, “sexually immoral lifestyle” from having membership in the organization. Notice that the criteria made no specific mention of homosexuality or sexual orientation – merely that the choice of advocating certain lifestyles deemed immoral by their Christian faith (which would include adultery and sex outside of marriage) was contrary to the purposes of the organization.

It is notable that certain Christian beliefs would be contrary to the tenets of a gay advocacy group as well, and for such a group to exclude Christians who didn’t agree with the purpose would be exactly the same. Just as avowed Republicans could be excluded from a student Democrat group, or an avowed capitalist from the Young Communist League. Diversity on campus derives not from forcing every group to admit members who oppose the primary purpose of a group, but from allowing all sorts of groups to advocate on behalf of their own beliefs and interests. Forcing a Jewish organization to accept Neo-Nazi’s or a feminist group to be taken over by men is not to enhance ‘diversity’ but to subdue the messages and purposes of those groups. In the same way the policy of Hasting’s Law College abrogates the fundamental rights of CLS to express and advocate on behalf of a particular point of view – which incidentally is exactly the precedent held by previous Supreme Court rulings like Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Both these decisions affirmed the right to association and its importance in preserving our 1st amendment rights.

In a matter of a few years we have gone from recognizing this freedom to completely rescinding it with CLS v Martinez. The primary reason we have done so is because of the influence of the homosexual lobby and its political agenda, which is consistently antagonistic to the rights of others. In fact, other than Islam, the most repressive force in Western societies is political correctness which is consists in large part of advancing the gay agenda. As Justice Alito brilliantly observes:

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.

This decision will only be an aberration to the degree that the American electorate rejects the homosexual agenda – otherwise we can expect that our rights will continue to be reduced in the name of political correctness.


Observations

June 24, 2010

 Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kanjorski, yesterday, on what constitutes a ‘good American’:

“We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people.”

 Ok then. How long until November?


Oh, the Times They are A’changin’

June 23, 2010

 

McChrystal relieved of command, Petraeus chosen to take over

One hopes Obama has more confidence in Petraeus today then he did in 2007:


Low Hanging Fruit

June 22, 2010

This overheard from ‘NewEnglandBob’ who posted here until he realized his arguments couldn’t withstand scrutiny:

“How anyone with an IQ over 60 can believe in the sun being stopped, resurrection, walking on water, manna from heaven, one day’s oil lasting 8 days, rising in a chariot to heave, etc. is truly amazing to see how gullible people can be.”

If Scripture is the record of God acting in the world, wouldn’t we expect something miraculous to be recorded there? Bob seems to be saying “I don’t believe in the miraculous because there is no reliable record of miracles occuring, and I don’t believe the Bible is a reliable historical record because it records the occurence of miracles!”

Well, thanks for that Mr. Circularity.


Low Hanging Fruit

June 21, 2010

I generally try to comment on the stronger arguments of atheists and the Left, because in dismissing their stronger arguments one deals with the philosophy as a whole. But more often than not, something stupid and silly gets said that is so easily dealt with that the energy required to do so is so low that it would be wrong not to take it on; such a thing was said as part of a rant against Rep. Joe Barton recently:

 “In fact, one of the few free market economies – Hong Kong – has only been able to experience any success because of the supporting structure of communist China. On their own, free markets will fail. If they don’t, the well-being of the people subjected to the whims of the few who become powerful will come under greater and greater strain over time.”

 Hong Kong of course isn’t a creation of ‘communist China’, it was a creation of the British Empire, only to be ceded to China in 1997. China only began to have any economic growth and stability when it began to abandon its communist economy and adopt more free market policies. Of course it remains an incredibly repressive place, but this has little to do with its economics. Hong Kong was successful long before China had any control over it – and China has largely let it be, because it is in China’s best interest to do so.

 None of this has anything to do with the author’s main point, which appears to be “I Don’t Like Joe Barton, Or Republicans, or Capitalism!” – but does go to show how little of that point is based on fact or history.


Observations

June 21, 2010

“If we were to invent a god, what would he be like?  If we fashioned a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible?  A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities and human proclivities.  He would think and act, more or less, like we do.  As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires.  When we erred, he’d cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug.  After all, nobody’s perfect.  And this is the kind of god many religions seem to produce.  Not Christianity, though.

      The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is.  His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us.  He makes moral demands we can’t live up to, then threatens retribution if we don’t obey.  Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation.  In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first. ”

Gregory Koukl – Is God Just an Idea?