USC professors blog, dangerous ground? (Page 2)

It seems to me that to say that the perceived discrimination is worse than straight intolerance is itself a moral statment. 

If you agree with me on that, then tell me where the basis for making that moral claim comes from.  On what authority do you rely in order to make the claim that one thing is morally worse than another? 

I think his point is that veiled discrimination is worse because it's insidious. At least that's how I read it.

Just a comment about Christians and standing up for their rights - since I am one :-)

I don't see where the Scriptures really command us to picket, file lawsuits, or march for our "rights".  Christ, when he stood trial, said nothing in his defense.  He took the blows, lashings, and execution without saying a word ... other than asking God to forgive his tormentors.  His harshest judgement was for the pharisees.  Our job as believers is to love, point people to the Savior, and do our best to live out the Word of God.  Unfortunately, when pointing people to the Savior, it means we have to point out the crimes against God (sin) that required Christ to suffer.  This is not judging, but comparing our world to God's standard.  Realizing that each one of us is just as much a sinner...like Paul pointed out that he was the "Chief of Sinners".   I'm sure my radical right friends won't like this opinion....just as much as the PC crowd won't like it either.  

 Now...back to figuring out how I can get that bike workout in today...hmmmmm :-)

"Am I just being to overly sensitive or has she (a professor) began to walk on dangerous ground?"

Freedom of expression is not dangerous ground. Yes, academia are allowed to have and express their opinions. This isn't the USSR (yet).

Going into an OWS without training in OW - that's dangerous ground. Train much?

Right, that's how I read it as well.

What I'm wondering is why it is worse. What is that moral claim based on.

It may indeed be worse, but I'd like to know how someone comes to that conclusion. In other words, on what authority does everyone base their moral claims?

If the authorities clash, then how does it get settled in a civil society?

Is there any common ground of authority among differing beliefs for making moral claims?

If there isn't, then does that mean that the answer will be war, and whoever is more powerful will win and get to set the moral agenda?

Didn't mean to pick on your post specifically to make my point. Sorry about that.  As I've said in the past, I don't think that you are anti-religious.

I was using your post to get out my point about defining the basis for making moral claims.
I think this point is a critical one for us all to work through in order to avoid war.

--------

I read through the piece on the student, although I did it quickly so maybe I missed something. Does she actually say that she hates gays, for whatever reason, or does she say that she opposes homosexuality.

I'm not clear about how the leap is made from criticising someone for opposing something to criticising them for hating someone.

If I oppose gay marriage, and I do, does it follow that I hate the people who are arguing for the right to enter into gay marriage?

Where you see hate mongering I see a legitimate gripe against hatemongering Christians.  That's not dangerous (unless you are in the hatemongering Christian crowd and don't want the curtain pulled back) - that's open dissent. Dissent is what this country was founded on.

Ideas and opinions are not dangerous. Agitating to squelch opinions Censorship is dangerous.

I don't know the particulars of this case. Do you? Is the GaTech student, in fact, being censored? Or, has she actually violated terms of her enrollment? I don't know the facts.

I agree that she should, in principle, be allowed to express her views. I like to know who the nutjobs are. How do we know who they are if we don't hear their views? More importantly, I would no sooner deny her rights than I would allow my rights to be stripped. We're all in this freedom boat together, even if we have to sit next to the blatherings of idiots.

However, if she has violated a student code then that is a different matter.

Do universities fall under the same laws as private employers when it comes to regulating speech? I know at my work I'm not allowed to gay bash, but away from work I can gay bash all I want.

Can't an institution make rules of conduct, and if you don't like those rules, can't you go somewhere else? Like maybe Bob Jones U. where that type of thing is actually encouraged.

A few salient facts:

• Ruth Mohltra, GA Tech senior and Chairman of the College Republicans at GA Tech and a Southern Baptist; and Orit Sklar, GA Tech and member of the College Republicans and religiously observant jew have filed suit against Georgia Tech
• Mohltra and Sklar are suing to have GA Tech's Student Code of Conduct, Community Guide and Disciplinary Actions (resulting from violations of Student Code & Community Guide) overturned.
• They are also suing to get a piece of the Student Activities Fees pie.
• They are also suing to censor Safe Space, a program of the Office of Diversity, because it makes them feel like outsiders because they disagree with Safe Space's tolerance of homosexuality

This isn't about religion. It's about politics and money.

As I told ASA, I am all for free speech. It's good to know who the wackos are and if you suppress their speech, you might confuse them with nice folk and let your kids play with their kids. That would be a bad thing.

I think the Chairman of the College Republicans at GA Tech has a valid point. Suppressing free speech, even when it's couched in the language of tolerance, is not going to change the hearts of the hateful. Open the dialogue. Allow opposing ideas. Debate, agitate. It is only through the free exchange of idea that these hatemongers might come to see the egregious errors of their hate-ways and find a way to a better spirituality.

At the University I am currently at, if you host a webpage on the University's servers, which any student or faculty member is allowed to do, they can take down your page if you put up content that violates code.   Here's what's considered a violation (it's pretty vague, which I think is intentional):

Actions that harass, threaten, or otherwise cause harm to individuals are prohibited. Respect for the rights of others is fundamental to ethical behavior at VCU. Actions that threaten or cause harm to other individuals are violations of both VCU policies and of Virginia and federal law. Such actions may be prosecuted through both the University judicial process and, independently, in state or federal court (Va. Code § 2.1-804-805).

Actions that impede, impair or otherwise interfere with the activities of others are prohibited. University computer and network resources are shared, and misuse of a particular resource can have a negative impact on other users. Accordingly, the University may require users to limit or refrain from specific uses. Intentional misuse or damage to resources is prohibited.

Actions which download or post to University computers, or transport across University networks, material that is illegal, proprietary or in violation of University contracts are prohibited.

Actions performed using the University's computer and network resources, regardless of any disclaimers that might be made, ultimately reflect on the University community as a whole. Violations of copyright, licenses, personal privacy, or publishing obscene materials or child pornography may result in civil or criminal legal actions as well as University disciplinary actions (Va. Code § 2.1-804-805).

I'm comfortable switching out the words "moral" and "immoral" and using the words "right" and "wrong" instead.

So if you and I agree that some action is "right", then there is no problem. If we disagree, then what do we appeal to for clarification?

I agree that someone who does not believe in God can be "moral" and make "right" decisions. My "morality" doesn't so much spring from my experience as a Christian. It's been more the case that my embrace of the truth of Christianity springs from my experience of discovering moral truths which, being truths, are discoverable independent of any religion.

I'm perfectly happy to argue an issue like gay marriage and never bring the subject of God or scripture into it at all. In fact, in a pluralistic society, that's the only way I see that we can come to an understanding on an issue like gay marriage that everyone will respect.

So if you "feel" one way about an action and I "feel" another way, what do we do?

Also, FWIW, I'm a Roman Rite Catholic as well. So Nazdrowie!

Roshambo?