Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, "First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior." (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).
Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled Catholicism and Modernity (New York: Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox."
Dr. Jeff Mirus gets it. He writes, "The writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag. Indeed, gay marriage is the perfect totalitarian wedge, not least in a country like the United States.." (See full article here). There is reason for concerm. In the comments section of a previous thread, I wrote:
"Clark University's definition of 'heterosexism' is nothing less than an assault on Catholic moral teaching. The university, in its definition of the term, asserts that, 'At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations..'
The Catholic Church does not fear homosexual persons nor does she have a hatred for such persons. On the contrary, the Church teaches rather emphatically that homosexual persons, '..must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided..' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).
The key phrase here is 'unjust discrimination.' Not all discrimination is unjust. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes clear, 'no ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.' (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 2).
The CDF document continues: 'There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.' (ibid, No. 4).
Obviously this teaching is not accepted by everyone. But the suggestion that this teaching is unjustly discriminatory and that it leads to 'hatred' and 'fear' toward homosexual persons is both mean-spirited and, in itself, evidence of discrimination. In this case, Christianophobia."
And then a reader named Wendy left a comment asking, "..why does the Dean of Students place the definition of 'heterosexism' alongside other terms such as 'rape' and 'sexual assault' while indicating that they are 'related terms'? http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm
17 comments:
It won't be long before college campuses in this country ban the Bible as "hate speech."
Mr. Melanson, your posts have been prophetic on this point. So too Dr. Mirus' warning:
"No group is more hateful to modern society than the perceived moralistic prigs who, out of what most perceive as religiously-motivated prejudice, seek to diminish the personal sexual liberty of others. Nothing could be more obvious in our current culture than that such people must be silenced and, if necessary, restrained. Moreover, it seems only right and just that their denunciation of the gay lifestyle and their opposition to gay marriage should be criminalized. In fact, it should be criminalized in the name of liberty. That is why gay marriage is the lie that will create the next Gulag."
From the look of things, Clark University is doing its part to hasten the acceptance of the idea that opposition to "gay marriage" should be criminalized.
Before the Gulag Doctor Mirus speaks of, it will first be necessary to place Catholics in an intellectual ghetto. This is what Clark and other universities are trying to do. If people who oppose sodomite sex and same-sex "marriage" can be categorized as "retarded homophobes," "backward Christians" and "superstitious fanatics," it will be easier to relegate such people to modern-day concentration camps or to simply put them to death.
Sodomy belongs very near to the category of rape, and it is certainly a form of sexual abuse, even if it is consensual. I said it before, I'll say it again: we must resist them to their face and hold to our convictions, come what may.
At this point, what is on the line is Clark University's credibility as an institution of higher learning. Much of that credibility has been forfeited by engaging in radical homosexual propaganda and Christianophobia. Parents, look elsewhere when thinking about where you want to send your kids.
In my four years at Clark University I have never seen anyone act under the assumption that to be Christian is to be a perpetrator of heterosexism.
I would like to point out that the title of the ClarkU document you quoted is "A Definition of Rape, Sexual Assault and Related Terms." It is under a section called "Survivor's Guide." Anyone who has been victimized and overcomes or is working to overcome such an experience is a survivor.
And knowing that "corrective rape" or the practice of a man raping a lesbian to "cure her" exists leads me to believe that there is a link between heterosexism, homophobia, and rape or sexual assault.
MS @Clarku, Clark University, in its definition of the term heterosexism, asserts that, "At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations.."
But the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, says that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11).
The Church's teaching, rooted in Divine Revelation and the Natural Law, maintains respect for the homosexual person while insisting that "There are no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family....Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.." (Considerations, No. 4).
Now it seems that you are suggesting, as either a student or faculty member of Clark University, that there is indeed a connection between Catholic moral teaching and rape or sexual assault. You write, "..knowing that 'corrective rape' or the practice of a man raping a lesbian to 'cure her' exists leads me to believe that there is a link between heterosexism, homophobia, and rape or sexual assault."
Are you seriously suggesting that the Church's moral teaching is nothing more than a "heterosexism" which, because it "assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships," will result in so-called "corrective rape"?
Is this the logic behind Clark's definition of "heterosexism"?
Until the administration at Clark University addresses these serious concerns, many are going to distrust the institution. We need answers as to why opposition to homosexuality is linked with criminal activity at Clark. And we need those answers now.
Although I have published many comments from individuals claiming to be students at Clark University (see the previous thread on Clark at this Blog), I have found it necessary to delete over a dozen others which have been nothing short of hateful and inappropriate. These hateful comments have also come from persons claiming to be students at Clark University. If this is true, it does not reflect very well on that institution. I have been denounced as a "homophobe," a "bigot," as a "hypocrite" and as "ridiculous." One individual suggested that I am an idiot who doesn't deserve to live.
As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books, Manchester, NH): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).
The students I have heard from (for the most part) are not interested in objective truth or authentic dialogue. They have not shown any interest in respecting the demands of truth.
And this shouldn't come as a surprise. They have been molded to avoid critical thinking and to regurgitate Christianophobic propaganda which they have heard repeated over and over like a mantra.
I think the federal government should withhold any federal monies for Clark University until this matter has been thoroughly investigated. I don't appreciate my tax dollard being spent to promote hatred and intolerance toward those who are opposed to homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."
Robert, Clark is a private university. It receives no federal funding, and it is free to hold and teach whatever beliefs it so chooses. That's why it's a private institute.
1921Diner, Clark is currently ranked in the top 40 colleges by US News and Forbes, among other prestigious rankings (http://www.clarku.edu/aboutclark/rankings.cfm). It seems that this forfeit of credibility you speak of exists only in your imagination.
Paul, again, Clark is not tying the Catholic Church's teachings to rape and sexual assault but rather the mistreatment of gay individuals based on their sexuality to these heinous acts. You left out the beginning of Clark's definition of heterosexism where it explicitly states the systematic, day-to-day mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual individuals. That harassment is what the school equates to rape. Not the doctrines of the Bible. You are overstepping the connection.
You are wrong Bill. As I said in the comments section of this Blog's most recent post:
That is precisely what Clark University is attempting to do. The college, in its definition of heterosexism, says that, "At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm."
But they do. As this article on the Natural Law explains: "We know by reason that the natural law tells us that, for example, food is for sustenance. If one were to decide that buying food, cooking it and eating it, are a waste of time and money, and therefore he will not eat, such a person would starve to death. We need food to live. This is the law of nature, and of God Who made nature. Now suppose someone were to decide that they were going to eat for pleasure alone and, not wanting to experience the natural result of such activity, deliberately induce vomiting to keep from gaining weight. Such an activity is not ordered towards the natural process of eating and digestion. This fact is recognized by mental health professionals and known as an eating disorder called bulimia. In this instance the secular community agrees with the Church’s teaching. Such action is obviously disordered. Food is meant to go on a one-way trip. The organs of digestion are designed for this process.
In the same way the sexual organs are designed for certain functions. God made us male and female, “...male and female he created them.”(GEN 1:27) The male and female bodies, to state an obvious fact, are different. By light of reason alone we can tell that the male and female organs are for made for different purposes. We can also determine by reason alone what those purposes are. When someone uses his or her sexual organs for purposes other than those for which they are specifically designed, such actions are disordered. Just as with bulimia, “...‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law.”(CCC2357) It is infinitely more disordered to use our sexual organs for uses other than their intended purpose than it is to deliberately throw up our supper. It does not matter if one enjoys throwing up, or has real feelings for someone of the same gender. It is not the way God wants us to be. We can tell by the bodies He gave us."
http://www.mncuf.org/honat.htm
The Natural Law shows us that sexual organs are designed for certain functions. Clark University is saying that if you believe this, and as a result believe that heterosexual relationships represent the norm, you are engaging in discrimination and your conduct is comparable to rape and sexual assault.
By the way Bill, you are wrong on another point as well. Clark does receive federal monies.
"As a condition of receiving federal funding, Clark University is required to certify the time and effort that employees spend on federally funded projects.."
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/
research/compliance/time_
effortreporting.cfm
Clark DOES include "heterosexism" as a "related term" with rape, sexual assault and stalking.
http://www.clarku.edu/offices
/dos/survivorguide/definition
.cfm
It is pointless to deny this.
So if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that this is normative, you are labeled as heterosexist by Clark.
Bill is conveniently leaving out the fact that Clark University, in its definition of heterosexism, says, "At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships."
The core of something is defined as "The basic or most important part." So Clark's definition of heterosexism hinges upon this most basic part or core: that heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm.
The Natural Law tells us that sexual organs are designed for certain functions. To suggest that seeing reality amounts to discrimination is absurd.
In a comment directed at me, Bill wrote, "You left out the beginning of Clark's definition of heterosexism [actually I had already published the definition in its entirety so Bill is being dishonest here] where it explicitly states the systematic, day-to-day mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual individuals. That harassment is what the school equates to rape. Not the doctrines of the Bible.."
Nice try Bill. But the definition reads as follows:
"Heterosexism is the systematic, day-to-day, institutional mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual people by a heterosexually dominated culture. At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships. Out of heterosexism stems homophobia which is the fear and/or hatred of gays, lesbians, transsexuals and bisexuals because of their sexual orientations."
There is no mention here of "harassment." The word used is "mistreatment." And, after speaking of such "mistreatment," the definition suggests that "a heterosexually dominated culture" oppresses homosexuals by assuming that "that heterosexual relationships represent the norm."
In other words Bill, the Catholic Church's refusal to recognize homosexual unions could easily be interpreted as the "systematic, day-to-day mistreatment of gay, lesbian, transsexual, and bisexual individuals."
You inserted the word "harassment" Bill. And you are being dishonest. The school mentions some vague notion of "mistreatment" and then says that, at its core, heterosexism is rooted in the notion that "heterosexual relationships represent the norm."
Got it?
Bill's approcah is one of dishonesty. He just ignores passages which are not convenient to his case.
Earlier he denied that Clark receives federal funding. I proved him wrong bt he just fell silent. I found this at Clark's website:
"As a condition of receiving federal funding, Clark University is required to certify the time and effort that employees spend on federally funded projects.."
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/
research/compliance/time_
effortreporting.cfm
Bill is typical of today's "clarkie." Facts just get in the way.
Post a Comment