Exclusion = diversity
No priest for you!
This story reminded me very much of a comic I saw once. It showed room full of very different people. Standing in the room was a man wearing a cowboy hat and a belt buckle that said GOP. As an aside, one of the other members of the room was saying "Hey let's not take this diversity thing too far!" Implying that those who claim they support diversity and it's views obviously cannot tolerate certain people.
This seems to be very much the case here. How can a group claim to be having a diversity week and yet only present one side or one view? I've often wondered this with regard to university speech codes as well. Even if everyone looks different, if they all believe only one thing, how is that diversity?
Nick
This story reminded me very much of a comic I saw once. It showed room full of very different people. Standing in the room was a man wearing a cowboy hat and a belt buckle that said GOP. As an aside, one of the other members of the room was saying "Hey let's not take this diversity thing too far!" Implying that those who claim they support diversity and it's views obviously cannot tolerate certain people.
This seems to be very much the case here. How can a group claim to be having a diversity week and yet only present one side or one view? I've often wondered this with regard to university speech codes as well. Even if everyone looks different, if they all believe only one thing, how is that diversity?
Nick
Comments
Ann Arbor == ultra do gooder liberal nuts.
"Don't you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism. Isn't that what this government was founded to get away from?" Rosen asked. "Isn't that how we got to book burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?"
Yeah, not inviting people to preach bigotry is just one step away from the Nazi totalitarianism. Wow, Godwin's law invoked in the first post.
Expressing different opinions is fine, but the line that can't be crossed, IMO, is when a group wants to preach hatred of a specific group of people based on race, culture, or sexual orientation. I'm with the school on this one.
Originally posted by trumptman
No priest for you!
This story reminded me very much of a comic I saw once. It showed room full of very different people. Standing in the room was a man wearing a cowboy hat and a belt buckle that said GOP. As an aside, one of the other members of the room was saying "Hey let's not take this diversity thing too far!" Implying that those who claim they support diversity and it's views obviously cannot tolerate certain people.
This seems to be very much the case here. How can a group claim to be having a diversity week and yet only present one side or one view? I've often wondered this with regard to university speech codes as well. Even if everyone looks different, if they all believe only one thing, how is that diversity?
Nick
The article and your cartoon have very little in common.
Should the NAACP invite skinheads to their panel discussions too?
Let the anti-gay Priest have his own panel discussion. I'm sure that would be a fun time.
Gee why would people wanting to talk about tolerance be resistant to listen to intolerant people? How is tolerance a side? "hey I know you wanna accept people of all race religions and gender background but let me tell you why your wrong"
Originally posted by trumptman
Don't you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism. Isn't that what this government was founded to get away from?" Rosen asked. "Isn't that how we got to book burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?"
Astonishing, really astonishing. This is one pristine example of newspeak.
FWIW, the rabidly homophobic Nazis came to power, not least because nobody really took the chance to end their hate speech.
But I guess no skewing of reality is absurd enough if you are out on a verbal gay-bashing rampage.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_11...70848149574609
Trmptman trying to scold people for being intolerant...
when the nations Conservatives want us to just shut up.
Well this "unamerican saddam loving bush hating... attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists" citizen.. will NEVER shut up.
Originally posted by trumptman
Implying that those who claim they support diversity and it's views obviously cannot tolerate certain people.
This seems to be very much the case here.
How can a group claim to be having a diversity week and yet only present one side or one view?
I've often wondered this with regard to university speech codes as well. Even if everyone looks different, if they all believe only one thing, how is that diversity?
Nick
Do you read your articles before posting?
"He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined."
That just totally $$$$ing kills whatever point you had. My god.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_11...70848149574609
Nice link.
The majority of clergy in North America would stand opposed to homosexual behaviour, but would have no problems condemning gay-bashing, schoolyard insults and generally disrespectful behaviour toward homosexuals.
Students know when they're being indoctrinated. All the exclusion served to do was make it easier to dismiss the whole thing.
Yeah, let's run opposition to gay rights underground, and lump religious people who have good faith objections with violent thugs who are eager to blame their problems on other people.
That'll help modern society.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, not inviting people to preach bigotry is just one step away from the Nazi totalitarianism. Wow, Godwin's law invoked in the first post.
Disagreement = bigotry now? Amazing.
You hold an event called diversity week. During that event you hold a forum about homosexuality and religion. You should expect different views if you put together such an event and forum. If not, the school didn't even have to do any of it. I could see your point if the priest were just inviting himself on campus or something of that nature, but the school specifically held an event to present what it claimed were a diversity of views, including those, we presume that not everyone agrees with.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Do you read your articles before posting?
"He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined."
That just totally $$$$ing kills whatever point you had. My god.
I suppose you would have endorsed segregation. Seperate but equal, a well known and endorsed Democratic device.
Hey Shawn. What do you call a Diversity Week which only has one view? Isn't the point of having a diversity week getting multiple views out? If they had a seperate forum when would it be held? During the "we're also diverse, but the other group is too intolerant to let us speak week?"
She said school officials selected the panelists, pre-screened and approved questions and prohibited students from personally questioning panelists.
Sounds like propaganda being presented as open communication and discussion.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Here's a great blog entry by Ornicus
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_11...70848149574609
Trmptman trying to scold people for being intolerant...
when the nations Conservatives want us to just shut up.
Well this "unamerican saddam loving bush hating... attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists" citizen.. will NEVER shut up.
One of these days, I suppose I will understand why you link to blogs and expect me to give it any significance. The fact that someone writes freelance and posts their opinions to the web is supposed to impress me how again?
Hey, I'll link to myself since I post on the web as well. I've even been quoted a couple times in the L.A. Times on educational matters. So my view must have such overwhelming expertise, that just linking to it should prove I'm right.
Try harder... excluding views during a diversity week isn't diversity. Posting to a freelance writer who is pissed of at ideologues on the right and Bush doesn't change that.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Disagreement = bigotry now? Amazing.
You hold an event called diversity week. During that event you hold a forum about homosexuality and religion. You should expect different views if you put together such an event and forum. If not, the school didn't even have to do any of it. I could see your point if the priest were just inviting himself on campus or something of that nature, but the school specifically held an event to present what it claimed were a diversity of views, including those, we presume that not everyone agrees with.
Disagreement is not bigotry. Being anti-gay is bigotry. It doesn't matter if it's based on religion, or if the priest is a very nice man with a very nice family and a very nice home. He's still a bigot if he's anti-gay. And he can still express his views if he wants. Just not in this one particular place at this one particular time. He should get over it. Since when do we have a constitutional right to be on a panel discussion anyway? Is that the 28th Amendment or something? Come to think of it, why wasn't I invited to be on that panel discussion? I'm going to sue!
Eh, I'm just in a bad mood 'cause I was sick today and couldn't really enjoy any of that good Thanksgiving food. I knew I should have gotten that flu shot. Damn anti-gay bigots, it's their fault.
then I think about with a little Thought and understand perfectly that it is simply innapropriate to force the issue . . . especially when offered a panel which was turned down
It seems to me that this fellow was really after the getting a chance to raise just the sort of STINK that he has raised
so much so that he turned down a chance to talk so that he could GET PRESS about his "inability to talk and gee just look at how evil these Liberals are anyway!!"
Originally posted by pfflam
I can kind of see Trumps point . . . I mean it kind of feels wr5ong that this guy didn't get to speak
then I think about with a little Thought and understand perfectly that it is simply innapropriate to force the issue . . . especially when offered a panel which was turned down
It seems to me that this fellow was really after the getting a chance to raise just the sort of STINK that he has raised
so much so that he turned down a chance to talk so that he could GET PRESS about his "inability to talk and gee just look at how evil these Liberals are anyway!!"
Exactly.
Originally posted by BRussell
Disagreement is not bigotry. Being anti-gay is bigotry. It doesn't matter if it's based on religion, or if the priest is a very nice man with a very nice family and a very nice home. He's still a bigot if he's anti-gay. And he can still express his views if he wants. Just not in this one particular place at this one particular time. He should get over it. Since when do we have a constitutional right to be on a panel discussion anyway? Is that the 28th Amendment or something? Come to think of it, why wasn't I invited to be on that panel discussion? I'm going to sue!
Eh, I'm just in a bad mood 'cause I was sick today and couldn't really enjoy any of that good Thanksgiving food. I knew I should have gotten that flu shot. Damn anti-gay bigots, it's their fault.
In what manner was he attemping to be anti-gay? I ask this because as someone who supports many homosexual issues, I also know many of the claims regarding those issues are dubious. I just choose not to attack or question them.
The research on behavior and genetics is still very thin in all areas. To be able to claim, without a doubt or even with a fair degree of doubt that homosexuality is genetic is just not possible for those who care to disagree with the political agenda. They aren't members of the flat earth society. Perhaps someday they will be, but in the meantime they are entitled to their views and to express them without it being entitled bigotry. If someone found a genetic link for pedophilia tomorrow, I don't know if society would just accept it. Likewise genetic predispositions toward say violence by men, or alchoholism hasn't really changed the way society treats these individuals.
Now honestly BRussell, I mean this in the most polite and thoughtful manner. Do you think that if this man were going to speak of harming students or even hating certain students that they would have offered him his own panel? The panel was on religion and homosexuality. The topic was decided on by the gay/straight student alliance. It isn't like he was trying to stick his views about homosexuality into an inappropriate place. The forum was created in an obvious attempt to show students that religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality when that is obviously not true the clear majority of time.
Likewise it wasn't just that the priest was turned down. The students themselves couldn't really bring up issues to the panel. It was all very controlled to insure only one view would be presented, and would also only be questioned or challenged by students in an approved manner. (read only softballs need be tossed) It is propaganda posing as discussion.
Nick
The gay/straight student alliance
Wouldn´t that make it the student alliance? Why on earth do we use labels all the time? I am perfectly capable of discussing issues of society/sexuality without saying "as a straight man" at the beginning of each sentence. What your sexuality is should not be a qualifier in abstract discussions.
I do some computer/statistical work in an insemination clinic run by a homosexual midwife that inseminate all women as long as they are considered physical and mentally fit. The clinic is very controversial since insemination of single and homosexual women isn´t allowed in most northern european countries and only a loop hole (that the insemination being done by a mid wife and not a doctor) make it possible here. So from the outside the clinic is looked upon as very politicized but internally it is not that outspoken. When we discuss matters of sexuality, rights and politics its not me as a straight man and her as a homosexual woman. Its as two humans and the way arguments are presented is not any different than the way it would be if I discussed it with, say, some of my straight fiends.
Note this is not the same as saying that people aren´t discriminated based on what they are. But in debating those issues we should be able to distract from what we are ourselves and don´t give different people priority based on what group they belong to but what arguments they present.
Originally posted by trumptman
The research on behavior and genetics is still very thin in all areas. To be able to claim, without a doubt or even with a fair degree of doubt that homosexuality is genetic is just not possible [...] If someone found a genetic link for pedophilia tomorrow, I don't know if society would just accept it. Likewise genetic predispositions toward say violence by men
So, in you view to the world, homosexually is like pedophilia or violence?
And what's the point of it being caused by genes or by the way the brain is wired or by simply a different taste?