Another Attack on Liberty by the Gay Agenda

I have chronicled elsewhere how the growth of the gay lobby diminishes the basic liberties of others. Now, in addition to attacks on freedom of speech, religious practice and association, the homosexual agenda is beginning to diminish academic freedoms.

This last week, Kenneth Howell, an adjunct Professor in the religion Dept. at the University of Illinois, was fired from his job. His horrible crime? Teaching the subject of his class. The Illinois News-Gazette gives the details:

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

So a professor in a religion department at a public University teaching about Catholic doctrine teaches about Catholic doctrine, and loses his job. And all it took for him to be fired was for a gay student to be upset about him teaching the subject of the class.

This is yet another example of how in the name of ‘independent thought’ and the encouragement of ‘public discourse’, the gay agenda represses both. They have in the most Orwellian fashion undermined the basic beliefs and freedoms of the university in the name of tolerance.

It continues to become increasingly clear that those who are advancing the power of the homosexual lobby do so to the detriment of others basic freedoms – and no one who is interested in maintaining those freedoms should do anything to help this group become more powerful.


Advertisements

12 Responses to Another Attack on Liberty by the Gay Agenda

  1. moriahbethany says:

    Soooo, you think that it somehow is a violation of YOUR rights not to be able to discriminate and oppress others? This is backward thinking. This man is a professor, he has a responsibility to protect the rights of ALL of his students.

  2. I don’t think it’s part of the gay agenda to dismiss professors based upon their description of ethical theories and how they apply to real world situations. This is the case of one student becoming uncomfortable and making a bad complaint.

    Of course, according to others, Howell shouldn’t have had his contract renewed for other reasons anyway.

  3. jackhudson says:

    Soooo, you think that it somehow is a violation of YOUR rights not to be able to discriminate and oppress others? This is backward thinking. This man is a professor, he has a responsibility to protect the rights of ALL of his students.

    I don’t think expressing ideas oppresses or discriminates against anyone. This is certainly not the case if those ideas are actually the subject of the class itself.

    Do you think professors should only be allowed to express ideas that make their students comfortable?

  4. jackhudson says:

    I don’t think it’s part of the gay agenda to dismiss professors based upon their description of ethical theories and how they apply to real world situations. This is the case of one student becoming uncomfortable and making a bad complaint.

    Of course, according to others, Howell shouldn’t have had his contract renewed for other reasons anyway.

    The reason is the same in both cases; the ideas he was teaching (which in this case conformed to the subject of his class) made someone uncomforatable. It would be exactly the same as if he had expressed why he thought gay marriage was right in accordance with some belief system he was supposed to teach, and got fired for expressing that idea.

  5. I agree that his contract shouldn’t be denied renewal over an attempt to explain a position (regardless of his stance on the position). But his philosophy, at least what we can see, is piss poor.

    My school is small, but I’ve been fortunate enough to have an excellent philosophy teacher (who plays devil’s advocate constantly). Given how well I know his grading style, I can’t imagine him not deducting points for much of what Howell has said. He would give him credit for reasoning through some things, but other aspects of what he says are so poorly reasoned, I just don’t see full credit being given. And I’m not even talking about upper level undergraduate courses.

  6. Hell, I think your attempts to defend an anti-homosexual position have been vastly better than what I see from this guy.

  7. George W. says:

    The “Gay Agenda” is a ridiculous concept. Gays have a right to the common human respect afforded every law abiding minority. The Church has fought against this courtesy being extended to Jews and Blacks in the past, and I think this traditionalist resistance is no different. The Homophobia of today is the anti-semetism, segregationist, and apartheid movements of yesteryear, repackaged now that mankind has slowly divested itself of hate. What icky things go on in the bedrooms of our nation should trouble you not, the basic rights afforded to them do not diminish your rights.
    That said, I don’t understand how someone could take a class in a subject that is overtly hostile to homosexuality and not expect the professor to explain that hostility.
    It would be like attending Mel Gibson’s Church of the Holy Family and being Jewish.

  8. jackhudson says:

    The “Gay Agenda” is a ridiculous concept. Gays have a right to the common human respect afforded every law abiding minority. The Church has fought against this courtesy being extended to Jews and Blacks in the past, and I think this traditionalist resistance is no different.

    I am not sure what ‘courtesy’ you are talking about; the church has never opposed Jews and Blacks getting married.

    The Homophobia of today is the anti-semetism, segregationist, and apartheid movements of yesteryear, repackaged now that mankind has slowly divested itself of hate. What icky things go on in the bedrooms of our nation should trouble you not, the basic rights afforded to them do not diminish your rights.

    If it were true that the gay agenda consisted of ‘we want to have sex with each other in out homes’ then you might have a point; but the reality is gays already have that, and very few have objected to it. I think this is because most realize there is a strong argument that to do otherwise give the state power in our society it should not have.

    The reality is gays aren’t happy with that; they desire state sanction, an official imprimatur to behavior for their behaviors. They don’t want society to allow them to live a certain way, they want society to modify itself so their behavior is seen to be acceptable.

    That said, I don’t understand how someone could take a class in a subject that is overtly hostile to homosexuality and not expect the professor to explain that hostility.
    It would be like attending Mel Gibson’s Church of the Holy Family and being Jewish.

    That is a wholly valid point.

  9. George W. says:

    There was a time when the state forbade interracial or interfaith marriage. I hold to the validity of my comparison.
    The “gay agenda” doesn’t ask Christians to stop detesting their behavior on scriptural grounds. It doesn’t even require Churches to perform or bless marriages between same-sex partners.
    What is being asked is that the state afford to same-sex couples the right to have their relationships recognized in a legal capacity on equal footing with heterosexual unions. In no way does that sanction lessen or cheapen the relationships of heterosexual couples. I do not love my wife less, nor is our marriage less meaningful if two men or two women can do it as well.
    The facts are that homosexuals “behave” perfectly well in society, homosexuality is only amoral within a religious context.
    In a secular society we have no room for moral pronouncements if the actions in question do not infringe on the rights of others in society.
    Our country should no more have a law regarding eating pork, or making idols as laws forbidding homosexuals having state sanctioned relationships.

  10. jackhudson says:

    I actually discussed the comparison of gay marriage laws to anti-miscegenation laws here.

    The purpose of those laws, detestable as they were, was to keep people from producing children of mixed race. Allowing people of various races to marry does not however re-define the fundamental purposes (biological, social, traditional and legal) of marriage – sanctioning gay marriage does.

    Our country should no more have a law regarding eating pork, or making idols as laws forbidding homosexuals having state sanctioned relationships.

    So you are arguing the government should sanction the making of idols? You don’t see a 1st amendment problem with the government sanction of idol production?

  11. George W. says:

    I’m claiming a law either pro or anti idol making would be a 1st amendment problem. That’s precisely why we have no such laws.

  12. jackhudson says:

    Well, yes, exactly – this might be an argument for the government to get out of the marriage business all together, but it wouldn’t be an argument for sanctioning a new sort of marriage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: