Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

It’s Okay to Hate Republicans

December 17, 2014 by Mark Hicks and Kim Kozlowski

A University of Michigan professor has sparked a backlash among colleagues and GOP officials after writing a column titled “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” including a call from the state party’s chairman for her resignation.

The piece from Susan J. Douglas, a UM department chair and Catherine Neafie Kellogg Professor of Communication Studies, was posted Monday on the website for In These Times, an independent, nonprofit magazine.

“I hate Republicans,” she wrote in the first paragraph. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood’ …”

Douglas wrote that her “loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon” since in the 1970s she “worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct — a ‘moderate’ who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”

Her column goes on to mention “an escalation of determined vilification” and how “dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity” could influence thinking.

The writing did not please Andrea Fischer Newman, a member of the UM Board of Regents.

“As a Republican and a Member of the Board of Regents, I find Professor Douglass’s column extremely troubling and offensive,” she wrote on her Facebook page. “The University of Michigan community rightly supports and defends a wide variety of viewpoints and a diversity of opinion on all subjects. But this particular column, which expresses and condones hatred toward an entire segment of individuals in our society based solely on their political views, fails to observe an equally important value of our University — respect for the right of others to hold views contrary to our own. Professor Douglass’s column ill-serves the most basic values of a University community.”

Bobby Schostak, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, said: “The piece by Professor Susan J. Douglas is ugly and full of hatred, and it should not be tolerated by the University of Michigan. … It’s inexcusable for any instructor to isolate students because of their political ideology, especially if they do not fall in line with his or her own. Not only does she further perpetuate the political discord in our nation today, but she’s completely out-of-touch and focusing on a life of politics she apparently left decades ago. …”

Schostak asked UM President Mark Schlissel to address the issue and Democratic Party officials to denounce her remarks.

“The University of Michigan is a respected public institution, funded by taxpayers, and this type of bullying must be addressed by President Mark Schlissel. I am calling on Lon Johnson, Gary Peters, Gretchen Whitmer, Tim Greimel and all Democratic officials to join in condemning this disgraceful dialogue by calling for Professor Susan J. Douglas’ resignation. By endorsing the hatred of an opposing political party, Douglas has made Republican students feel vulnerable and intimidated,” he said. “Our children come first, not the opinions of outspoken, out-of-line professors.”

In a statement Wednesday night, UM spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said: “The views expressed are those of the individual faculty member and not those of the University of Michigan. Faculty freedom of expression, including in the public sphere, is one of the core values of our institution.

“At the same time, the university must and will work vigilantly to ensure students can express diverse ideas and perspectives in a respectful environment and without fear of reprisal. The university values viewpoint diversity and encourages a wide range of opinions.”

Campus conservatives at UM joined in the criticism.

“This is blatant intolerance, and the University should take action on the behalf of intellectual diversity and all of the students who are intimidated into silence,” said Grant Strobl, chairman of the UM chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. “In the position of an instructor, she can intimidate and inhibit the student’s freedom of expression.”

While students support Douglas’ right to express her opinion, “It’s kind of frustrating being on a college campus where we have teachers who are upfront about their hatred of certain views,” said Gabriel Leaf, 21, a senior and chairman of the College Republicans at the University of Michigan.

On a college campus where students from many backgrounds have a chance to share various views, he said, such a position could “push the parties away from each other and not really allow that open discussion to happen.”

original article: UM prof’s ‘I hate Republicans’ column sparks backlash

bias, bigotry, bullies, Democrats, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: bias, bigotry, bullies, Democrats, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal

High School: Islamic vocabulary lesson part of Common Core standards

December 19, 2014 by Todd Starnes

muslimworksheet.jpg

Parents in Farmville, North Carolina want to know why their children were given a Common Core vocabulary assignment in an English class that promoted the Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic faith.

“It really caught me off guard,” a Farmville Central High School student who was in the class told me. “If we are not allowed to talk about any other religions in school – how is this appropriate?”

The Islamic vocabulary worksheet was assigned to seniors.

“I was reading it and it caught me off guard,” the student told me. “I just looked at it and knew something was not right – so I emailed the pages to my mom.”

I asked the school district to provide me with a copy of vocabulary worksheets that promoted the Jewish, Hindu and Christian faiths. The school district did not reply.

“In the following exercises, you will have the opportunity to expand your vocabulary by reading about Muhammad and the Islamic word,” the worksheet read.

The lesson used words like astute, conducive, erratic, mosque, pastoral, and zenith in sentences about the Islamic faith.

“The zenith of any Muslim’s life is a trip to Mecca,” one sentence read. For “erratic,” the lesson included this statement: “The responses to Muhammad’s teachings were at first erratic. Some people responded favorably, while other resisted his claim that ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad his Prophet.”

Another section required students to complete a sentence:

“There are such vast numbers of people who are anxious to spread the Muslim faith that it would be impossible to give a(n)___ amount.”

I spoke to one parent who asked not to be identified. She was extremely troubled by what her child was exposed to in the classroom.

“What if right after Pearl Harbor our educational system was talking about how great the Japanese emperor was?” the parent asked. “What if during the Cold War our educational system was telling students how wonderful Russia was?”

The parent said the material was classwork disguised as Islamic propaganda.

“It’s very shocking,” she said. “I just told my daughter to read it as if it’s fiction. It’s no different than another of fictional book you’ve read.”

A spokesman for Pitt County Schools defended the lesson  – noting that it came from a state-adopted supplemental workbook and met the “Common Core standards for English Language Arts.”

“The course is designed to accompany the world literature text, which emphasizes culture in literature,” the statement read.

The problem is it’s emphasizing a specific culture and religion – and the school district acknowledged there were concerns “related to the religious nature of sentences providing vocabulary words in context.”

“Our school system understands all concerns related to proselytizing, and there is no place for it in our instruction,” the statement goes on to say. “However, this particular lesson was one of many the students in this class have had and will have that expose them to the various religions and how they shape cultures throughout the world.”

I asked the school district to provide me with a copy of vocabulary worksheets that promoted the Jewish, Hindu and Christian faiths.

The school district did not reply.

I also asked for the past or future dates when the students would be given those vocabulary worksheets.

The school district has yet to reply.

The student I spoke with told me they have not had any other assignments dealing with religion – other than the one about Islam.

Why is that not surprising?

Based on its official statement, Pitt County Schools seems confident that the vocabulary lessons are in compliance with three Common Core standards related to literary. If you want to look up those standards, reference CCSSELA-Literary L11-12.4.A, 12.4.D and 12.6.

Since the Common Core folks seem to be infatuated with sentence completion – let me try one out on them.

Use “Islamic” and “proselytizing” in the following sentence: Somebody got their ____ hand caught in the ____ cookie jar.

original article: High School: Islamic vocabulary lesson part of Common Core standards

bias, children, culture, diversity, education, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

Filed under: bias, children, culture, diversity, education, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

FIRE, NCAC Call on University of Iowa to Defend Rights of Censored Faculty Artist

December 17, 2014 by The FIRE

DES MOINES, Iowa, December 17, 2014—In a letter sent last Friday, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) joined in criticizing the University of Iowa’s (UI’s) chilling censorship of faculty artist Serhat Tanyolacar. UI forced Tanyolacar to remove his artwork from an outdoor campus area after some students claimed they were disturbed by its imagery, consisting of newspaper clippings reporting on racial violence printed onto a Ku Klux Klan robe and hood. UI also publicly denounced the artwork, ignoring its anti-racist intent and its success in facilitating dialogue on race relations among its viewers.

“The University of Iowa betrayed its purpose as an institution of higher learning by censoring Tanyolacar’s art,” said FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley. “Far from fostering critical thinking, it declared that certain methods of expression are too dangerous for campus regardless of context, doing a profound disservice both to its students and to the Constitution in the process.”

FIRE and NCAC wrote to UI on December 12, criticizing the university for “effectively announc[ing] that Tanyolacar’s artwork is not protected by the First Amendment due to the discomfort it caused to some of those who encountered it” and decrying UI’s response as “an unacceptable abdication of its duty to uphold its community members’ constitutional rights.” FIRE and NCAC have called on the university to issue a public statement affirming Tanyolacar’s First Amendment rights and have put the university on notice that it may not bar such work from the campus simply because of the offense some in the community take at its content.

“Purging disturbing images and ideas from college campuses in the name of protecting vulnerable groups goes against the very mission of the university as the quintessential marketplace of ideas, governed by the principle of academic freedom,” said Svetlana Mintcheva, NCAC’s Director of Programs. “A university cannot limit inquiry just because some of the questions raised may prove unsettling. Indeed, university administrators should trust students and expect them to be able to argue against ideas with which they disagree. Students coming from vulnerable groups are no less capable of speaking up than other students; college administrators need to encourage them to do so rather than misguidedly purging the campus of potentially controversial material.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

NCAC, founded in 1974, is an alliance of over 50 national nonprofit organizations, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups dedicated to promoting the right to free speech. More information on its nationwide work combating censorship can be found at ncac.org.

original article: FIRE, NCAC Call on University of Iowa to Defend Rights of Censored Faculty Artist

bias, censorship, discrimination, documents, education, free speech, government, hypocrisy, left wing, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, racism

Filed under: bias, censorship, discrimination, documents, education, free speech, government, hypocrisy, left wing, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, progressive, public policy, racism

Islamic war on women: where are the progressives?

December 14, 2014 by Sharona Schwartz

The Islamic State group has reportedly issued a guide on how to treat female slaves which allows jihadist militants to rape them, including girls who have not yet reached puberty.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated a pamphlet on the topic of female slaves titled “Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves” which it reported was issued by the Islamic State’s “Research and Fatwa Department.”

The document is presented in a question and answer form and purports to present the Shariah law position on how to treat slaves, including when it’s permissible to have sexual intercourse with them, when it’s OK to beat them and if one can sell and “gift” slaves. The leaflet goes into detail on what is and is not allowed during sex and even states that while it’s permissible to beat a slave for discipline, beating her for sexual pleasure is forbidden.

MEMRI reported that the pamphlet was posted on a pro-Islamic State Twitter account.

Here are some of the more shocking questions and answers in the document as translated by MEMRI:

“Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
“It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: ‘[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]‘…”

“Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?
“If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn’t, her uterus must be purified [first]…”

“Question 6: Is it permissible to sell a female captive?
“It is permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property, which can be disposed of [as long as that doesn’t cause [the Muslim ummah] any harm or damage.” […]

“Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?
“It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”

Examining the rules for sex if two fighters together capture a woman, the fatwa committee ruled, “It is forbidden to have intercourse with a female captive if [the master] does not own her exclusively. One who owns [a captive] in partnership [with others] may not have sexual intercourse with her until the other [owners] sell or give him [their share].”

The “owner” of a slave also can’t sell her if he gets her pregnant, according to the leaflet.

Approaching the slave like other property, the group said female captives of a deceased man can be distributed among his heirs along with the rest of his estate.

“However, they may only provide services, not intercourse, if a father or [one of the] sons has already had intercourse with them, or if several [people] inherit them in partnership,” the leaflet read.

The jihadist group’s fatwa department also reportedly wrote that it’s fine to capture women who are “unbelieving.”

“Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us],” the pamphlet said according to MEMRI.

The document addressed the debate over capturing Muslim women who are considered “apostates” as opposed to taking Christians, Jews and polytheists, which is not subject to debate.

“The consensus leans towards forbidding it [capturing apostates], though some people of knowledge think it permissible. We [the Islamic State] lean towards accepting the consensus,” the leaflet said.

The British newspaper the Independent reported that the document is believed to have been printed on December 3. The Independent quoted the British research organization Quilliam which said the document “can be traced back to some of the Islamic State’s most active propagandists.”

The Islamic State group used Islamic theology to justify kidnapping non-Muslim women for use as sex slaves in an October article in its online magazine.

The group’s English-language digital magazine Dabiq said that female members of the minority Yazidi sect can be captured and forcibly used as sex slaves, CNN reported on October.

original article: When Jihadists Capture a Woman, They Have a Guide to Consult on What to Do With Her. Some of the Directives Are Truly Disturbing.

abuse, extremism, foreign affairs, islam, religion, sexism, terrorism, war

Filed under: abuse, extremism, foreign affairs, islam, religion, sexism, terrorism, war

Hate filled Campus turns on Muslim conservative who penned satire

December 15, 2014 by Maxim Lott A Muslim conservative who took on political correctness at his college campus found out just how angry the very folks he was lampooning can get. Omar Mahmood, a junior majoring in literature and anthropology at the University of Michigan, lost his job as a writer for the main campus newspaper and saw his front door tattooed with angry and profane messages after he wrote a satirical column dubbed “Do the Left Thing” for another publication. Written as parody, the column sought to poke fun at people who constantly perceive “microaggressions” — a new term for small racial or ethnically-driven snubs. After falling down, the fictional character in Mahmood’s column takes offense when a white male student offers a hand. “He offered his hand to help me up, and I thought to myself how this might be a manifestation of the patriarchy patronizing me,” Mahmood wrote in the piece, which can be read at The College Fix, which first reported Mahmood’s situation.

“These progressive students attacked Omar because they felt that he, as a Muslim, cannot also be a conservative.”- Derek Draplin, editor of The Review

Some students took offense to the article, saying it belittled their concerns about social justice. Mahmood, who is Muslim and describes his political views as mostly conservative and libertarian, says the first big backlash came when another student complained anonymously about being offended and he was fired from the student newspaper, the Michigan Daily. “These progressive students attacked Omar because they felt that he, as a Muslim, cannot also be a conservative,” Derek Draplin, a student and editor of the conservative student paper The Review, which published the parody, told FoxNews.com. “He doesn’t fit their social justice agenda so they attack him, censor him, try to get him to shut up.” On Friday night, according to Mahmood, people attacked his dorm room door, egging it and leaving copies of his satirical article with notes on the backs including “Shut the f— up!” and “You scum embarrass us” and “DO YOU EVEN GO HERE?! LEAVE!!” along with various others, including an image of a creature with horns and another one of him with his eyes crossed out.

FoxNews.com viewed surveillance footage taken early Friday at 1:40 a.m. local time inside of Mahmood’s dorm, which is for students but is run independently of the university. It showed four figures meeting in the hallway and one of them handing the other three hooded sweatshirts. The three then put on hooded sweatshirts and go to his door. Mahmood says he believes he knows who the attackers were based on the footage. The university says it is looking into the matter. “This off-campus incident has been reported to the university’s Bias Response Team for follow-up,” spokesman Rick Fitzgerald told FoxNews.com. “The team will take appropriate action once information has been gathered.”

Mahmood, of West Bloomfield, Mich., told FoxNews.com on Sunday that he was shocked by the level of vitriol he received as a result of his article. “I expected backlash, but this is something else,” Mahmood said, adding that things are near a breaking point for him. “Last night I pretty much had a breakdown. I can’t take my final exams — that has been postponed to next year. And I hate to be dramatic, but this is almost at a breaking point, where this has been going on for a month and I have not been able to focus on things,” he told FoxNews.com. Mahmood added that the political environment on campus is radically left-wing and intolerant. “Almost all student clubs have ‘social justice’ wings… some use violent rhetoric, shameless rhetoric, to promote their ideology, and call it ‘liberation.’ They call it ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’ and ‘creating a safe space’ — which is all very ironic,” he said. Mahmood said before the incident at his dorm, he was fired from the main student paper, the Michigan Daily. An email exchange sent to FoxNews.com by Mahmood shows Michigan Daily Editor-in-Chief Peter Shanin writing to Mahmood on Dec. 4 that “our best remediation at this point is your termination.” Mahmood chose not to appeal the decision, but responded with an email noting that, “I think you know as well as I do that common sense and freedom of speech are on my side.” Shanin did not respond to a request for comment. Mahmood says he hopes people who hear about his story will email Shanin and ask him to let Mahmood know who was offended so he can talk things over with them. “They really should have the maturity to come out and talk with me directly,” he said. In addition to being fired from the paper, Mahmood said he has been subject to angry comments from other students. It’s made him wonder if he would do it all over again. “There are times when I say to myself, ‘Hell yes, I should have written that!'” he said. “And there are times when it’s like, never in my dreams would I write it again, given the reaction I have had to deal with.” full article: Campus turns on Muslim conservative who penned satire abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, scandal

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, censorship, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, scandal

CAUGHT IN CLASS: TEXAS PROFESSOR COMPARES THE TEA PARTY TO THE NAZIS

December 11, 2014 by Jackie Moreau

A history class on the Nazi political party provoked a college student to turn on his camera phone after he allegedly heard the professor call Senator Ted Cruz, a favorite of the Tea Party, a bastard for using the last name “Cruz” to win the election.

A YouTube video published on Nov. 17 shows Blake Armstrong, psychology professor at South Texas College in McAllen, Texas, explaining to his students:

In 1931, which was really interesting, the Nazis — people are kind of tired of them. They’ve been around since 1920, 11 years now, they’ve won seats — they’re like the tea party. Look, that’s such a good example. Don’t tell anybody I said that, though. “The tea party are like the Nazis.”

However, Professor Armstrong was not hesitant in affirming the brilliance of his analogy. He went on to elaborate:

But, in the sense of how they politically came to power, there’s a good analogy there that eventually people realize, “Oh, these Nazis, they’re a bunch of nuts. These tea party people, they’re a bunch of nuts.” I mean, the analogy really is a good analogy. And they started losing votes again in late ’31, 1932, they started losing seats.

The college student who captured these unfiltered comments has requested to remain anonymous.

According to the college website, South Texas College was created on Sept. 1, 1993, by Texas Senate Bill 251 to serve Hidalgo and Starr counties, and a confirmation election established a taxing district for the college in 1995.

Judging by the county-to-county results of the November 2014  gubernatorial race in Texas, the people of Texas may disagree with this publicly funded history lesson.

original article: CAUGHT IN CLASS: TEXAS PROFESSOR COMPARES THE TEA PARTY TO THE NAZIS

bias, bigotry, Democrats, education, hate speech, history, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, progressive, propaganda, video

Filed under: bias, bigotry, Democrats, education, hate speech, history, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, progressive, propaganda, video

College prof makes students recite anti-American ‘pledge of allegiance’

December 8, 2014 by Fox News

If you sign up for Denver college professor Charles Angeletti’s American Civilization class, be forewarned that you’re going to have to recite his invective-filled ‘New Pledge’ — and according to some of his students, also be ready to swallow a big helping of his politics.

Angeletti, who teaches at Metropolitan State University of Denver, has students learn an anti-American spoof of the Pledge of Allegiance that denounces the U.S. as a Republican-controlled bastion of injustice, all while spewing his own far-left brand of politics, according to current and former students.

“I pledge allegiance to and wrap myself in the flag of the United States Against Anything Un-American,” reads Angeletti’s version. “And to the Republicans for which it stands, two nations, under Jesus, rich against poor, with curtailed liberty and justice for all except blacks, homosexuals, women who want abortions, Communists, welfare queens, treehuggers, feminazis, illegal immigrants, children of illegal immigrants, and you, if you don’t watch your step.”

“We’re very racist, we’re very repressive, we’re very Christian oriented, we don’t tolerate other kinds of thinking in this country.”- Charles Angeletti, professor at Metropolitan State University

The anti-U.S. recitation, first reported by higher education blog Campus Reform, was a satirical pledge aimed at getting students to question their nation’s leadership, Angeletti said. The self-proclaimed atheist and socialist told the site that he has been distributing the pledge in his classes for nearly 20 years as part of his lesson plan.

“We’re very racist, we’re very repressive, we’re very Christian oriented, we don’t tolerate other kinds of thinking in this country,” Angeletti told Campus Reform. “I could go on and on — and do, in my classes, for hours about things that we need to do to make this a better country.”

A student from Angeletti’s class told Campus Reform that the flier was handed out to the entire class and all students were required to recite it.

“This was an attempt to propagandize an entire classroom of young adults,” Steven Farr, a freshman majoring in meteorology, told the blog site.

Officials at Metropolitan State University of Denver did not immediately return requests for comment. The 24,000-student school has the second-highest undergraduate enrollment in the state and has several notable Division II sports programs. It also bills itself as a top choice for active-duty military and veterans to pursue higher education, and has several notable Division II sports programs.

“This is typical elite, progressive, post-modernist garbage,” said Pete Hegseth, a Fox News contributor and CEO of Concerned Veterans for America. “I hope and believe that vets in his class will challenge this professor.

“We have seen this time and time again. Lessons like this stack the deck against veterans and basically tell them, you fought for nothing,” Hegseth added. “You fought for a lie.”

On the academic review site RateMyProfessors.com, students appear to mostly like Angeletti and consider him an easy grader, although some said he punishes conservatives.

“Charles is the best professor at MSU Denver,” wrote one student who took the class.

But another student said your opinion can cost you if it doesn’t jibe with Angeletti’s.

“If you are a liberal, you will like him,” a student wrote. “He encourages you to speak out and voice your opinion… Unless of course, you are a Republican.”

Another student said class was unfocused.

“All this teacher does is ask what is on your mind at the start of every class and that is how class is run everyday based on what students say,” the student wrote. “The only reason I got a B is because I hardly showed up to that class because it was so pointless. All he does is argue with everything you say and you are always wrong. Didn’t learn anything.”

original article: College prof makes students recite anti-American ‘pledge of allegiance’

bias, education, elitism, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

Filed under: bias, education, elitism, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration? Watch to Find Out

December 14, 2014 by SIERRA MARLEE (h/t to Wayne Dupree)

The mainstream media has done a lot of reporting on Christian bakers refusing to provide their services to those engaging in a gay marriage. These bakers have been called “bigots”, “fundamentalist wackos”, “homophobes” and many other invectives for simply adhering to their principles. They become the target of discrimination lawsuits that some didn’t have the funds to fight. These suits have put many bakeries out of business, eliminating the income of the owners. All of this because of an agenda that states everyone must share the views of an extreme minority or risk persecution.

But what happens when the tables are turned? Theodore Shoebat wanted to find out. After spending quite some time calling various gay bakeries asking if they would bake a cake for a traditional marriage ceremony, he quickly found out that tolerance is a one-way street in their eyes. Shoebat was cursed at, screamed at, and met with animosity, but the frosting on the cake as when he was asked why he would make such a request, as it would go against the beliefs of the baker. Sound familiar, anyone?

[GRAPHIC LANGUAGE WARNING] You can watch the videos below:

For further hilarity, part two is below:

Well that’s not very tolerant of them. Luckily for them, Mr. Shoebat isn’t going to take them to court and force them to go against their beliefs to make him his cake. It really just goes to show how hypocritical these people are, and how they say everyone should be equal, but don’t practice what they preach.

original article: What Happens When a Christian Man Asks Gay Bakers to Make a Cake for a Traditional Marriage Celebration? Watch to Find Out

bias, bigotry, culture, discrimination, diversity, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, progressive, video

Filed under: bias, bigotry, culture, discrimination, diversity, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, progressive, video

No Thanks, Public Schools. I Don’t Need You To Teach My Kids About Sex

December 11, 2014 by Matt Walsh

A reader sent me a message declaring quite excitedly that I’m ‘not gonna believe’ what’s happening at this public school in California. Apparently, Planned Parenthood has taken over sex-ed duties at a local high school and has begun teaching 13-year-olds that, among other things, they’re ready for sex so long as they think it will feel good. Planned Parenthood also has some informative tips on effective lubricants which they eagerly passed along to an unsuspecting collection of barely pubescent children.

In other words, that reader lied. I can totally believe this. Honestly, at this point I’m not sure there’s any public school related atrocity that would shock me. Send me something about kids being trained in ritualistic cannibalism, or being given reading materials from the Satanic Temple, and then maybe I’ll be surprised. (Wait, that second one is actually happening, and no, I’m still not surprised.)

Our government school system, like most every other institution in this country, has plunged into a state of intellectual and moral chaos, making it fertile ground for the depraved perverts at Planned Parenthood to spread their gospel. And before you accuse me of claiming that every person who works for Planned Parenthood is a depraved pervert, please understand that, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Anyway, I’m not trying to downplay this latest bit of debauchery. It’s outrageous — even if it is routine — and it deserves attention. The whole thing is made all the more egregious by the fact that parents were not properly informed about the ‘lesson’ plan ahead of time. The school didn’t make it clear that the sex-ed class would be conducted by Planned Parenthood – a detail that may have been pertinent, considering Planned Parenthood is a business which makes hundreds of millions of dollars aborting babies. The conflict of interest here is staggeringly clear. Having this organization teach sex-ed is like bringing in spokesmen from McDonald’s to talk about proper nutrition. In both instances, the ‘teachers’ are financially invested in making sure the kids do anything but make healthy choices.

Sorry, that analogy is ridiculous. McDonald’s could never set foot inside an American public school. It would never be allowed. We wouldn’t want the kids to be scandalized by soda and french fries, especially when it might distract them from learning about anal sex and transgenderism.

Speaking of which, the school in California found some creative ways to instruct the students in warped leftwing gender theory. Just in time for the holidays, here’s the ‘genderbread person.’

This is science, folks. Pure science. Well, either science or progressive superstitions cloaked in absurd faux-complexities. I can imagine that many of the parents probably didn’t realize they had to preemptively sit their children down and say, ‘listen, ‘agender’ isn’t a thing, and if anyone tells you otherwise, they’re either on drugs or on the payroll at your school, or both.’

Another worksheet was supposed to help the children decide if they’re ready to get busy.

According to adults who’ve taken it upon themselves to entice children into having sex, any child is ready provided they want to and they can find someone else who wants to. Who could foresee any pitfalls to raising kids using this strategy?

‘Dad, can I –’ 

‘Stop right there, son. Whatever you want to do, do you want to do it?’

‘Yes.’

‘Well, that settles it then. You’re always ready to do anything as long as you want to do that thing!’

‘Wow, thanks Dad! So where are your car keys?’

The learning materials also explain how a boy should obtain consent from a girl. Specifically, he should ask important questions like, ‘can I take my pants off?’ and ‘do you want to go back to my place?’

These are 13-year-olds, remember. A bunch of 13-year-olds who can, it turns out, invite their booty calls back to ‘their place.’ I’m sure their parents won’t mind, unless their parents are sex-hating prudes. Indeed, as creepy progressive weirdos constantly insist, we parents just have to resign ourselves to the fact that all kids — all kids — will start having sex approximately three or four years before they’re able to get their ears pierced without permission from a legal guardian.

That’s the nature of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you assert it as fact often enough and loudly enough, eventually it might become one. The question, then, is why do progressive want this to be a fact? And when I say want it, they really seem to want it. They want it in graphic detail. Take this sex conference for students in Oregon as an example. Kids as young as 11 were encouraged to ‘wear each other’s underwear,’ ‘watch porn together,’ ‘eat Pop Rocks while making out’ (this is just getting way too specific), and ‘masturbate while someone else is watching.’

That’s all pretty bad, but not as bad as the sex-ed presentation given to students at Pine Valley Middle School, which featured a poster of a man with a bloody face and a caption reading: ‘A real man loves his woman every day of the month.’

And this is relatively in line with another sex-ed curriculum, also in California, that taught students about the wonders of bondage and vibrators.

All of these examples happen to be from the West Coast, but this is not a regional problem. It’s inevitable that government sex education will take a sharp left turn into grotesque and lascivious places in any school, anywhere in the country. That’s because a discussion of sex will be unavoidably wrapped in the moral and philosophical beliefs of whoever is leading the discussion. It’s one thing to teach about the human anatomy, but once you veer into sexuality, you’ve entered a realm that is just as spiritual as it is scientific. Therefore, if the sex-ed course is run by hedonists, the children will be taught hedonism. There is no way around it.

And this is why sex-ed has no business in public schools at all. If you want your kid’s school to teach him about sex — homeschool him. Public school should be a place for pure academics, and nothing else. To be clear, I’m not advocating for ‘abstinence education’ here. I don’t want a government employee training my kid in how to avoid sex any more than I want her to train him in how to have it. Abstinence education, in my view, has to be grounded in something deeper than scare tactics and STD statistics. My convictions on abstinence before marriage have to do with not just my views about sex, but my views about marriage itself, and about love, and about loyalty, and about self-control, and about virtue, and about faith. Everything is wrapped up in everything, and if you try to teach abstinence using just the practical aspects (‘sex might cause AIDS!’) without any of the deeper, spiritual substance, you’ll end up with a lesson plan that’s equal parts superficial, paranoidm and unconvincing. Sex is just too big a topic. There’s too much there. It’s too important. The schools cannot handle it, either way, and they shouldn’t try.

So this is really very simple. How much sexual guidance and instruction should the government offer our kids? None. What percentage of your child’s government education should be comprised of sexual enlightenment? Zero percent. How many times in a given school day should teachers talk to their kids about lubricants? No more than three times. Actually, zero.

It’s the Great Compromise. Instead of arguing about what the schools should tell kids on the subject of sex, let’s contemplate the possibility that a collective, government-controlled, mass produced and disseminated curriculum about sex and intimacy isn’t necessarily the best way to handle such a profound and personal subject.

I’m not saying that we should put censor bars over the penis and the vagina in the anatomy textbooks (or in books of Renaissance art, for that matter). I’m also not saying that high school biology teachers should tell their students that a magical stork drops the baby off on Momma’s porch. And I’m not saying that students shouldn’t learn about the facts of human reproduction when the subject comes up in science class. What I am saying is that the schools ought to treat sex the same way most people think it ought to treat religion, and for the same reasons. The ‘keep religion out of schools’ folks will argue that schools should not endorse a particular religion, encourage kids to be religious or irreligious, ask kids about their personal religious practices, or attempt to influence those practices. In these ways, we should ‘keep religion out of schools,’ but if they’re reasonable they know that we can’t and shouldn’t keep the fact of religion out of schools.

You can’t very well give your students a comprehensive understanding of western history without discussing Christianity. You can’t provide a well rounded education about literature without introducing the Bible. You can’t teach about art and avoid da Vinci. You can’t talk about contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts without introducing Judaism and Islam. You can’t teach the history of Asia without Hinduism or Buddhism. Religion will inevitably be a part of many other subjects, but it shouldn’t be up to government school teachers to tell kids how to feel about religion or what to do with those feelings. That’s what parents and churches are for.

And it’s in that sense that I make my case for keeping sex out of schools. Anatomy will come up in anatomy classes, and reproduction will come up in science classes, and that’s where it should end. Tell about the fact of sex, but nothing else. It’s absolutely horrifying that so many people — actual parents with actual kids — think that public schools should tread further into the topic and teach kidshow to have sex, when to have it, and why they should or shouldn’t have it. Look, I try hard, I really try hard, not to judge parents or to criticize parenting styles different from my own. But I will judge someone who wants the Department of Education to help shape their child’s sexuality. I will judge that. God help me, I judge it.

‘Comprehensive sex education’ is a sham and a joke. It’s also more than just a little disturbing. If an adult in any other context came up to your child and tried to strike up a conversation about masturbation, oral sex, or dildos, you’d call the police. Imagine a grown man approaching your 12-year-old daughter on the playground and saying, ‘hey little girl, do you think you’re ready to have sex?’ Now imagine it happening inside the school, and explain why it’s suddenly less frightening.

Can anyone explain that?

Anyone?

I didn’t think so.

So if you can’t explain the distinction between a sex-ed teacher and a guy who should be on a registry somewhere, maybe we should just let parents handle this topic. Let them handle it because there are boundaries, and when a strange adult starts talking to children about self-pleasure, that boundary has been crossed, then crossed back over again, then carpet bombed into obliteration. And let parents handle it because, as we all pretend to agree, public schools aren’t in the moralizing business. Without a doubt, it is impossible to discuss sex without attaching a set of moral lessons to it.

This subject belongs to parents. It is their domain. ‘Yes, but many parents don’t talk to their kids about sex,’ I often hear it argued. That might be true. Still, public schools are not surrogate mothers. Lazy, selfish parents might want them to be, but that doesn’t change anything. There are facts about sex (‘this is a penis, this is a vagina, this is a uterus, etc’) and then there is subjective (and depraved) moralization about sexuality (‘you can choose your gender, you should have sex if you want to, masturbation is a good way to explore yourself, try making out with Pop Rocks in your mouth, etc’). There is a time for the former but definitely not for the latter. If you want to tell your son or daughter about those things — go ahead and tell them. If you’re too embarrassed to do it yourself, maybe that ought to be a sign of some sort.

However you choose to parent — and I really hope your parenting doesn’t involving telling your son he can be a girl if he wants, but that’s your prerogative in a free country — we should all agree that there is a distinction between a parent’s domain and the school’s, unless you homeschool. Indeed, maybe we’re all finding out that separating factual lessons from moral lessons is nearly impossible to do perfectly, which is yet another argument in favor of homeschooling. Maybe homeschooling is again the only real answer here. Be that as it may, as long as public schools exist, we must try to beat back its attempts to intrude on parental turf.

So while progressives take the Ten Commandments and the crucifixes out of the schools, I’ll come in right behind them and clean out the condoms and the genderbread drawings. And then we can meet in the parking lot and swap. I’ll take my religion home to my kids, and they can take their sexual permissiveness and confusion home to theirs.

Meanwhile, the schools can stick to the ABCs and 123s, and we’ll all be better for it.

original article: No Thanks, Public Schools. I Don’t Need You To Teach My Kids About Sex

abstinence, bias, children, culture, education, elitism, extremism, family, government, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy

Filed under: abstinence, bias, children, culture, education, elitism, extremism, family, government, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy

Chaplain punished for sharing his faith in suicide prevention class

December 9, 2014 by Todd Starnes

An Army chaplain was punished for discussing matters of faith and quoting from the Bible during a suicide prevention training session with the 5th Ranger Training Battalion — leading to outrage from religious liberty groups and a Georgia congressman.

Chaplain Joseph Lawhorn was issued a Letter of Concern that accused him of advocating for Christianity and “using Christian scripture and solutions” during a Nov. 20th training session held at the University of North Georgia.

“You provided a two-sided handout that listed Army resources on one side and a biblical approach to handling depression on the other side,” Col. David Fivecoat, the commander of the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade at Ft. Benning, Georgia, wrote in the letter to the chaplain. “This made it impossible for those in attendance to receive the resource information without also receiving the biblical information.”

The Christian chaplain was warned to be “careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another.”

The Christian chaplain was warned to be “careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another.”

However, attorneys for the chaplain, along with religious advocacy groups, say his comments are covered by the “right of conscience clause” that was passed in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, section 533.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!

Chaplain Lawhorn was ordered to appear in the colonel’s office on Thanksgiving Day where he was personally handed the Letter of Concern.

Based on Col. Fivecoat’s version of events — you would’ve thought Chaplain Lawhorn had turned the suicide prevention workshop into a Billy Graham Crusade. However, that’s not what happened.

During the course of conducting the training session, Ron Crews, the endorsing agent for military chaplains for Grace Churches International, explained, the chaplain discussed his own struggles with depression and the methods and techniques he personally used to combat depression. He said the chaplain did provide a handout with religious resources — but he also provided a handout with non-religious resources.

“The chaplain did nothing wrong,” said Crews. “At no time did he say his was the only or even the preferred way of dealing with depression. And at no time did he deny the validity of any other method.”

Lawhorn is one of the few Army chaplains to wear the Ranger Tab and Crews said it was through that identification that he shared his story about depression.

“His story involves his faith journey,” Crews said. “He was simply being a great Army chaplain – in ministering to his troops and providing first hand how he has dealt with depression in the past. That’s what chaplains do. They bare their souls for their soldiers in order to help them with crises they may be going through.”

However, someone in the training session complained to the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. That complaint led to a story on the Huffington Post.

Michael Berry, an attorney with Liberty Institute, a law firm that handles religious liberty cases, is representing the chaplain. He said the person who filed the complained “exploited” the chaplain’s “vulnerability.”

“It took a great amount of courage for Chaplain Lawhorn to discuss his own personal battle with depression,” Berry said. “At no time did he consider himself to be in a ‘preacher’ role.”
Berry called on the Army to rescind the Letter of Concern — calling it a violation of the chaplain’s constitutional rights.

“Not only is it lawful for a chaplain to talk about matters of faith and spirituality and religion in a suicide prevention training class – but the Army policy encourages discussion of matters of faith and spiritual wellness,” Berry told me. “The fact that one person in the class was offended changes nothing.”

Congressman Doug Collins, a Republican lawmaker from Georgia, whose district includes the area where the training session took place, fired off a letter to Col. Fivecoat expressing his concerns in the matter.

“I find it counterintuitive to have someone lead a suicide prevention course but prohibit them from providing their personal testimony,” Collins wrote.

He cited the Army’s Equal Opportunity policy and how it was set up to protect the personal beliefs of military personnel.

“I fear Chaplain Lawhorn’s freedom of expression was improperly singled out,” he wrote.

Liberty Institute tells me the Army will allow me to speak with the chaplain — but not right now. And Col. Fivecoat sent me an email telling me that he would not be able to comment at this point.

If I’m reading between the lines — that Letter of Concern comes pretty close to accusing the chaplain of proselytizing. Crews agrees with my assessment.

“The bottom line is — that is exactly what they are trying to accuse him of — when nothing could be further from the truth,” Crews told me. “The military leadership needs to commend Chaplain Lawhorn, not condemn him.”

Berry said Americans should be shocked and outraged over Chaplain Lawhorn’s punishment.

“His job is to save lives — and he’s being punished for trying to do his job,” Berry said. “He’s doing everything he can to save them – and yet now they’re trying to say – the way you’re doing it offends me.”

I find it both repulsive and heartbreaking to know that we have a military that frowns upon a chaplain using a Bible to save a soldier’s life.

original article: Chaplain punished for sharing his faith in suicide prevention class

abuse, anti-religion, atheism, bias, bigotry, censorship, civil rights, government, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, military, nanny state, oppression, oversight, political correctness, public policy, relativism, troops

Filed under: abuse, anti-religion, atheism, bias, bigotry, censorship, civil rights, government, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, military, nanny state, oppression, oversight, political correctness, public policy, relativism, troops

Pages

Categories

December 2014
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031