Tuesday, August 02, 2005

The Times Are A-Changin'

Once upon a time, Bob Dylan sang:
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

Looks like he was right, though not in the way he wanted.
In a story on the lives and thinking of American 13-year-olds, Time magazine reports that sixty percent of the 500 surveyed by the magazine are against sex before marriage, and 63 percent believe they are too young to date at their age......only seven percent said their parents were too strict.And 63 percent consider their religious faith at least somewhat important in their lives.

Needless to say, the liberals are shocked about these results, after all, young people are supposed to be more liberal than their elders: conservative is old & liberal is progressive & revolutionary, right?

As with all other erroneous stereotypes, this one too is faltering in the face of much evidence that it is the liberals who are the moldy old establishment & conservatives who are the few & the brave, constantly ducking the attacks of the powers that be & rattling the cages of the old guard.

One of the most amusing kerfuffles is that of Cornell West claiming to be a radical determined to fight the establishment. How can the graduate of an Ivy League university & the professor of two Ivy League universities claim to be anti-establishment? The professor of an Ivy League school, especially one who has taught a Harvard, is the establishment. And as many studies show, a majority of university faculty are extremely liberal, a view that would hardly place him in a beleaguered minority. In fact,
By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.
The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative
Being told that recording a rap CD does not constitute scholarly activities is hardly academic persecution; it is merely a much needed reality check.

The leftist hegemony of our education system, which leads to harrasment & discrimination of conservative students & faculty, also leads to the suppression of free speech in favor of indoctrination. When asked to explain the disparity between the political views of the American population at large & the faculty members of Duke University, Robert Brandon, Chair of the philosophy department said:
“We try to hire the best, smartest people available . . . If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.”
It is the arrogance of people like Dr. Brandon that has inspired the coalition to press for an Academic Bill of Rights, to forbid ideological discrimination & harassment.

The experiences of David French, during his job interview for the Cornell University, as well as the time he served in their admissions committee offer disturbing insight into the hypocrisy that pervades our institutions of higher learning.
During my second interview with the director of the program I was applying to join, she asked the following question: “I note from your CV that you seem to be involved in religious right issues. Do you think you can teach gay students?” [to which he replyed] How many gay applicants at Cornell have been asked: “Do you think you can teach Christian students?”
It seems that the liberal love of diversity does not extend to diversity of religion or ideology.
One of the most disturbing aspects of my experience at Cornell Law School was the year I spent on the school’s admissions committee. I saw a Christian student once almost get rejected despite tremendous academic qualification because members of the committee were wary of his “God-squadding” and “Bible-thumping.” He was admitted only after I raised strong objections to the committee’s obvious anti-religious prejudice.
Neither does the liberal love of affirmative action extend to those minorities who refuse the don the victim label & travel the road untaken.
I also saw some Latino and African-American candidates receive less affirmative action assistance because their perceived politics or career interests (such as an interest in finance) were deemed “less diverse” than other applicants with an obvious interest in “social justice.” Moreover, some applicants of color who indicated interest in the world of commerce were said not to have “taken ownership of their racial identity.”

How intolerant our teachers of tolerance are. Despite their best efforts to brainwash young people, many are rejecting the biased half-truths they are forced to recite. The example of the Columbia University students who stood up to the bulling of their professors is part of the growing trend. The fact that the NYT failed to cover the full story due to an inside deal with the university administration is indicative of the complicity of the MSM in the effort to keep not only young people, but the American public at large, ignorant of the ideological homogeneity of modern American universities & the persecution of those who dare to resist it. If there ever were a contest for "the gulag of our times", our elite universities would surely top the list.

The young people of today are not blind to the hypocrisy & stupidity of liberalism. It was conservatism that freed the women of Afghanistan & gave them the right to attend school, vote & run for office. It was conservatism that gave the people of Iraq the opportunity to vote for the first time in their lives. It was conservatism that the gave the people of Lebanon the courage to oust their oppressors. It will be conservatism, which despises despotism that will be the force of change, rather than liberalism, which fetishizes dictators & tolerates their outrages in the name of pacifism. It will be the values of the Greatest Generation that will serve to guide the new generation, which came of age to the sound of Muslim terrorists crashing planes into the TWC. They will serve as a "correction" to the whinny, losers of the hippy generation that squandered their inheritance.

The times are a-changin, ask not DNC, for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

This essay, while sometimes quite correct, is nonetheless often using gross misrepresentations.

The writer (is this you, NYgirl?) cites the study reported in Time magazine where kids are opposed to sex before marriage. The writer then goes on to say that liberals will probably be shocked. When you used the word "liberal" you probably meant the word "libertine" - liberals aren't necessarily pro-wanton behavior any more than some conservatives are.

There's a difference between liberal and libertine.

The writer went on to cite a presumably conservative source who said he was asked if he would be able to teach gay students, then asked "Would a gay applicant have been asked if they could teach christian students?" as if gay and christian were opposites. Given the religious right's sometimes derisive and sometimes abusive behavior towards gays, it struck me as a legitimate question.

To say that many so-called open-minded liberals are close-minded to those with different opinions is correct. Just as the opposite is true. But does "many" equate to "most"? I think not.

I only write because you're painting with a pretty broad brush and I hoped to remind that we all have our tendencies to stereotype and that it is just as unhelpful when you do it as when they do it.
Liberals aren't pro-wonton behavior? Who is passing out condoms in schools, who is fighting for explicit sex ed programs? Not conservatives.

If as you say, "Given the religious right's sometimes derisive and sometimes abusive behavior towards gays, it struck me as a legitimate question", isn't the left's abusive behavior towards Christians a legitimate cause for concern?

As a majority of people voted for a conservative President, a conservative House & a conservative Senate, I think "most" would be a fair term.

Also, the article I cite shows that most teens do not embrace the notions of liberalism.

In this article, I am refering to the state of the academic & educational instituions, & an overwhelming number of studies show that these spheres are extremely liberal & biased. Just look at the numbers.
Hey NY Girl,

I consider myself pretty liberal and those initial statistics were about what I expected to hear. 13 years old is very young, and if I was asked those questions at that age my responses would have been identical... and I like to think I was a pretty normal, average kid. Although I know many who think otherwise.

My concern is as kids get a little older, around 15 and 16 and aren't as prepared as they could be to protect themselves against STD's and unwanted pregnancies. It's in these instances that I think abstenance only programs are naive.
Allow me to rebut to graham and dan on behalf of NY Girl (I still can't believe there are NY conservatives)!!

This comment by graham needs attention:

"My concern is as kids get a little older, around 15 and 16 and aren't as prepared as they could be to protect themselves against STD's and unwanted pregnancies. It's in these instances that I think abstenance only programs are naive."

Isn't the best way, graham, to protect against "STD's and unwanted pregnancies" to teach abstenance. Even more, abstenance is the ONLY way to protect against these things 100%. The problem is when we do pass out condoms to young students this gives them the idea that they should be using these things, that is to say, they should be having sex.

And Dan, your comment regarding the differance between libertine and liberal is somewhat academic and even comes close to insulting the intelligence of the writer of this blog: it has been the liberal movement since the 1960's that has tried to undermine traditional values of marriage and sexual responsibility: the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's was not lead by libertines but by liberals.

Even more, Dan, this comment by you seems terribly dishonest:

"The writer went on to cite a presumably conservative source who said he was asked if he would be able to teach gay students, then asked "Would a gay applicant have been asked if they could teach christian students?" as if gay and christian were opposites."

Once again you come close to insulting the intelligence of the writer: I hardly believe NY Girl thinks there are no gay Christians. But the truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior is in complete contradiction to Christian (and Jewish) teachings. There may be some Christian denominations out there who are more permissive of gays, but no theologian of any merit will tell you that homosexual behavior is accepted practice in any Christian(or Jewish) scripture.

I find your challenge weak.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I disagree. Abstenance by itself doesn't work.

In communities that are intergrated within big cities it is impossible to assert any narrow moral perspective because there are so many other influences on our children... and in smaller, more isolated towns even then a policy of abstenance, and only abstenance fails.

I saw studies, which I can look up online if you would like... which showed something like: between 15-18 years olds who believed in no sex before marriage and abstenance... were much more likely to engage in sexual activity that didn't involve direct sex. NY Girl is a very lovely so I will behave and won't be crude, detailing exactly what those acts were... but, they weren't kissing and fondling, ok.

The point is, think and back and remember when you were 16 and tell me you shouldn't have been afforded the information to better understand the physical changes, desires, and relationships you were going through. I am all for promoting love, and devoted relationships, and for considering sex to be sacred, btw. I believe that and live it in my life... I just think, alone, it isn't enough. We have a responsibility to guide the actions of young adults.

P.S. I deleted my previous comment because I'm really tired and made loads of spelling errors. Sorry, NY Girl :).
NYgirl--are you a student or in academia? I definitely saw the leftist propaganda and hegemony when I went back to school after seven years of working. It actually changed me--it was the final stage of a nine-year change from brainwashed leftist to anti-Marxist.

You should put more stuff in your profile--I agree that it's rare to read this type of stuff from NY people.
Justin said:
But the truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior is in complete contradiction to Christian (and Jewish) teachings...

Says who? Some (yes, a majority) of Christian theologians think homosexuality is wrong, but there are certainly Christian theologians who don't. And we all know that majority does not necessarily equal moral. In fact, what is it that Jesus says about that road to the Kingdom? Oh, yes, it's a narrow one, with few traveling it.

What's important, to me as a Christian, is what the Bible and Jesus say about the matter. And Jesus is completely silent on the issue and the bible pretty quiet and unclear on sexual mores in general. Do you know that homoseuxality is only seemingly addressed about 5 times in the whole of the Bible?

I'd invite you to do some research on the topic to see what the Bible actually says.

As to your comment about liberals leading the sexual revolution, you think there were no conservatives jumping aboard that ship? Yes, liberals were more libertine than conservatives (perhaps, I don't have any data to support that notion, but I'll accept it as possibly true), but there are progressives and conservatives who are concerned about the family and sexual well-being. Were then, are now.

You're both painting with the broad brush that you're condemning in liberals.
The OT says, "Men who lay with men shall be as low as the dogs of the ground" or something to that effect.
Pro Sodomy Liberals, look it up. Then tell us that fegalas belong in synagogues or their pseudo-Christian cousins belong in church.

The problem with liberals is that you feel that your political and other abherrations have some place in American tradition. They don't, we tolerate you because we are a free country and honor your right, as such, to express your opinion or live the lifestyle you choose.

You are welcome in the USA, this is a FREE COUNTRY.
Try claiming gay rights in Iran or some other non-democracy and see what happens....
Thanks for allowing us in the USA brother Seth. We appreciate it.

The verse in the Holiness code in Leviticus that you're referencing says "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

So, if you're going to take this literally, are you prepared to start killing gays? A little later on in Leviticus, it says that disobedient children should be stoned, as well. You down for some stoning today?

Further, the holiness code disallows polyester, shrimp, banking and investing? You prepared to give these up, as well?

Or do you, like me, not take the whole bible literally?

But then, you haven't really read the Bible much, have you? You just know what you've been told and you're going to blindly follow. Well, good. Jesus likes it when we follow blindly our religious leaders.
What does Cornell West have to do with the other topics he was talking about? He lost me there.
A few comments:

1. I considered applying to some universities (including Duke and UNC) to pursue a PhD in military history. I was told point-blank by four professors to forget about it. Not only is there very little demand for military science professors (war mongers, you know), I was told that conservatives need not apply for a faculty position. Hell, the fact that I keep my hair cut short, am clean-shaven, and said I thought I'd wear a tie to an interview was enough to disqualify me. No kidding.

2. Ever read any of Dr. Mike Adams' columns at Townhall.com? They are very good, and fit in with this post.

3. The Bible is "quiet and unclear on sexual mores in general"??? Try these verses (for starters):

Genesis 19
Exodus 20:14
Exodus 22:19
Leviticus 18
Deuteronomy 22:13 - 30
Matthew 5:27 - 32
Mark 7:21
Acts 15:20
Jude 1:7
Revelations 2:20 - 23

Do I believe that God wants us to kill the sexually immoral as He commanded the Israelites to do in the Old Testament? By no means. Through the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have a new covenant with God, and while we are to rebuke our brothers for sin (taking care that we haven't got a beam in our own eye!), we are also to encourage them to walk the straight path.
Hey Doc Jim, on your point 3:

Yes, there are some clear condemnations of sexual immorality in the Bible. But there are also examples of polygamy, offering a daughter up to be raped, prostitution, etc. The bible can be unclear in that regard (ie, do we follow Abraham's example of offering his wife as a sexual slave to protect his own hide, or of Rahab's example of tricky prostitution for which she is praised, or Solomon's and David's example of polygamy? Or Paul's example of celibacy or a more modern model of the two person marriage (which I think most closely matches whole bible teachings of mutual respect and love)?

I think the Bible gives some definite instructions on how to behave towards one another in general-with love and not in an abusive way. So far, so good. We all agree. That's why we can agree that rape is bad, offering children up to be abused is bad, prostitution is unhealthy, etc.

My point about homosexuality is that it is not clearly mentioned often in the bible. There are maybe 5 verses that seem to deal with it (depending upon your translation). There are several passages that are often referred to when condemning homosexuality (such as the Gen 19 Sodom and Gomorrah story, which is about attempted rape, not homosexuality), that aren't really about homosexuality. There are no - zero - passages that deal with loving committed gay relationships - positive or negative.

My point being that, if we set aside (as you suggest) the 2 verses or so in the OT that seem to deal with homosexuality and move to the New Testament, as you suggest, we find virtually nothing to base opposition to healthy gay relationships. There are some vague words in maybe 3 places in the NT that chastise being "effeminate" that the biblical translators are unsure how to translate.

And there is one place, in Romans 1, where Paul exhorts the Romans "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent
acts with other men..."

But the issue here as Paul puts it is abandoning natural relations. Well, Paul may not have known this, but we know that natural relations for gay men is other gay men. Further, he is talking about committing "indecent acts" but there is nothing indecent in a loving, committed relationship.

There you have a brief description of why some committed Christians are supportive of our gay brothers and sisters. God have mercy on us all.
Damn, I've got to get into these discussions earlier...

I am going to deviate from the current discussion a bit. I want to address NYgirl's last paragraph-
No, it wasn't 'conservatism' that freed the women of Afghanistan, gave Iraqis the chance to vote, and ushered in (some) change in Lebanon. It was Democracy. Democracy IS both liberals and conservatives -that is the point, one person, one vote. To paint a broad picture that ONLY conservatives respect and want to promote freedom is extremely unfair.

In addition, many conservatives are just as guilty of tolerating dictators when it promoted their agenda.

Bashing a liberal just because they are liberal makes no sense. There are too many variations to make such a blanket statement. Why not address the problem exactly how it really is? There are good and bad people. There are people on both sides of the fence which take their own person beliefs to an extreme and then try to force them on others.

Isn't the end goal to be a nation united for just causes? To protect freedom and deny oppression? I think we can all agree on that...both liberal and conservative.
Hi & welcome jumpin' on the bandwagon. Looks like you missed this one :) but, no biggie, I'll do my best.

Well, it was conservatives who favored the ousting of Saddam & who favor staying there now. A majority of Dems were against that. If the Dems had their way, we would have been out of Iraq well before an election & our paper tiger actions would never have prompted the ousting of Syria from Lebannon. We wouldn't even have ousted Saddam, although both Clinton & Kerry were in favor of it in the pre-Bush era.

I agree, there are good & bad people on both side, but as this article focuses on academia & education, almost every study shows that liberals do dominate academia. There have been many, many instances of liberal prof's harassing conservative students & their being tolerated by the overwhelmingly liberal faculty.

The majority of liberals are against the use of force, but unfortunatly, dictators don't step down because you ask them nicely. They need to be draged out kicking & screaming & so far, I don't see liberals advocating for that.
OK. We agree that brutal, oppressive leaders ought to be stopped. Yes?

Problem 1 for war-as-solution:
We have, let's say, 25 brutal dictatorships around the world right now. What do we do to stop them? Send in the military in every case? Why not?

Because it can't be done and if it could, I'd fear the nation that wielded that much power.

Problem 2 for war-as-solution:
We have genocide in Sudan. We have oppression in the Phillipines. We have government imprisoning people without trials (Guantanamo)and poisoning the countryside (Colombia) in the US. We have nuclear threats in countless countries.

Who decides which country's leadership gets overthrown? Who decides the priority for replacing leaders?

We need an international set of laws and peacekeepers (not the same as military) and we need to begin abiding by those laws. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, what is your just and reasonable solution?
Democracy, the will of the people, decides who gets overthrown & in what order.

And, how would these "peacekeepers" keep the peace without weapons?

I don't know if you are aware, but there are international laws. And the detainees at Guantanamo, under the Geneva Conventions, would be eligible for summary execution. We are being very compassionate by sparing them the enforcement of international law.

No one likes war, but to rule is out as an option is not realistic.
Yes. There are international laws. Reagan/Bush broke some of them in Nicaragua (a World Court found us guilty and we refused to acknowledge it - did you read that in your liberal media?) and Bush Jr has broken them again in Iraq. You can't invade a country unprovoked.

If a world court finds us guilty of war crimes here, will you support international law?
Personally, I don't believe in international law as it exists. I merely refered to it in responce to your comment.

Boy did I read on the "crimes" of Reagan, Bush 41, & Bush 43. On the other hand, I've read very little about the "crimes" of Clinton, Carter & Roosavelt.
The US was convicted of war crimes in the mining of the Corento harbor in Nicaragua. Members of the Reagan/Bush staff fell on their swords to protect them in the Iran Contra crimes. These are SERIOUS crimes that people have been convicted of. People were being killed! It's not a matter of opinion.

Clinton (whose policies I often disagreed with) on the other hand, lied about an affair. I found it disrespectful and distasteful. I thought he should have stepped down. But is there a comparison between lying about an affair and supporting terrorists and then lying about it? Not hardly?

What crimes was Carter or his administration charged with? Roosevelt?

I ask you again: Do you support legal standards and think we ought to be held accountable as we hold others accountable? You all tend to leave some pretty important questions unanswered.

You did say that you don't believe in international laws as they exist. On what grounds do you hope to try Saddam, then? I'm not saying that laws can't be improved, but they must be there. There must be rules we abide by or it's merely might makes right and ends justify the means and those are hardly moral positions to support.
Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
Nice Blog!!!   I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP »
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?