Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts is engaging in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."
In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).
Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.
Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).
In the New Order, those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and will use any and all means to achieve that end.
Clark University, the same institution which employs Doctor Abbie Goldberg, a radical homosexual activist, is most anxious to demonize those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds [Divine Revelation and/or the Natural Moral Law] and to paint such people as hateful and discriminatory. Those who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman are categorized as "heterosexists," as people who mistreat homosexuals and lesbians and who have the audacity to believe that heterosexual relationships are the norm. The University asserts:
"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." (See here).
By affixing the homophobic label on those who oppose the deviancy of homosexuality, Clark University (as with other institutions which seek to impose the radical homosexual agenda) hopes to intimidate those who oppose the psychopathology by dismissing their arguments based on right reason as "irrational fears."
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their blueprint for propagandizing Americans to accept homosexuality entitled "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," write that, "By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occure. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).
These tactics are employed not only via the media but by college campuses across the nation. As this article makes clear, the propagandists will stop at nothing to desensitize the "average American" and will even resort to violence if all else fails:
"In 1989, Dr. Chuck McIlhenny, pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, exercised his Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly and helped engineer the defeat of a domestic partnership law that would have forced the public to accept homosexual immorality by compelling everyone to treat two sodomites as a family.
McIlhenny and his family soon became the focus of intense and vicious sodomite hate. For three years, they received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day, and many callers swore to sodomize and then kill the McIlhenny's three daughters.
His home and church were firebombed. In 1990, sodomite groups repeatedly vandalized the church and home with graffiti like 'Dykes for Choice,' and attacked the crisis pregnancy center housed in the church. Cowardly, skulking sodomites broke the church's windows so many times the parishioners boarded them up permanently.
Institutions such as Clark University are encouraging this sort of climate by portraying Christians and others who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds as "bigots" who suffer from irrational fears and as religious fanatics (see here).
Clark University is fomenting hatred and Christianophobia. This shouldn't really come as a surprise. The Church proposes but the world imposes. See here.
49 comments:
Clark University classes routinely portray Christians as backward and as spewing vile hatred the likes of Fred Phelps.
This cheap tactic is morally reprehensible. Intelligent arguments from Revelation and the Natural Law are not presented. In this way, traditional Church teaching is made to be seen as fossilized and out of step with developments in science and particularly the field of psychology.
Will Clark ever present an objective course which examines in-depth the Magisterial teaching of the Church and the hard science which shows the problems associated with the "gay" lifestyle? Don't hold your breath!
From The Daily Star:
VATICAN CITY: Pope Benedict XVI warned against the grave dangers that "radical secularism" posed to the Catholic Church and society in general during a meeting Thursday with US bishops.
The United States was founded "on certain ethical principles" that have "eroded significantly in the face of powerful new cultural currents...," he said.
These trends, the pontiff continued, "are not only directly opposed to core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but increasingly hostile to Christianity as such."
While acknowledging the legitimacy of the separation of church and state, that did not mean the Roman Catholic Church should remain silent on certain questions, he added.
Are you getting this Christian parents? Don't send your children to Clark University where they will be treated as second-class citizens and even as "homophobic bigots" because of their Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Find a good Christian college where Gospel values have not been relegated to the waste bin and where your children will not be classified as "broken" because they follow the Lord.
Much of the research coming out of Clark University is indeed biased and contains the seeds of Christianophobia.
From Protect the Pope:
http://protectthepope.com/?p=4425
The practical cure to this, in everyday discourse and social relations, I have found, is to inform oneself of the beauty of the Catholic faith and the wisdom, revealed and gathered over 2000 years, which the Church possesses on human nature, and then to manfully hold this conviction in faith in the public square. With this foundation, one can hold one's own in public, come what may. The Church has good news about human sexuality, and we needn't allow the world to think that ours is simply an unpleasant, negative message. In practical terms, we can disagree with those who are in favour, and offer the reasoning for why homosexual behaviour is a bad deal, and then offer the remedy which is the Water of Life, Jesus Christ.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Fred Phelps is funded by anti-Christian bigots.
In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert H. Bork writes, "Moral objection to homosexual practices is not the same thing as animus, unless all disapprovals based on morality are to be disallowed as mere animus. Modern liberalism tends to classify all moral distinctions it does not accept as hateful and invalid. Moral views about sexual practices are particularly suspect.." (p. 113).
By classifying moral objection toward homosexuality as animus - as "heterosexism," Clark University is encouraging hostility against Christians and other religious groups. And this hostility is increasingly resulting in violence and other forms of aggression.
I am a Catholic student at Clark University. I learn and live in an accepting environment. This acceptance includes people of all faiths, sexualities, and races. One of our mottos is "Categorizing is not something we do here." This means not judging a person based on his or her sexuality OR religion. I am not discriminated against by my peers for my religion (despite the fact that Christianity is not one of the most common faiths here), nor do I discriminate against others because of their sexuality. This is the norm at Clark. I love living in a place where people will reach out to others, no questions asked.
I'm sorry, but as a former Clark student I have to disagree. I have NEVER encountered anti-Christian anything at the school. Clark is a very open-minded school, and we may argue against close-minded, non-objective statements. We have had pro-gay rallies at our school, via the GLBTA crowd, but I have never seen a school-wide or department-based action against Christians. Professor Goldberg's studies may advocate for homosexual equality, but she does not "demonize" the religious folk. I am a PROUD Clarkie, and ashamed that you would accuse our school of such.
Speaking as a Clark University student, I can assure you that Christians are not victimized at this institution. Although conservative, devout Christians are certainly in the minority, these students are in no way mistreated or looked down upon. There are many religious groups on campus, most of which represent different branches of Christianity. The Clark atmosphere is not one of discrimination of any sort, in fact it is quite the opposite. I don't believe you'll ever find a more welcoming and accepting student body than you would find at Clark.
Feel free to ignore empirical research all you like and form your own opinion about gays and lesbians, but don't condemn Clark and universities like it for encouraging students to be accepting of ALL people, regardless of their sexual orientation or religion.
Have you even been to Clark and taken a picture with me?
is this from The Onion?
Average clarkie, I totally disagree with you. Accusing people who oppose homosexuality (mostly Christians) of "homophobia" and "heterosexism" is morally offensive.
Yeah, this is a total shocker. As someone who's spent four years at this institution, I've never encountered anyone openly acting or speaking against someone due to their religious beliefs. Sure, there are the usual stereotypes here, and some people you run across won't be as open-minded. Not everyone in the world is... I know, it's hard to stomach. But I have never witnessed anyone at Clark, despite their anti-religious feelings, to be so aggressively against anyone's beliefs. I go to Clark. I'm an atheist. I grew up in the Bible Belt. It has never been an issue.
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.
Clarkie'12 writes, "I have never witnessed anyone at Clark, despite their anti-religious feelings, to be so aggressively against anyone's beliefs."
What is this but an acknowledgement that there are "anti-religious feelings" at the institution?
The problem isn't so much with the student body though. Clarkie'12 is right on that score. The problem is that the institution itself and some of the faculty, as evidenced by its acceptance of the propaganda terms "heterosexism" and "homophobia." Two terms which are used in a cheap attempt to silence moral opposition to the "gay" lifestyle.
I am a Catholic at Clark University. My religion is accepted (we DO have several religious groups on campus in which all religions are free to worship. One of which is called The Newman Club that I and several of my peers are free to join and practice Catholicism, for example.) Clark does not view religions as backward. I have never been ridiculed or told that I cannot practice my religion. I am proud to be part of this institution where all religions and sexual orientations are accepted. If you actually spoke to a student here you would know our philosophy is to live and let live and to never categorize another with different beliefs or sexual orientations. It is a place where diversity is accepted and I cannot believe that this is what others think of our school.
Steph claims that "our philosophy is to live and let live." Sure, unless you are Catholic and happen to accept the Church's teaching on homosexuality and believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Then you are guilty of "heterosexism" and "homophobia."
Actually Wendy, when I said live and let live, I am referring to how one is entitled to their own opinions at Clark University. No one has ever been told that they are "guilty of "heterosexism" and "homophobia.", as you said. So if one DOES choose to follow their religion and if they believe in marriage being solely between a man and a woman, they are FREE to say so and practice such morals. However, if there is another student that believes that marriage can be between a gay couple, the other student that believes only in heterosexual marriages cannot ridicule that student for believing something different. No student's beliefs and morals are placed higher than another student's beliefs and morals. We all live in harmony here regardless of what you have been told. That is what I meant by live and let live.
I think Clark is just going down hill intellectually. The school has succumbed to a humanism which is not authentically human and which is antagonistic toward Christianity and its doctrines. I am also troubled by the idea, promoted by Clark, that people who define marriage in the traditional manner are somehow hateful and bigoted.
Steph, you wrote that, "when I said live and let live, I am referring to how one is entitled to their own opinions at Clark University. No one has ever been told that they are "guilty of 'heterosexism'and 'homophobia.',as you said. So if one DOES choose to follow their religion and if they believe in marriage being solely between a man and a woman, they are FREE to say so and practice such morals."
Is that right? Then 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
Is rape tolerated on campus? Sexual assault? No right? If "heterosexism" is lumped along with these as a "related term," what is the implication?
Wendy, It seems that you are trying to make an argument without the experience and in turn attacking others within this blog that are trying to make their voice heard. It is important for the Clark community to specify that no type of discrimination is accepted in the community. That is not to say that anyone is prevented from believing or practicing their beliefs.
And then there is this gem from Deacon Nick Donnelly in the UK:
"UK government advisers on the family in 2011 have shown the depth of their antipathy towards the traditional family in public documents and statements.
The Daily Mail reports:
‘The state-funded national adoption agency provoked a row earlier this year after branding opponents of gay adoption ‘retarded homophobes’in a guide for homosexual couples. In the guide,which had to be pulped,the British Association for Adoption and Fostering told would-be adopters:‘Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge,so don’t let your worries about society’s reaction hinder your desire to give a child a loving caring home.’
Professor Stephen Scott,director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners,said evidence showed that children raised by gay women went on to do better in life. ‘Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman,’he declared.
Professor Scott is thought to have been drawing on research from Birkbeck College and Clark University in Massachusetts,which suggests that children brought up by female couples are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male."
http://protectthepope.com/?p=4425
Research drawn from Clark University. Does Clark University also hold that opponents of gay adoption are "retarded homophobes"?
Let me get this straight. Clark University, in its definition of heterosexism, says that,"At its core, heterosexism assumes that heterosexual relationships represent the norm and are, therefore, implicitly superior to gay, lesbian, transsexual or bisexual relationships." And then it implies that those who hold such a belief [that traditional marriage is the norm] are as bad as rapists and those who sexually assault others? That's what the Dean of Students is saying. That heterosexism is related to rape and sexual assault.
Absolutely chilling.
Obviously rape and sexual assault are not tolerated on campus. And if you read further, you will understand that no religion is being attacked. Let us take a look at a non-biased definition (one that is NOT given by Clark). It says that heterosexism is
"Discrimination or prejudice against homosexuals on the assumption that heterosexuality is the norm." Now, if we look at that definition we can see a more negative connotation to the word, heterosexism. Because homosexuality is in fact not held in popular view, we should be able to agree that they do receive more discrimination than heterosexual people. Clark is only attempting to ensure that students that are in fact homosexual are not discriminated against at the University. No where did they write that one is wrong for being a heterosexual and they are not attempting to discriminate against heterosexuals. They only are trying to protect ALL students from discrimination and harassment, just as they are protecting their students from rape or assault.
If Christians were allowed to descriminate on campus there would be nothing to stop anyone else to discriminate. Therefore it is important to state that no one is allowed to discriminate.
That is not to say that one cannot speak or practice their beliefs, but one is not allowed to make others feel unwelcomed in the community through those beliefs.
Why dont we just get down to the point by saying that regardless of your religious beliefs, not believing that i (a woman) should be able to marry the WOMAN I have loved for YEARS and met at Clark University is a form of segregation, heterosexism, homophobia, and hatred that shouldn't be a part of the COUNTRY. It has nothing to do with your religious teachings. If it not the fault of the school's that you chose to blindly follow the teachings of a religious leader when it was Jesus who chose to love ALL OF US.
Not allowing GLBT people to get married is equal to not letting Jews and African-Americans into your All-White country club.
Stop blaming religion for your bigotry. My God and Jesus Christ would have loved and accepted me and my relationship. If the leader you are following is interpreting the Bible as literal instead of metaphorical its not my problem.
Chicks marry Chicks.
GET OVER IT.
Your argument doesn't wash Steph. Clark says that those who believe "that heterosexual relationships represent the norm" are heterosexist - or discriminatory, and then places this category of people in the same category as rapists and sexual offenders.
Bernard Goldberg, in his book titled "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite," writes, "..I also understand the concerns of religious people who think that gay marriage should never be made legal; that marriage is a union between a man and a woman - period! And I understand why some people will say that every effort should be made to place kids with heterosexual couples before putting them with two mommies or two daddies. I don't think that someone is a homophobe just because he or she thinks that way - or, for that matter, honestly disagrees with some of the other items on the gay agenda." (p. 168).
And Goldberg wrote this as one who is a libertarian on "gay rights."
But Clark University is attempting not only to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality, it would appear that the Dean of Students is attempting to make such opposition seem somehow "criminal."
The comment from anonymous which asserts that, "Not allowing GLBT people to get married is equal to not letting Jews and African-Americans into your All-White country club" and then continues: "Stop blaming religion for your bigotry. My God and Jesus Christ would have loved and accepted me and my relationship. If the leader you are following is interpreting the Bible as literal instead of metaphorical its not my problem.
Chicks marry Chicks.
GET OVER IT," says it all. Clark University is committed toward Christianophobia.
Because the Catholic Church cannot condone homosexual behavior or the fiction of "gay marriage," the university will label its teaching as heterosexist and homophobic while implying that such teaching is the moral equivalent of sexual assault and rape.
If you choose to roadblock your children from applying/going to Clark then it's probably the wrong institution for them anyway. It's a culture that celebrates variety in all lifestyles and beliefs. If that's not something you support because it's outside your box, then stick to your box. No harm done.
"..a culture that celebrates variety in all lifestyles and beliefs"? Unless of course that belief is Catholic. Than it is "heterosexist" and "bigoted."
Clark University is anti-Christian pure and simple.
Oy vey. How members of the largest religious group in the country (greater than 60%) can cry that they are being discriminated against is preposterous. Why don't you visit Clark, and actually SEE what this place is like. Clark's attitudes towards fellow humans represents what Jesus taught far, far closer than the hateful, ignorant rhetoric spouted here. You ignoramuses give good Christians a bad name.
Yes anonymous, it is easy to see that charity plays an important role in your brand of "Christianity." You spout insults and accuse others of issuing "hateful, ignorant rhetoric."
Where is your proof anonymous? Give one example of hateful or ignorant rhetoric. You cannot. But you have engaged in hate yourself. And you do this hiding behind anonymity.
If you are representative of the kind of student Clark University produces, then I fear for the school. For your rhetoric is indicative of someone who is incapable of expressing anything even remotely resembling mature, critical thinking.
Kindly take your hatred elsewhere. This is a forum for people who truly love and embrace the teachings of Christ and who are capable of civil discourse.
http://lasalettejourney.
blogspot.com/2012/01/clark-university-in-worcester-those-who.html
Tell the Dean of Students at Clark University that "heterosexism," as he defines it - the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman and that this is the norm - does not equal rape.
A student from Clark University just left a comment this morning asserting that, "The fact of the matter is that religious opposition toward homosexuality is problematic and deserves to be demonized because it is the source of a lot of hate and crime."
This neatly summarizes the attitude at Clark University and on many campuses. It is nothing short of Christianophobic hate.
I am not at all surprised Paul. The hatred coming out of Clark is nothing short of frightening. Thanks for sharing some of the comments. Many attending Clark would like to see Christianity demonized based on posts like the one you received this morning.
I left this at your latest Blog post but it applies here as well:
MANASSAS, VA, September 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study has found that Google and other major social media sites such as Facebook have “actively” censored Christian and conservative viewpoints.
The report, conducted by National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the American Center for Law and Justice, examined the policies and practices of several major Internet-interactive “new media” communications platforms and service providers, including Apple and its iTunes App Store, Facebook, Google, and others.
Many of the top social media sites have been found to be "actively" censoring Christian viewpoints.The study found that some of the new media technology companies have outright banned Christian content, and that all social media sites, except Twitter, have speech policies more restrictive than the free speech rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
According to the study, seven of the major social media sites have banned “hate speech,” a term that the study authors point out “is often applied in the culture to stifle Christian communicators.”
The study authors also found that some of the media companies have been responsive to demands by pressure groups calling for censorship of conservative or Christian viewpoints.
The study notes that when Google established new guidelines for its “Google for Non-Profits” in March 2011, it refused to list “churches and other faith groups” that consider “religion or sexual orientation in hiring practices.” Christian churches that have applied for the suite of Google tools geared at non-profits have been rejected.
On another occasion the world’s most powerful search engine initially prohibited the British Christian Institute from purchasing space for an advertisement about abortion. It was only after the Christian Institute sued Google that the search engine permitted the ad.
Apple has twice removed applications that contained Christian content from its iTunes App Store, the study documented. In both instances, Apple admitted that these apps were denied access because it considered the Christian viewpoints expressed in those applications to be “offensive.”
“Of the 425,000 apps available on Apple’s iPhone, the only ones censored by Apple for expressing otherwise lawful viewpoints have been apps with Christian content,” observes the study.
For its part, Facebook has openly partnered with homosexual activists to “eradicate anti-gay comments on its platform,” the report found. “All of which suggest that Christian content critical of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or similar practices will be at risk of censorship [by Facebook]” says the study. In fact, in some cases such content already has been removed by the social networking site.
Myspace, another social networking site similar to but less popular than Facebook, also has a policy banning “homophobic” content.
is this a joke?
I wish it were anonymous. But words have meaning. And Clark University is attempting to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality and to equate it with criminal behavior.
When Mother Town newspaper, based out of Clinton, Massachusetts, received a death threat some years back from a homosexual activist who said he was planning to kill me with his high-powered rifle, the publication didn't treat that as a joke either. They contacted the Clinton Police Department.
No, I am not joking. I don't find hate to be a joking matter.
FYI Michelle, the Dean of Students at Clark is a woman.
Her name is Denise Darrigrand. Thank you anonymous. Now perhaps she will be so kind as to explain Clark's definition of heterosexism and why her office suggests that it is related to rape and sexual assault.
I wonder if the Dean of Students, like some of the "Clarkie's" who have left comments here, also believes that "religious opposition to homosexuality is problematic and deserves to be demonized."
Would Ms. Darrigrand have a problem with incidents such as this:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16699
Or, as one who views marriage as a union between a man and woman, as the norm, did the priest in this article "have it coming"?
Ms. Darrigrand.....?
I talked this over with a friend today in class. It has come to the attention of many on campus. We came to the conclusion that, simply put, Clark promotes an open, non-discriminatory atmosphere. People are allowed to ascribe to whatever they feel. People have the freedom to believe what they want. Therefore, we don't go around discriminating against people for their religious views. It's just not worth it to try to convince someone that they're wrong, even if you believe they are with every fiber of your being. People have different opinions, and that's fine. That being said, perhaps the only group that would come under fire on our campus would be those who are passing judgement on someone. Be it an atheist or religious person - if they're judging and condemning someone, they're not welcome here. You can live in a world full of various viewpoints without arguing and belittling someone. Anyone here who wants to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, orientation, or religion is going to have an issue here.
As a Clark University alum, I can honestly say that in my 4 years there I did not encounter any anti-Christian sentiments. I would describe the atmosphere at Clark as supportive, intellectually stimulating, and encouraging of healthy, thoughtful debate.
As an alum concerned with investing in the future of the institution, I would like to counter BostonCatholic by ENCOURAGING Christian parents to send their children to Clark. It is through inclusiveness that we learn about the world we live in, and everyone's viewpoints are equally important in that learning process.
Anonymous, you may have come to that conclusion. But many wouldn't agree with you. Just read some of the comments in this thread. One individual admitted that there are "anti-religious feelings" at Clark. Another wrote, "Why dont we just get down to the point by saying that regardless of your religious beliefs, not believing that i (a woman) should be able to marry the WOMAN I have loved for YEARS and met at Clark University is a form of segregation, heterosexism, homophobia, and hatred that shouldn't be a part of the COUNTRY. It has nothing to do with your religious teachings. If it not the fault of the school's that you chose to blindly follow the teachings of a religious leader when it was Jesus who chose to love ALL OF US.
Not allowing GLBT people to get married is equal to not letting Jews and African-Americans into your All-White country club.
Stop blaming religion for your bigotry. My God and Jesus Christ would have loved and accepted me and my relationship. If the leader you are following is interpreting the Bible as literal instead of metaphorical its not my problem.
Chicks marry Chicks. GET OVER IT."
Is this the "non-discriminatory atmosphere" you refer to?
No, Clark University needs to answer as to why it labels moral opposition to homosexuality as discrimination and lumps it together with rape, sexual assault and stalking.
I'm not convinced that the atmosphere at Clark is open and non-discriminatory toward Christians and other religious people who are opposed to the homosexual agenda.
Not in the slightest.
Dr. Halpern writes, "It is through inclusiveness that we learn about the world we live in." But inclusiveness does not include trying to demonize or criminalize moral opposition to homosexuality. How is that "inclusion" Dr. Halpern?
http://lasalettejourney.
blogspot.com/2012/01/clark-university-not-only-promotes.
html
Come visit. I'll even buy you breakfast. It's not fair to judge somewhere before you visit there, or to judge people before you know them.
Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Anonymous in the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of love does not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...
Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."
You write, "It's not fair to judge somewhere before you visit there, or to judge people before you know them." Using this logic, would you say that it's unfair to judge the words and actions of an organization such as Stormfront before visiting their headquarters? The Klan? Fred Phelps "church"?
I'm sure you get my point.
A I wrote earlier in this discussion thread, "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).
For Clark University to define the Church's moral opposition to homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage" as discriminatory - or "heterosexist" - is offensive.
I would invite you to reflect on Luke 19:22 and then read some of the comments from Clark students in this thread.
Pax Christi!
Why are all of these Christian bloggers refusing to listen to Christian Clarkies when they claim they are not discriminated against? I was raised in the Christian faith and I am a product of a Catholic family. I can attest that the university does not spew Christianophobic views, and would appreciate it if these bloggers would actually LISTEN to the students who have had experience learning in this accepting environment. Open your minds, Catholics! Last I checked everyone in my family is a Catholic and they all support my openly gay mother and her lifestyle.
I am sure that what I am about to say will cause many angry responses, but I am having trouble stomaching the idea that the belief that same sex relationships are wrong is not discriminatory. You cannot expect to be accepted if you are not accepting of others.
Because Clark University's definition of "heterosexism" is, in itself, discriminatory.
For more on this subject:
http://lasalettejourney.
blogspot.com/2012/01/more-
on-clark-university-and-its.html
Post a Comment