At Stanford University, silencing the voices of one student organization is apparently pertinent in order to protect the feelings of another.
The LGBT community at Stanford raised their voices loud enough at a recent graduate-level student government meeting at which the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) was requesting funding to host a conference centered around the organizationâ€™s missionâ€”traditional marriage and family values. The upcoming conference, â€śCommunicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Mediaâ€ť was deemed â€śhate speechâ€ť by the Stanford Graduate Student Council (GSC) at the provocation of GradQ, the queer graduate student organization....
The biggest problem with the world is human rights we have got so caught up in ourselves that we have forgotten the WORD all the answers are there not in our futile man made ideas of right and wrong we need to wake up!!!
If the ACLU doesn't take this on, then there are some Christian legal groups that should.
What comes out of queers united mouths is what is "hate speech." By the way hateful action? NC University to Go on Trial for Alleged Alleged Retaliation Against Christian Professor. We can hope this prof. wins as well.
Neil, no doubt the political gain and political collectivism the "moral majority" was hoping to keep for their favor in society... but we are well beyond that scenario at this point. they will/ and are considered being owned by the state, that is the young. that is what is at stake here.
JSC wrote: How deluded do you have to be to hate and rail against the very means God has instituted for ushering in your existence?
Chalk it up to Radical Depravity: Unregenerate men destroy themselves. Contrary to Adam Smith, people do *not* always act in their material self-interest, esp. in an age that glorifies "Trust Your Feelings," Leap of Faith irrationality.
And how's this Family Value: Christian men with a family to feed who quit their secular jobs, in the expectation that God will provide them some sort of spiritual vocation instead? That's crazy & presumptuous, putting God to the test in this way, yet this is glorified in church circles as the height of spirituality & Submission to God's Will.
Neil, I understand your point. It is a vacuous term, grounded in political murkiness. I listen to Christian radio in the morning afternoon commute and hear this over and over, as if the family is the core of our faith, country, and worldview. This is futile wrangling; you cannot confront the world with their weaponry.
"Communicating Values: Marriage, Family & the Mediaâ€ť was deemed â€śhate speechâ€ť by the Stanford Graduate Student Council"
I wonder if that includes their own families into which they were born? Do the homosexuals hate their own families parents siblings and relations too? Is speech that is hated included in their existence as being part of a family?
penned wrote: family is the strength of a community. only a generation that aborted their babies or avoided family would think that homeowners associations and investments on wall street could ever replace a need for another generation to come up behind us.
these groups that are antichildren, antiwoman, antiman are introducing great confusion to society, and a society that will not be able to rule itself.
penned wrote: ethics has everything to do with family.
You miss my point; of *course* ethics have to do with families, that's a no-brainer, but they also matter for people unconnected with families (in the usual sense).
The church has brought confusion into society by promoting such meaningless blather for political gain. I think many people who talk this way (like Neocons) are merely political traditionalists who use Christianity as a Stalking Horse for their private agendas.
Fascists talked up "Family Values;" so did Augustus Caesar. Christians should avoid this phrase.
ethics has everything to do with family. family is the strength of a community. only a generation that aborted their babies or avoided family would think that homeowners associations and investments on wall street could ever replace a need for another generation to come up behind us.
these groups that are antichildren, antiwoman, antiman are introducing great confusion to society, and a society that will not be able to rule itself. authoritarianism is coming for them, unfortunately. Christ said to come to Him, that His yoke is light. The yoke of the world will be heavy for them and then comes judgment. It is sorrowful to watch a society turn in on itself and for Christians to have an excuse at every turn. The heat will get turned enough that everyone will have to choose today who they serve.
While on the subject of questioning "Family Values," what about the term "family" as well? What do ethics have to do with marital status? Is it OK for bachelors to break oaths, lie, steal, & fornicate, but not the married?
So this does suggest "1517" has a point. Why not use the more honest term "Biblical Ethics" instead of pretending ethics can exist in a philosophical vacuum? Unfortunately, this admits an apriori commitment to Scripture, which makes bad politics these days. Note that the RCC, a major political force in this country (officially & otherwise), dislikes appealing to Scripture, preferring Tradition or Nature as its basis.
And I'm not convinced that even Fundies take the Ten Commandments, particularly the Second Table, all that seriously.
When will the Christian community wake up and stop using terms like "values" when it speaks of what are absolutes? The term "values" is a moral relativistic term which places all "moral values" on a scale, preferring the higher morals over the lower.In this context, family values become an "option" rather than necessary. Clear distinctions; separation of character, actions, and an unambiguous display of veracity is the Christian life. In other words, Holiness. We need to stop talking in murky, relativistic terms.