1/18/2006

The Fundie's War on our Young People

Let me preface this with saying that if you look at the track record of the Heterosexist Dominionist Theocratic Fundamentalists you'll see a steady attack on young people. From their attempts to rid schools of gay teachers and Gay-Straight Alliances to now moving to the college setting where institutional policy on respect and tolerance for "all people" is an affront to their free speech rights.

The story below links to the American Family Association's Agape Press, which outlines their displeasure.

Radical right angry that colleges are promoting "respect [for] the dignity of all persons"

Some of the examples of college academic rules that the religious right is outraged over:
* A ban on "insults, taunts, or challenges directed toward another person" (Appalachian State University).
* A practice of outlawing "statements of intolerance" (North Carolina Central University).
* A requirement that all students "respect the dignity of all persons" and "strive for the openness to learn from differences in people" (UNC Asheville).
* A policy outlawing "disrespect for persons" (UNC Greensboro).


John Aravosis of Americablog asks a great question on this: What exactly are conservative Christian activists promoting that they're afraid of these kind of campus policies?

Yes, what are they afraid of? If there is a respectful debate and discussion in the classroom on hot topics of the day (as there should be on a college campus), what exactly are these folks wanting to say on campus that they are worried will be misconstrued as disrespectful?

Personally, I don't think this has anything to do with free speech as being the only one with the right to speak. Being aware of the college environment, I've seen and heard of conservative students taking offense and even suing professors for not siding with their views. There is even a website for students to report such "violations": Students for Academic Freedom.

USA Today covered this trend and this group:

On about 90 campuses, meanwhile, students have joined Students for Academic Freedom, created four months ago by leftist turned conservative activist David Horowitz. They argue that campuses are overwhelmingly liberal and demand that administrations seek a more balanced point of view among faculty and in programs such as lecture series.
...
Some professors stress that part of their job is to challenge students to question their beliefs. "We're in the business of helping people become critical thinkers," says Shippensburg sociology professor Debra Cornelius. Though she acknowledges her own liberal politics, she says, "We on a daily basis struggle with ... making sure people behave in a tolerant way (without) chilling speech."
...
Conservative students aren't the only ones feeling pinched. In May, Wesleyan University President Douglas Bennet banned a long-standing tradition, particularly popular among gay rights groups, of writing messages in chalk on sidewalks. Some faculty were targeted by name, and increasingly vulgar obscenities, sexual and racial slurs had spurred complaints.

But the most well-oiled attack is driven by conservative and Christian students, "who basically feel they're targets for getting their minds dry-cleaned to think the right way," says Jordan Lorence, a litigator for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona Christian organization involved in several lawsuits.


Is the question about being able to say anything you want as offensively as you want or about civil discourse? If a person wants civil discourse, no problem. Don't worry about the school policies. If you want to harass and offend others, I can see where these folks would want to change policy. When there is no line to distinguish constructive discussion from hate speech, everything is open game.

9 Comments:

At 09:13, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I had a feeling I'd turned over a rock.

Fine let's get rid of speech codes across the board so I can write "Die Fundie Die" anywhere I want or yell at and harass anyone with a fishie or WWJD? sticker on their car.

There is thought and there is action. You can have manners when talking face-to-face with someone like your momma taught you and still think what you wish or you can act and behave hateful to someone's face.

I don't give a crap what you think and it's possible to talk respectfully, but I don't want nor deserve to be insulted, harassed, or bullied under the guise of free speech.

 
At 07:24, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Pushing aside all the BS you're throwing here. Let me ask a VERY simple question:

In a classroom setting, would the comment "All homos need to die of AIDS and go away" be constructive discussion and debate or is it really just a negative attitude about a group?

If I was a student and I was to say in a class, "All Christians are hateful bigots" is that constructive to a debate or is it negative generalization of a whole group?

I don't see anything constructive per se about the comment. Certainly, students can have and can express these beliefs. (BTW, I've actually heard these comments expressed by students. They're real.).

Could they learn to express their beliefs in a more constructive manner? Yes, I think so. Should they learn how to support and debate their views? Certainly, they should.

Hopefully, this is what a college education (actually, it should be learned long before college) can do for a student. Make them think about what they believe and why they believe it. If they can look at both sides of an issue and can still come away with their beliefs intact, then they've learned even more about their opposition. If their beliefs evolve and change, then maybe they weren't that strong to begin with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care what people think or believe about me. I wish they didn't, but hate never disappears. Decorum, respect for others, and decency towards others are actions that can and should be taught, instilled, and managed. Education can and should do that too.

 
At 14:09, Blogger Greg said...

Since your post has a slur in its title, i think you are the last person who should be talking about the value of tolerance -- you have already shown yourself to be an intolerant bigot.

You would be facing sanctions if you attended Appalachian State, North Carolina Cental, UNC-Asheville or UNC-Greensboro.

After all, you are insultin persons of a certain religious background, committing an offense against them and their dignity, and indicating a lack of openness to learning from them.

And all you did was use one little word that indicates your unwillingness to engage in respectful debate -- you clearly want to have the right to say what you want rather than engage in civil discourse, based upon you hate speech in this post. After all, we have to draw the line somewhere.

 
At 23:45, Blogger dorsano said...

I call them the "righteous right" myself Mr. or Mrs. chair because they they don't seem to understand that people of faith can come to different conclusions than they do

They seem to think that they have first hand knowledge on what is right and wrong in God's eye.

 
At 20:58, Blogger dorsano said...

I'm not sure whom you're responding to lovin'it - but many people have read the Bible and have come to different conclusions on a whole lot of things -

you might count the number of different branches of Christianity for starters.

And if you care to, you might count the number of Christians we killed in the name of God

In fact - it wasn't too long ago that we hunted witches and burned women in the name of God.

 
At 14:50, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Well, I think it's ironic that gays get called all kinds of disrespectful and downright nasty names and no one, esp. the uber-religious types, bat an eye.

Yet, I say "fundie" in my title and it's like {{{gasp}}} "you can't say that!!!! You religious bigot!"

Whatever! I calls it as I sees it. When you have an uber-fundie organization that attacks and attacks and attacks ANYTHING remotely "gay," they get put out there for a little bit of it back.

I know some decent Christian folks and they've never said a cross word to me and I haven't said one to them. But, then again...they're also not members of the AFA and they don't support the beliefs of the AFA.

If you lay with dogs, you get fleas, honey.

 
At 19:39, Blogger dorsano said...

In the same way, "liberal" churches who reject scripture as the final authority, always set up some fallible human's opinion as the final word.

I guess Catholics aren't Christians in your interpretation of things.

Though anyone who thinks this Pope is liberal hasn't been paying attention.

 
At 22:13, Blogger dorsano said...

dorsano - The Catholic church teaches that scripture is inerrent. Why would I think they are liberal

The Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine and in interpreting scripture

which is your definition of "liberal" -

"liberal" churches who reject scripture as the final authority, always set up some fallible human's opinion as the final word.

The Catholic church doesn't "reject" scripture - but it replaces your fallible human who interprets scripture for himself with one falliable human who interprets it for everyone.

Like I said - Christians can come to different conclusions

Only the self-righteousness believe that they know better than anyone else how God will judge their neighbors.

 
At 21:12, Blogger dorsano said...

the catholic church does NOT teach that it is impossible to understand scripture apart from the interpretation of the pope.

That's not quite true - the Pope always trumps.

But what the Catholic church does teach is that I am accountable before God for my actions - not the Pope - there is a component of personal responsiblity in the Catholic faith.

That's a weak description - it's more a paradox of sorts - the Pope is infallible - but you're paying the bill.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home