Jon Stewart illustrates what's wrong with Fox News' reasoning about their phony "War on Christmas."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Tree Fighting Ceremony | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
|
||||
The conservative religious types that complain about the "war on Christmas" are, of course, the same ones that often complain about political correctness. But, the "war on Christmas" is just their version of it.
The co-author of an article defending the conjugal view of marriage takes issue with some critics for suggesting his arguments are rooted in prejudice rather than principles. He, of course, takes himself to be offering a principled argument in defense of a view of marriage that excludes homosexuals. He writes:
No serious philosopher would deny, in so many words, that to demonize opponents is to betray the vocation of philosophy. But some academic philosophers are so bound to the cause of redefining civil marriage that they would marginalize dissenters with epithets and analyze them as specimens of psychological pathology. Chappell, though he goes on to ask serious questions, is at pains to deny that he deems our argument worth engaging. For him, it is, like misogyny, merely unreasonable, subrational, and bigoted. Linking to Chappell’s critique, Brian Leiter repeats the charge and presumes to diagnose us.
Are philosophers necessarily committed to respecting arguments in every instance? Suppose that in all seriousness some philosopher offers up a contemporary defense of Aristotle's argument in support of slavery or his views and gender-relationships. The philosopher goes on and on about how nature has marked out some people to be ruled rather than to rule. He goes on and on about how women have reason, but it has no authority. The author readily admits that this is contrarian position from the standpoint of modern sensibilities, but notes that those sensibilities are fairly new (historically speaking) and that many thinkers throughout the history of philosophy have espoused arguments in support of dicriminatory practices.
Are professional philosophers committed to taking these arguments seriously? Or, would it be reasonable - given the well known flaws of this very old line of reasoning, the inconsistency of its application by those that espouse it, then tendency of that application to work in favor of the person espousing it, its close ties to actual bigotry and forms of oppression, and the fact it's obviously contrary to other common place moral sensibilities - to dismiss the argument and suggest that the philosopher's argument maybe motivated by prejudice? Is Girgis going to take that argument seriously?
I don't take arguments for slavery seriously. And, I'm inclined to believe that those who might seriously espouse arguments in support of the institution of slavery are probably motivated by prejudice, even if they are able to present their arguments publicly without using derogatory language. I think the vocation of philosophy requires philosophers to treat arguments on the basis of their merits and in this regard the majority of professional philosophers seem to think that arguments for slavery as well as the conjugal view of marriage come up short.
Futurama is back with a new season on Comedy Central. Gender is a theme in one of the new episodes.
| Futurama | Thursdays 10/9c | |||
| Prattle of the Sexes | ||||
| www.comedycentral.com | ||||
|
||||
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A bill passed Friday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay.
Opponents deride the measure as the "don't say gay bill." They say it's unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.
The bill isn't likely to be taken up by the House before lawmakers adjourn this spring, but the sponsor there has said he would push it forward in 2012 when the General Assembly comes back for the second year of the session.
Passage would make Tennessee the first state to enact such legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2003, Washington defeated a proposal similar to Tennessee's, as did California in 2005 and 2006. A Louisiana law forbids the use of sexually explicit materials depicting homosexuality in sex education classes.
Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.
The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."
To review. Do not talk about homosexuality, but be sure you "teach the debate" over Evolution. As another critic of the law points out, it may have other consequences.
However, a critic said the new wording could create other problems.
Sen. Roy Herron, D- Dresden, said it "may inadvertently prevent the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence."
It's been an interesting couple of weeks in identity politics. David Barton and Prof. Richard Beeman were each on The Daily Show discussing religion, the Founders, and the Constitution. Some basic Dead White Male stuff regarding what the Founders intended regarding the sepeartion of church and state. Cornell West made some, er, suprising, criticisms of Obama. And, a Black Studies Professor and a Harlem activist debate black history and black consciousness on Democracy Now. Check out some highlights below the fold.
Continue reading "Identity Politics: From the Founders to Malcolm X and Obama" »
(RNS) Gay and supportive alumni of Wheaton College have formed a new organization following a recent chapel series at the flagship evangelical school on "Sexuality and Wholeness."
More than 400 signatories have signed an open letter to students at the Christian college in suburban Chicago to present an alternative message to one from a chapel speaker who supports gay celibacy.
"The recent chapel message on Sexuality and Wholeness and surrounding conversations may have left you feeling alienated, ashamed and afraid," reads the open letter. "Many of us felt trapped and unable to respond honestly to these messages while we were students."
Matthew Gore, a spokesman for OneWheaton and a 2004 Wheaton alumnus, said the group wants gay and lesbian students at the school to know that they have support among gay alumni.
"As it is, most of those students would be afraid to talk to anybody," he said. "That's just the environment there."
In an emailed response to the letter, Wheaton President Philip Ryken told students that the school considers gay people members "of the human family as created in the image of God himself," but remains committed to its covenant that condemns homosexual behavior.
A few years ago there was some controversy over Wheaton's discriminatory policy against hiring homosexual faculty members. This policy resulted the American Philosophical Association moving to censure Wheaton since its policy is contrary to the APA's own non-discrimination policy. That gave rise to a counter-petition in support of Wheaton's policy, which a number of prominent philosophers signed.
The same (dubious) argument that implies homosexuality is immoral, the argument from nature, also implies that contraception is immoral. But, we don't see Wheaton discriminating against people that use contraception now do we? The anti-homosexuality crowd hardly ever condemns contraception even though it's pretty obvious that there are more people using contraception than practicing homosexuality. So long as Wheaton's administration and its supporters and sympathizers fail to follow their argument to its logical conclusion and apply it consistently, I think it raises a question not only about their moral consistency, but about bigotry and prejudice against homosexuals. I wish the gay community at that Wheaton luck in their attempt to combat the moral arbitrariness of the school's administration. It's nice to see some alumni supporting them.
According to this story in the NYT, gay student groups are popping up on conservative Christian college campuses like Baylor.
WACO, Tex. — Battles for acceptance by gay and lesbian students have erupted in the places that expect it the least: the scores of Bible colleges and evangelical Christian universities that, in their founding beliefs, see homosexuality as a sin.
Decades after the gay rights movement swept the country’s secular schools, more gays and lesbians at Christian colleges are starting to come out of the closet, demanding a right to proclaim their identities and form campus clubs, and rejecting suggestions to seek help in suppressing homosexual desires.
Many of the newly assertive students grew up as Christians and developed a sense of their sexual identities only after starting college, and after years of inner torment. They spring from a new generation of evangelical youths that, over all, holds far less harsh views of homosexuality than its elders.
But in their efforts to assert themselves, whether in campus clubs or more publicly on Facebook, gay students are running up against administrators who defend what they describe as God’s law on sexual morality, and who must also answer to conservative trustees and alumni.
Facing vague prohibitions against “homosexual behavior,” many students worry about what steps — holding hands with a partner, say, or posting a photograph on a gay Web site — could jeopardize scholarships or risk expulsion.
“It’s like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object,” said Adam R. Short, a freshman engineering student at Baylor University who is openly gay and has fought, without success, for campus recognition of a club to discuss sexuality and fight homophobia.
The best reason why Baylor and these other universities should drop these sorts of prohibitions and discriminatory practices is because there are not really any good arguments against homosexual acts. A small minority of philosophers might claim otherwise, but their arguments are not probative. Moreover, if you follow the argument from nature to its logical conclusion then you'd have to discriminate against people that use birth control. You could revise the argument so that the purpose of sex is broader than mere reproduction, but doing so is likely to imply the inclusion of some homosexual acts within the scope of moral permissibility. So, it's not even clear that homosexual acts are immoral from a natural law perspective.
Malaysia is sending their effeminate boys to masculinity/straight camp.
Sixty-six Muslim schoolboys in Malaysia identified by teachers as effeminate have been sent to a special camp for counselling on masculine behaviour.
They are undergoing four days of religious and physical education.
An education official said the camp was meant to guide the boys back "to a proper path in life".
Gay rights groups have criticised the measure, saying it promotes homophobia in the Muslim-majority country where gay sex is still illegal.
The schoolboys allegedly displayed "feminine mannerisms" - though educators in the conservative state of Terengganu did not detail what they were, says the BBC's Jennifer Pak in Kuala Lumpur.
State officials say that, if left unchecked, the students - aged between 13 and 17 - could end up gay or transsexual.
The state's education director, Razali Daud, said the students were invited to join the camp and were not compelled to do so.
Yeah, I bet there was no pressure put on them at all.
Recent Comments