Nigee - Please remove your head from the sand, you mindless little sheep.

Krellin, what I am saying is that if Jamiet actually held the opinion of the link then he'd be in violation of this forum rule:

"Do not make targeted threads that are abusive toward another member, group of members, or social group. This includes but is not limited to posts regarding sexuality, race, and religion."

"You seek to dismiss any discussion before it even begins"
This guy is a dickhead but it serves a Christian anti-Muslim agenda to give these people air-time, so I can see why people on the right want to hear this guy speak, obviously not at their local church though....

A university is not a pulpit nor a parliament. It's instead a place for scientific and scholarly education, research and discourse.

And although their judgment is necessarily subjective, it is perfectly reasonable for university leaders to ban a speaker that doesn't align with these objectives. Such does is not at all a denial of that speaker's right to free speech, which he is after all free and able to pursue elsewhere.

So yeah, while I would defend the right of neo-nazis to preach the ridiculous notion that the holocaust never happened, I don't think a university should provide a platform for that kind of free speech. Nor do I think they should provide a platform for religious hate speech against gays.

And by the way, saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, just as long as they don't actually have sex with each other is much like saying you have nothing against baseball players just as long as they don't use bats. If you're gonna hate a group of people based merely on their sexual preferences then at least have the fucking decency to be honest about it.

When have Universities ever been a free forum for ideas?

I should specify, when in American history would Universities invite any speaker to speak on any topic? I don't recall reading about stormfront or the KKK making the University rounds.

@krellin, I mean the traditional, academic definition of liberal - not the illiberal perversion that a rather vocal subset of progressives seem to want it to mean.

@SC, I don't raise this example as an objection, because I am certain it's in the minority, but amusingly enough Ole Miss had a KKK demonstration on their campus not long ago (complete with a very robust counterdemonstration). In SEC country it is rather superb cannon fodder for teasing their fans.

What is the traditional academic definition of liberal? Isn't it essentially libertarianism? I'm pretty sure liberal in the strictest definition of the word aligns excellently with what libertarianism says it is. I don't understand why liberal is still used to describe democrats and I don't know why it's a swear word in politics. Progressive is a much more apt term, I think.

More to the point of the article itself, it seems they went a bit far by cancelling an entire event. That goes way overboard.

i'm just gonna rip the wiki definition b/c i'm lazy and it's good.

"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property."

it's perhaps most aligned with libertarianism, but those components, at least for most of americans, are supported regardless of alignment. progressives and conservatives simply have other priorities that sometimes supersede these (for progressives, social equality / fighting to upend traditional power structures; for conservatives, social tradition / fighting to sustain traditional power structures).

as for why liberal is still used to describe democrats, and why it's a swear word - liberal is a tribal code for democrat/progressive and has been for decades (ever since classical liberalism became known as libertarianism, social liberalism was just shortened to liberalism), and it's a dirty word because prominent conservative journalists/radio hosts/etc. made it one in the 80s and 90s (as part of outgrouping the democrat/progressive tribe). it's a well-known tribal descriptor, which is why it persists

Okay, yeah, most of that has been established over about a hundred years in some countries. I think liberalism finished sometime around the 19th and 20th centuries, and we should have moved on. It is hard to apply 19th century ideology to modern times, much like 19th century economy doesn't apply to us. We should make a new set of ideologies taking examples from previous ones.

The thing is, in the US, most of these are actually constitutional privileges. A lot of them are even guaranteed about the bill of rights. The only one that isn't self-evident is Free Trade.

Thanks for explaining why liberal is used to describe democrats - it clears up a lot of confusion.

"Just because only the government is *legally required* to allow free speech does not mean that it isn't an important value that should be promoted by private institutions as well. In particular, any university worthy of the name should treasure it."

Yes, I agree. Any institution worth a damn ought to value free speech, and any institution with worthy students ought to be given the opportunity to tear bigoted bastards like this guy to bits. That said, a private institution wouldn't *have* to honor that, whereas a public state university would, at least in the US. That's what my question was about.

The way the brits have been treating free speech, they're squandering their chances of becoming the 51st state

Wait! What? I thought the Brits couldn't join the federation because they don't like guns and because they do like universal health care. My mistake I guess.

Why, that's a perfect descriptor of Massachusetts, one of the most thoroughbred American states in the American land of America. I'm sure Britain can probably find their way in...

But really, who would want them? Dreary weather, an ocean separating them and that fellow King George or whoever taxing people without representation. Noooo thanks!

Although I guess it would be nice for snooty rich teens not to need a passport to go immerse themselves fully in the foreign, exotic culture of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant region

"
"@SC, I don't raise this example as an objection, because I am certain it's in the minority, but amusingly enough Ole Miss had a KKK demonstration on their campus not long ago (complete with a very robust counterdemonstration). In SEC country it is rather superb cannon fodder for teasing their fans. "

A demonstration is different then speaking at the university.

@oscar: "And by the way, saying that you have nothing against homosexuals, just as long as they don't actually have sex with each other is much like saying you have nothing against baseball players just as long as they don't use bats. If you're gonna hate a group of people based merely on their sexual preferences then at least have the fucking decency to be honest about it."

There's a vast difference in your analogy as to why it doesn't apply here. In Christianity, we believe that God is the sole author and decider of what is morally right and wrong, not us as people. In addition, we believe He has laid out His perfect plan for mankind and to stray from this is to sin. He says "Be holy because I am holy". We also understand our nature as sinners, not just some, but all, including myself and the most righteous of believers. Once a person gets "saved", meaning they recognize their sinful nature, their need for repentance (a turning away from sin) and their need for a Savior, we see we have been "bought with a price" and that we no longer belong to ourselves, but to God. We seek to live as he has called us to live and to leave behind the things that formerly separated us from Him. Homosexual it is one thing in a long line of those. A person cannot say that they have been separated for the purpose of God and still willfully engage in a lifestyle they have been called out from.

Bats are part of the rules of baseball. If you wanted to make an analogy, it's like trying to use a net instead of a glove.

@Tru Ninja

I believe the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves) is the sole author and decider of what is morally right and wrong, not us as people. In addition, I believe She has laid out Her perfect plan for mankind and to stray from this is to sin. She says "Be holy because I am holy." And since the IPU considers the use of baseball bats immoral and sinful, baseball players must repent and turn away from them.

So yeah, even in the face of your religious beliefs, the analogy still holds. Your personal religious beliefs are simply irrelevant in the wider society of people with all kinds of religious beliefs.

Therefore, when you hate homosexuals because you think your God tells you to, all that matters is that you hate homosexuals. The God part is irrelevant and does not diminish the fact that you hate homosexuals. And yeah, I consider labeling people immoral a form of hatred.

Hey what do ya' know? England has an Islamic WBCC.

@oscarjr74

On one hand I agree with you. The university has the right to run in an orderly manner and if the guy was being disruptive to the primary purpose of the school then he could and should be barred from the campus. It happens all the time in the US and rarely does anybody really have that hard a time with it.

On the other hand, I am curious as to your definition of hate speech. All I can find that TruNinja said was this.

"Christianity teaches that homosexual(ity) it is a sin, and, like all sins, is wretched in the sight of God."

I don't see him advocating the mistreatment of anyone. He didn't even use the word immoral. How is "homosexuality is a sin, among many others,and wretched in the sight of God" hate speech? Is it hate speech when people go in and heckle the Bible thread? Merely saying that you think something is wrong does not immediately mean that you hate the people engaged in it.

@Crazy Anglican.

"He [Tru Ninja] didn't even use the word immoral."

Well, he calls it a sin which implies its immorality. According to Webster-Merriam a sin is an offense against religious or moral law.

Note however that my original point wasn't even directed at Tru Ninja. It was actually more of a response to the statements by Imran ibn Mansur as quoted in the article linked by the OP. It only became an issue with Tru Ninja after Tru Ninja himself apparently felt that my homosexuality/baseball analogy warranted a response from him laden with irrational religious arguments which basically came down to him saying that hating homosexuality is okay because he believes his God says it is.

"I don't see him advocating the mistreatment of anyone."

Nor do I. And I didn't say he was either. You can hate people without advocating for their mistreatment though. Also, if you go around professing that hate, even if you do not actually advocate for their mistreatment, you are certainly still contributing to an atmosphere in which it is more likely that they will be mistreated. Just to be clear though, I nonetheless respect the free speech even of haters. I'm just saying that free speech is not necessarily without harmful consequences for others.

"I am curious as to your definition of hate speech."

I would simply define it as speech that illustrates that you hate some group or person, especially when you say or imply that others should hate them too. This in my opinion includes labeling a group of people as immoral just because of the sexuality with which they happen to have been born.

@oscar: let me put it another way, one that you may have a better time understanding.

Imagine you and everyone you know are sick and dying from a disease that is killing you from the inside. While you are wasting away, you hear of someone that has the cure, and you seek that person out. After finding them, you are indeed cured, and the only requests that are made of you for your healing are that you are to spend your remaining days helping others to get cured by directing them to the healer, and to not do those things that caused you to be sick and dying in the first place.

If you return to your friends and explain that they are dying and you have the way to the only thing that can cure them, and they get angry telling you that you're a bigot and a hater and to leave them alone, how would you handle it?

True Christians are motivated by love toward Christ to help their fellow man, fully knowing that people cannot see the problem for themselves. We recognize that we too were like the rest of the world but have been changed and want nothing more than to see that change in others, even if they don't want to see it in themselves.

You can hardly classify this as hate speech, but it's the basis for every sermon from any true church that preaches the Gospel.

Homosexual are no more or less moral than anyone else born on this earth because we are all born with a sin nature that desires things that are against God and holiness. We are greedy, covetous, self-seeking, selfish, wrathful people who are compelled to lie, cheat, steal, kill and destroy to get what we want. The degree that we behave like this varies person to person and in the form it takes, but the end result is the same. If you choose to not hear or try to understand where I am coming from, then it's your choice. I'm not here to persuade you, merely to explain that there are more than one viewpoint on matters and to explain the other side of the coin which you refuse to see exists.

Jesus Christ, Tru.

Pun intended. Thank you, I'll be here all week.

@tru: i'm not entirely sure if you just called homosexuality a "disease killing you from the inside" or if i misinterpreted that. please clarify.

also @tru, let me address this really quick:

"Homosexual are no more or less moral than anyone else born on this earth because we are all born with a sin nature that desires things that are against God and holiness. We are greedy, covetous, self-seeking, selfish, wrathful people who are compelled to lie, cheat, steal, kill and destroy to get what we want."

i hate how christians always think that this suddenly makes us understand them. that everyone is born sinful, and everyone is sinning all the time, and homosexuality is simply one of those sins. this actually makes things worse. i can understand why you shouldn't be "greedy, covetous, self-seeking, selfish, wrathful" and why you shouldn't "lie, cheat, steal, kill and destroy to get what [you] want." this, for me, all falls under the golden rule.

don't be greedy, because you wouldn't want others to be if you're in need.
don't be wrathful, because you wouldn't want others to be wrathful against you.
don't lie if you don't want to be lied to.
don't cheat if you don't want other people to cheat you.
don't steal if you don't want other people to steal from you.
don't kill if you don't want to be killed.
don't destroy if you don't want your property destroyed.

i fail to see how homosexuality belongs to this list. all these sins that you listed - they're rather rules of inter-human behaviour. that's what i actually like about the bible. but i fail to see how you can consider homosexuality a sin that is just as bad as killing people.

also, do you have homosexual friends? how do you explain this to them? the wonderful thing about the other sins you listed is that the golden rule is something alomst everyone understands, so with a bit of reasoning you get to these results even when leaving god out of the argument. however, how would you argue against homosexuality? "you must not love him because it says so in the bible." ?

i do understand where you're coming from, but it think this is a wrong and, more importantly, very dangerous interpretation of the bible.

This is an offensive thread, not sure a web diplomacy site is the right place for it. (if anywhere is the right place for it).

@Tru Ninja

Although kasimax has already quite adequately responded to your latest post, since it was directed at me I'll do so as well, in my own peculiar way.

"@oscar: let me put it another way, one that you may have a better time understanding."
"If you choose to not hear or try to understand where I am coming from, then it's your choice."

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I didn't understand you. It's a rather common error of deduction to draw such a conclusion. I heard you, I understood you, and I still concluded that you are hateful towards homosexuals. I realize though that you are not intentionally hateful towards them and that due to your irrational believe system you don't even realize that you are hateful towards them. You are nonetheless very much hateful towards them.

Now let me tell you a story about the hypothetical mister Tru Judoka who is a devout adherent of the hypothetical religion called Whitianity. Mister Judoka goes around saying that he believes that his God, which he calls Big Whitey in the Sky, is the sole author of what is right and wrong. And, according to mister Judoka, Big Whitey in the Sky says that being black is a sin and a disease from which people can and should be cured. Mister Judoka thinks that black people can turn away from sin and be redeemed if only they would take some medication to reduce their skin pigments. Or if they just wear make-up to hide their immoral skin color. Of course they would have to wear that make-up day and night both in public as well as in private. Big Whitey in the Sky sees everything after all.

Now when someone tells him that he is hateful towards black people, mister Judoka is very much surprised. Especially when they add that his religious arguments don't change the fact that he is hateful. Mister Judoka concludes that they must have misunderstood him. And so he goes on to explain how being black is merely one of many sins. There is murder, rape, child molestation, theft, fraud and yeah, also being black. We are all sinners in the eyes of Big Whitey in the Sky, not only black people. And also, Mister Judoka explains, he only tells black people to turn away from their sinful skin color because he loves them so much that he wishes for them to become adherents of Whitianity just like himself, as it will surely make them happy and save their souls. How can you call that hateful towards black people?

Race and sexual preference are entirely different things. Homosexual it is a sin because it goes against the natural design. Life is promoted when a man and a woman unite. There isn't a natural means of doing this between two men or two women.

@ kasimax: to say this is a dangerous interpretation of the Bible, I'm curious how you would translate things?

@tru: first of all, i say sexual orientation, not sexual preference, because this sounds like you can choose that, which is a ridiculous claim.

secondly, i don't know how i would interpret that, because i am no christian. i would simply discard it if i were christian, the same way i would discard the bible's ideas of corporal punishment for children or god's call for genocide against the amalekites (for those unfamiliar with the passage: "2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

i would simply try to ignore those and focus on what is important, namely the new testament.