ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Will the Last Baptist at Baylor Please Turn Out the Lights?

Amplify’d from www.albertmohler.com

Will the Last Baptist at Baylor Please Turn Out the Lights?

Baylor University has been the news lately, because of the vote by the university’s regents to allow up to 25 percent of the board to be non-Baptists. The Executive Board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, meeting February 21-22, grilled Baylor leaders on this decision — taken without consultation with the convention.

In an odd but revealing twist, the regents basically told the BGCT that they did not consult with leaders there because they knew what the answer would be. After all, the BGCT voted overwhelmingly to reject a similar proposal from Houston Baptist University just last fall. “If we offended you, we apologize,” said regent Gary Elliston. Trust me on this — many were offended.

Now that Baylor has taken the action, it appears that Houston Baptist University intends to reconsider the issue as well. It has been years since the BGCT has been so interesting to watch — and the case can be made that the BGCT sowed the seeds for all of this when it allowed Baylor to escape its oversight through the election of the school’s governing board.

Nevertheless, none of these issues match the one hardly noted as a matter of concern. Now, given the political dissonance between the BGCT and Baylor on the one side, and SBC conservative leaders on the other, the natural expectation is probably that an argument is about to be made in order to score political points. That is not the case with this article. Those issues can await some future consideration. The most urgent issue in this case could be of equal concern in the most conservative of contexts.

The real issue of concern should be a matter that is really not political at all. In speaking to the BGCT Executive Board, Baylor regent chairman Dary Stone explained the central rationale for the regents’ decision. As reported by The Baptist Standard:

“Only 31 percent of our freshman class claim the Baptist label,” he added, noting the percentage of Baptist students has been declining about 2 percent a year and likely will drop to 20 percent within this decade.

We might offer many suggestions to explain why the percentage of Baptist students has been dropping at Baylor, and some of these would have to deal with theological and ideological controversies. But there are no doubt other reasons as well, having little to do with theology or worldview. These would include the rising cost of private education, the increasing diversity of the population, and the shift to an evangelical identity that is perceptibly less specifically Baptist. In one sense, the very success of a school in terms of academic reputation and expanding institutional reach can dilute the percentage of Baptist students at any school.

Mr. Ellison pledged that Baylor would forever remain “a Texas Baptist institution.” Well, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, but I can cast ample doubt on the fulfillment of that pledge. If the percentage of Baptists in the student body reaches such perilously low levels — and is candidly expected to fall even more — the school will cease in any meaningful way to be a Baptist institution where it matters most.

Baylor has made its choice, but it will not be alone in facing this challenge. If Baptists are determined to retain their colleges and universities, they will have to show far greater resolve than in the past. They will have to make certain that their schools are the kind of schools that will attract Baptist students, earn the confidence of Baptist parents, and retain a clear accountability to Baptist churches. Otherwise, the Baptist label will mean little or nothing — merely a tip of the hat to ancient history.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Ken Camp, “Institutional Relations Dominate BGCT Executive Board Meeting,” The Baptist Standard, Wednesday, February 23, 2011.

Read more at www.albertmohler.com
 

Anti-Gay Pastor Busted Masturbating in Public

Amplify’d from gawker.com


New Orleans pastor Grant Storms was arrested for indecency after being caught punching the Pope in a park. Storms harassed partiers at gay festival Southern Decadence for decades. Now he's calling himself a "hypocrite." He beat us to it!


Read more at gawker.com
 

Supreme Court Clears God to Keep on Hating Fags

Amplify’d from gawker.com








John Cook


Supreme Court Clears God to Keep on Hating FagsIn a lopsided 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church can't be sued for disrupting a soldier's funeral with vile and stupid protests.

The Westboro crew showed up at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, a 20-year-old Marine who was killed in Iraq in 2006, with their "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." They picketed on public property about 1,000 feet from the church where Snyder's funeral was held, and broke no local laws. Snyder's father sued them for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, arguing that their chants and signs were verbal assaults rather than protected political speech.

Surprisingly—at least to those of who've seen the Court marching steadily rightward—Chief Justice John Roberts and seven of his colleagues disagreed, ruling that Westboro can't be sued for picketing "peacefully on matters of public concern at a public place."


The placards read "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "America is Doomed," "Don't Pray for the USA," "Thank God for IEDs," "Fag Troops," "Semper Fi Fags," "God Hates Fags," "Maryland Taliban," "Fags Doom Nations," "Not Blessed Just Cursed," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "You're Going to Hell," and "God Hates You." While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy-are matters of public import.


May fall short! The Court has been uncharacteristically rational lately. Just yesterday, it unanimously ruled that corporations have no claim to "personal privacy" under the Freedom of Information Act, shutting down an attempt by AT&T to essentially neuter the FOIA. A lot of Court watchers had worried that, given its deference to corporate rights in Citizens United, it would go the other way.

The only justice who dissented from the Westboro opinion was Samuel Alito, who, in the course of explaining why Westboro should be liable for damages over the protests, even discovered a new constitutional right: "Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace."

To those keeping score at home: There is no constitutional right to reproductive health services, because George Washington never actually wrote down "free abortions on demand" on parchment paper back in 1789. But when Alito gets upset about speech he doesn't like, rights abound.

[Image via Getty]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Class sex toy demonstration causes controversy

Amplify’d from www.dailynorthwestern.com

Class sex toy demonstration causes controversy

Prof. John Michael Bailey defends demonstration as educational

Update: Prof. John Michael Bailey has released his "account" of the incident. Read it here.


Northwestern students and administrators are defending an explicit after-class demonstration involving a woman being publicly penetrated by a sex toy on stage in the popular Human Sexuality course last week.


The optional presentation last Monday, attended by about 120 students, featured a naked non-student woman being repeatedly sexually stimulated to the point of orgasm by the sex toy, referred to as a "fucksaw." The device is essentially a motorized phallus.


The 600-person course, taught by psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey, is one of the largest at NU. The after-class events, which range from a question-and-answer session with swingers to a panel of convicted sex offenders, are a popular feature of the class. But they're optional and none of the material is included on exams.


Last Wednesday, Bailey devoted six minutes of his lecture to addressing mounting controversy regarding the incident and articulating his educational intent. He told the class he feared the demonstration would impact the after-class events, which are sponsored by the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, and he explained the educational purpose of the events.


"I think that these after-class events are quite valuable. Why? One reason is that I think it helps us understand sexual diversity," he said, according to an audio file obtained by The Daily.


"Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you," he said to loud applause at the end of his speech.


Bailey declined to comment for this article due to class preparations that he said last until Friday.


Chicago sex tour guide Ken Melvoin-Berg, who operated the device, emphasized the instructional value of the hour-long session, which also included a question-and-answer period.


"Talking about it doesn't always lend itself to this sort of thing," Melvoin-Berg said. "We're not just talking about it. We're actually doing it."


The shock value could be attributed to offended parties "not really knowing why they're upset, but knowing they're upset," he added.


NU administrators on Tuesday afternoon offered approving but cautious responses to the demonstration, with Dean of Students Burgwell Howard admitting he was "somewhat surprised" upon first hearing of the after-class presentation. The event, however, most likely "falls within the broad range of academic freedoms — whether one approves or disapproves," he wrote in an e-mail.


Laura Anne Stuart, the sexual health education and violence prevention coordinator at University Health Services, said after hearing of the event she consulted with a few members of SHAPE, the on-campus sexual health group she advises.


"As a sexuality educator, I do think that demonstrations of specific arousal techniques — those definitely have educational value," she said.


Stuart added that the sexual display's appropriateness depends on the class context, audience makeup and the professor's ultimate goals.


Bailey is no stranger to controversy. The 21-year professor, who repeatedly has been named to the Associated Student Government Faculty Honor Roll, including in 2010 and 2009, has drawn criticism for the research and conclusions of his book "The Man Who Would Be Queen," which explores male femininity and autogynephilia, a sexual fixation in which a man is sexually excited by the thought or image of himself as a female.


Interested attendees were warned five to 10 times about the intense nature of the demonstration, said McCormick senior Nick Wilson, who was present for the after-class event. He estimated at least 20 students began "trickling out" due to the warning.


McCormick junior Ellen Kourakos confirmed that Bailey urged students to leave if they felt uncomfortable but not to complain if they elected to stay and were offended. She described the sex-toy implementation as "a little more explicit than expected."


"It's not something you're exposed to every day," she said. "We've been reading about it, but actually seeing it was an educational experience."


Administrators and students interviewed said because the event was optional, it is a permissable addition to the class.


"Personally, I probably wouldn't want to witness that, but a student can take or not take the course," said Christine Woo, a member of NU's Christians on Campus chapter. "It's their choice."


Howard wrote in an e-mail Tuesday evening that hopefully students aimed to "plan their attendance accordingly," especially given the popular but provocative nature of Bailey's course.


Wilson downplayed the controversy, adding students were present because they chose to be and some were actually trying to move closer to the front of the room during the demonstration.


"Everybody's blowing it out of proportion," Wilson said. "It's one small thing. It's an intense thing, but it's a small thing."


patricksvitek2014@u.northwestern.edu

Read more at www.dailynorthwestern.com
 

How the Hell is Anti-Semitism Having a ‘Moment’?

Amplify’d from gawker.com








Brian Moylan


How the Hell is Anti-Semitism Having a 'Moment'?We're used to all sorts of crazy trends coming out of the world of pop culture, but the most recent one is incredibly alarming. What kind of world do we live in where anti-Semitism is not only acceptable, but the flavor of the moment?

It seems like, suddenly, we're deluged with stories about stars and other public figures ranting against Jews and appropriating Nazi signifiers as if this is somehow perfectly OK and, in fact, somewhat cool. There was Charlie Sheen ranting against Jews, John Galliano calling a couple in a Paris bar ugly Jews and talking about his love of Hitler, and Julian Assange blaming his prosecution on some sort of nefarious Jewish witch hunt. Now you can add one more to the list: Japanese pop group Kishidan appeared on MTV Japan this week decked out in Nazi SS uniforms. Even Lady Gaga's most recent video isn't that tone deaf.

All of the incidents come as Mel Gibson's anti-Jew rants and Jesse James' strange Nazi-inspired sex fantasies remain in our collective memory. Where is this all coming from?

I'm not naive enough to think that prejudice against Jews completely ended, but for a very long time, you'd never hear of people doing these sorts of things publicly, and if they did, the backlash would be so swift and furious it would keep others from doing anything similar. These days it seems like anyone with hate in their heart can get fucked up, talk a bunch of shit about the Jews, apologize for it, and go to rehab. Then all is forgiven.

The problem is, the hate doesn't go away. These people never really learn their lesson. They just go back home, put on their Nazi outfits and make sure that next time there isn't anyone around with a camera to release the pictures to the world. The myth is that as time passes, our society becomes more and more tolerant. But as the word "Nazi" becomes even more prevalent in civil discourse, is that really the case?

Let's get one thing straight: Tossing around the word "Nazi" is not cool, and neither is dressing up like someone from the regime. Just ask Prince Harry! And it will never be OK to use the swastika, even ironically. Using these terms or imagery, even to prove a point, always does more harm than good. And if you're trying to use it for a joke, let me clue you in on something: It's not funny.

I hate to be the scold, but don't we all know by now that hating entire groups of people—whether they be Jews, blacks, gays, or anything else (other than Martians, it's still OK to hate aliens)—just won't be tolerated anymore? I guess we don't because people are learning this hate from somewhere, and there are other people around them supporting this hate, and bolstering it with their approval (or silence). Maybe we just need to tell them once again to cut it out, to show them that they're wrong? Maybe one day we can change the tide and finally get to the utopia where everyone is accepted? Maybe we can't. But it's at sad times like this—when anti-Semitism is trending like a black-hearted Bieber on Twitter—that it seems like the only available future.

Read more at gawker.com
 

Wikileaks Suspect Bradley Manning Now Faces Possible Death Penalty

Amplify’d from gawker.com








John Cook


Wikileaks Suspect Bradley Manning Now Faces Possible Death PenaltyBradley Manning, the army intelligence analyst accused of leaking reams of classified data to Wikileaks, has been hit with 22 additional charges. One of them is "aiding the enemy," which carries the death penalty.

NBC News is reporting that the new charges—Manning already faces eight counts of illegally releasing classified information filed by prosecutors in July—are the result of an "intensive seven-month investigation" into Manning's relationship to Wikileaks.

Prosecutors had reportedly been stymied in their efforts to indict Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by the lack of evidence that he actively conspired with Manning to acquire the documents. It seems Manning wouldn't flip on Assange. The death penalty charge may be an effort to get him to change his mind.

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a charge of aiding the enemy requires an "intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things." One of the elements is "giving intelligence to the enemy," which involves providing information "that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents." It can be "conveyed by direct or indirect means."

So for the aiding the enemy charge to stick, it looks like prosecutors will have to prove that Manning actually intended to help the Taliban in Afghanistan (it's unclear who "the enemy" would be in the cases of the Iraq War documents, which were leaked after combat forces had withdrawn from that country, and the diplomatic cables). Moreover, they would have to prove that, by leaking documents to Assange, Manning was "indirectly" communicating with "the enemy." Seems like a stretch.

[Photo of Code Pink activists protesting outside FBI headquarters in January via AP]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Epic Body Scan Foia Docs Feb 2011


TSA Scanners: Coming to a Sidewalk Near You?

Amplify’d from gawker.com








Adrian Chen


TSA Scanners: Coming to a Sidewalk Near You?New documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) show that since 2006 the Department of Homeland Security has been running pilot programs with mobile backscatter x-ray scanners (the same technology in those full-body airport scanners everyone's pissed about). That means driving the things around and scanning trains, cars—even pedestrians. From Forbes:


One project allocated to Northeastern University and Siemens would mount backscatter x-ray scanners and video cameras on roving vans, along with other cameras on buildings and utility poles, to monitor groups of pedestrians and assess what they carried. In another program, the researchers were asked to develop a system of long range x-ray scanning to determine what metal objects an individual might have on his or her body at distances up to thirty feet.


They wanted to "Assess" the program? More like Asses, right? It's a slippery slope now down to DHS requiring all citizens to walk around in clear latex bodysuits with our dangly parts fully visible. [Forbes]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Corrupt Town Helpfully Puts Corrupt Scheme Into Memo Form

Amplify’d from gawker.com








Hamilton Nolan


Corrupt Town Helpfully Puts Corrupt Scheme Into Memo FormIn Bell, California, America's Most Corrupt Little Town, the police department's role was to 1) Help the "disabled" distance-runner police chief as he took all of the city's money; and 2) To find new ways to steal from the poor.

Hey, here's a new one: turn ticketing people and impounding cars into a fun game! A baseball game, and they'd keep score, and the officers could compete to see how they could extort the most money from civilians. What a suitably corrupt way to ensure that the maximum amount of revenue is squeezed from the populace to fund the enormous salaries of the crooks who run the city. And it would be extra awesome if they could put the whole scheme into memo form, to make things easier for the prosecutors who'd later be investigating the whole nasty business... oh, they did? Well then. Carry on.

[LAT]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Respected Legal Scholar: Is he or Isn’t He an American Citizen?

Amplify’d from www.westernjournalism.com

Respected Legal Scholar: Is he or Isn’t He an American Citizen?

The speculation about President Obama”s eligibility goes on and on, with no reliable access to the truth and with no end in sight. It is time for a new approach.

The Constitution provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Art II, Sec. 1. Neither the Constitution nor any federal law defines the term “natural born citizen.” Nor has the Supreme Court provided a definition that covers the questions presented in the Obama case.

In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: “[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

The Obama “Fight the Smears” website has published a digital photograph of a short-form “Certification of Live Birth” issued by the Hawaiian Department of Health that lists his place and date of birth as Honolulu on August 4, 1961. At that time, Hawaii”s practice was to issue also a long-form Certificate of Live Birth which contains more information, including the name of the hospital, or address of the place, where the birth occurred; the identity of the physician or other “attendant” at the birth; and the signature of the parent or other ”informant” certifying the accuracy of the information, etc. President Obama has not given the permission required by Hawaiian law for release of that long-form certificate.

Numerous lawsuits challenging Obama”s eligibility have been rejected by every court involved, including the Supreme Court of the United States. Some are still pending. The rejections have been based on various grounds, including the plaintiff”s lack of standing to sue and other specified and unspecified procedural grounds. No court has agreed to decide any of those suits on the merits.

Related posts:

Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com
Read more at www.westernjournalism.com