Posted on 07/10/2010 6:31:46 AM PDT by NYer
I don’t think I was dishonest about my views—I just expressed them carefully, moderately, usually framing them as questions rather than assertions.
No doubt.
I’m getting sick of thes overly sensitive, hedonistic phallus worshipers always having their way. The guy that fired Howell, McKim “is currently writing a book on the implications of religious diversity.”, I wonder if he’ll cover beheadings, refusal to convey passengers in a cab, and organized Jew hatred.
very good point
how did KIDS get this much power? This is like Red China during the cultural rvolution.
Very well put — may I borrow it?
I think they began to get power through a huge and very well-mounted PR campaign run by mega-wealthy gay businessmen that used the AIDS virus as a sympathy key. That’s when I noticed the change. Because I’m in the arts, I always had associations with homosexuals, and it’s so grimly amusing to me that some of the same people who criticized me for it are now clamoring for gay “rights”.
By the way, NONE of the people I was friendly with back then ever mentioned a longing for marriage — quite the opposite. They shuddered at the thought.
In modern Newspeak, that means they are actually “aristos” whom us peons must be careful NOT to offend, because a single “lettre de cachet” from one of them is enough to get you a long stretch in the Bastille. And that is the answer to your second question.
No, he chose to state that the utilitarian argument depicts homosexuality as moral good. That is not the same as not engaging that philosophy.
What about 1st amendment free expression of religion? What about 14th amendment?
I agree that free speech, religious freedom do not cover all speech, that one can get fired legitimately for saying outrageous things about one’s employer etc. I’m just saying that one does have free speech, religious freedom etc. rights as an employee and, in this case, the justification for not rehiring him was clearly an infringement of his right to state what he believes without it being called hate speech by those how disagree with it. That’s quite apart from the fact that he was primarily stating what Catholicism believes and giving the reasons why Catholicism believes it, secondarily acknowledging he agreed with those beliefs and reasons. I would think he would have both constitutional speech and religious expression protection as well as EEOC issues based on the fact that he was just doing what he was hired to do.
Had the religion department chair simply told him, we won’t give you a contract, without stating why, that would have been smart, from a legal standpoint??
But having stating his reasons for not giving him a contract, I would think EEOC issues come into play even though it is a term-to-term contract.
LOVE YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My error as far as what Howell was doing is concerned. Utilitarian thinking swings both ways.
The anti-homosexual act utilitarian argument you endorsed is, however, avoided or relegated to a secondary role by Catholic thinking for the reasons I stated.
I agree with you - but your argument is not Dr. Howell’s argument as depicted in this piece. It sounds as if he were (so to speak) bending over backward to sound as “tolerant” and nonjudgmental as possible.
As a resident of Illinois, gee, thanks for the stereotype. What state do you live in BTW? I'd like to make a few stereotypes about your state.
Everyone has free speech—on their own time. But my point is that its intellectually dishonest to hire someone to teach religious doctrine and then refuse to extend them for teaching that doctine correctly.
“how did KIDS get this much power? This is like Red China during the cultural rvolution.”
.....I was thinking the same thing...also wasn’t it kids that accused adults of being witches at the Salem trials?
Thanks for your response. I stand on my statement.
We have free speech on company time as well as on our own time. We don’t have unlimited free speech on company time. But neither do we not have any free speech or freedom of religious expression on company time.
I assume you agree??? I agree that it’s not even a free speech issue—he was teaching what he was hired to teach and doing it accurately.
But in the process you keep making more extreme claims about limits on free speech on company time than I think you really want to make. But perhaps you do wish to claim that we have no free speech on the job, only on our own time????
Through a feckless administrator—nothing else. The student’s email is incoherent, poorly argued. The religion dept. chair has no case. But he disagrees with Dr. Howell and let that blind him to the weakness of the student case.
It’s called stupidity, lack of critical thinking ability—on the part of the department chair. And on the part of the student, but then we don’t expect the student to be intelligent and to have learned critical thinking.
We ought to be able to expect it of the administrator.
Well, I used to be in the military. So...its ingrained in me that when you represent the organization, your speech is not entirely “free”. In other words, you have a responsibility to represent the organiztion in a professional manner & toe the company line—free speech can be at odd with that.
Don't see why not, except that if you quote it, change "us peons" to "we peons". I was letting my vernacularitis carry the rhythm at the time.
Placemark and thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.