Unfortunately there is a second article in the Student Printz today discussing condoms.  How long is administration going to let this continue?  I also wonder how Gloria Fink's husband feels about her discussion of their sex life in the campus paper.

The campus newspaper is not the place for discussions of this type.  I understand that faculty, staff, students, and Alumni are upset about this article.

Sorry, I don't get why people are upset. It's called a free press, and more to the point, it's as LVN said...when the advertisers get upset, that's when it will change. We live in a market-driven world, you know.

You can find much worse at the click of a computer mouse...I'd be much more worried about what students are downloading on their computers than what a free student newspaper is publishing (it's not that bad, folks).

Truth/Andrea

PS--What's wrong with discussing condoms? I haven't read the article (will go find it now), but discussing birth control on a college campus seems like a very sane thing to do (health-wise and otherwise). Doesn't the clinic still give out free condoms?

PPS--Just read the condom column. I found it to be interesting, informative and not the least bit offensive--one woman's opinion.

-- Edited by truth4usmAH at 10:54, 2006-09-14

Again, this is no big deal. The Student Printz is just catching up to the rest of colleges around the country.

Read this article in USA Today about the proliferation of sex columns in the college press:

CLICK HERE

qwerty wrote:

---

These are the same folks that are absolutely obsessed with gays. They can't stand 'em. Makes one wonder about Don Wildmon, doesn't it.


By the way, I would expect something better from you than this sort of ad hominem attack. You wouldn't tolerate it from a student, would you?

-- Edited by LVN at 14:04, 2006-09-14

-- Edited by LVN at 14:06, 2006-09-14

Truth, if the purpose of these columns was to inform and save lives that would be one thing. However, the purpose of the series as a whole is to be outrageous. Also however, you know that I am no proponent of censorship.

My favorite quote is from the uptight account specialist in the Music Dept that there is "too much sex in the world today anyway." I can't help wondering a couple of things: a) how does she know? and b) what is the correct amount?

In my first college years (hopefully I'm now in my last years of it), the concept of "enough" was beyond me and many of my fellow students. The idea of there being "too much" would have never even made it onto our radar screens.

For my money (and I'm not paying to read the Printz anyway), the previous column was relatively tasteless. This one at least encourages safer sex practices. Either way, I would rather read something tasteless than to give up the free press. And anything that ticks off the Don Wildmon and Tony Perkins crowd has at least that as a redeeming value.

Whatever happened to those Republicans who wanted "less government?" Suddenly it seems they want LOTS of government and that it should make sure that as a collective society we don't talk about things that we are already apparently doing "too much" of. Sheesh!

To assert that one's most intimate life is not fodder for newspaper columns does not mean that one is "ashamed" of sex. It may simply mean that one has a sense of boundaries, discretion and (dare I use the moth-eaten word) modesty.

In some cultures, places or times the very mention of the word "sex" or a discussion of sexual matters, no matter how carefully expressed, would be regarded as immodest.

The truth is that this is a campus publication primarily published for students, a culture which is highly experimental and certainly represents, both intentionally and unintentionaly, challenges to the manners and mores of its elders. Obviously, those who don't like the content of the article need not read.

The more appropriate thing for the Wildmon's of the world to do would be to write a letter or an op ed piece expressing a point of view about the article under the assumption that intelligent people can read and decidefor themselves whether they wish to continue to read the articles or to join those who don't like them in refraining.

Frankly, I'm not crazy about those articles in the paper that express strong support for the war either  . . . . I could even make a case that it offends my "morality."  But the right of a student writer to express her thoughts in a campus evironment should certainly prevail . . . if at some future date the writer manages to cross some as yet unknown line of tolerance within the student community, I'm quite sure that that message will get expressed -- at which point the paper's editors will face the very real world problem of should they continue to publish something that isn't being "censored" by a small group of powerful but rather is facing the reaction of the community it is publishing for.

---

qwerty wrote:

---

These are the same folks that are absolutely obsessed with gays. They can't stand 'em. Makes one wonder about Don Wildmon, doesn't it.

LVN responded:
By the way, I would expect something better from you than this sort of ad hominem attack. You wouldn't tolerate it from a student, would you?

-- Edited by LVN at 14:04, 2006-09-14

-- Edited by LVN at 14:06, 2006-09-14

---

This just in on Ted Haggard, anti-Gay activist and defender of traditional marriage:

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 — In the wake of accusations by a former male escort that the Rev. Ted Haggard had a three-year sexual relationship with him, an independent oversight board at Mr. Haggard’s New Life Church found that he had “committed sexually immoral conduct” on Saturday and dismissed him as senior pastor."


What's that sound I hear? Oh yeah, vindication. How appropriate that the wingnuts' chief homophobe's been doing the down low--ON METH!!! I couldn't have made this up myself. Makes Elmer Gantry seem timid.


How many other of these so-called religious right leaders who are obsessed with denouncing gays are repressing their own sexuality? I don't think Haggard is alone.

Haggard's hypocrisy is a perfect argument for accepting human sexuality as God creates it, in all its many hues and colors, unrepressed by the hate spewed by the religious right.

I had to do some research, since I really didn't know anything about Mr. Haggard. Here is the text of an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, June 19, 2005.
______________________________________________________
An evangelical voice strikes different notes
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - An Indiana farm boy and onetime Bible smuggler in communist eastern Europe, the Rev. Ted Haggard has become one of the most influential voices in evangelical Christianity.

President since 2003 of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals, Haggard is conservative, outspoken and charismatic, a dependable voice for the religious right in opposition to abortion, homosexual marriage and the "activist judiciary." But he parts ways from them with his concern about global climate change and other environmental issues, support for the Supreme Court decision protecting gays' sexual privacy, and support for social justice.

He believes in angels and faith healing and speaking in tongues, but he dismisses as fantasy the popular "end times" scenario of a coming Armageddon showdown between the forces of good and evil.

He is a Bible thumper who preaches without a Bible, relying instead on Scripture verses stored on his BlackBerry and projected on six giant screens above the arena-style sanctuary of his New Life Church.

New Life began as a gathering of 25 people in the basement of Haggard's home in 1985, and it has grown into a sprawling nondenominational religious complex on the northern edge of Colorado Springs that provides the foundation for his evangelical eminence.

New Life is now an 11,000-member church. Its 8,000-seat worship center, complete with cafe, is flanked by a "world prayer center" and a permanent "tent" building for smaller services. The church has bought 17 acres just north of its current complex to accommodate growth. It has a staff of 209 and offers 1,300 small groups dedicated to such activities as quilting, cooking, rock climbing and motorcycling, all with a religious flavor.

Haggard, 48, has sandy hair, a folksy manner and a frequent grin. His message is delivered with a mix of old-fashioned, get-right-with-Jesus preaching and feel-good popular psychology.

His wife, Gayle, is the daughter of a former Air Force officer, and the couple has five children, including a mentally handicapped 17-year-old son. As a former youth minister, Haggard puts special emphasis on tending to children and young people, and he is a frequent guest speaker at Focus on the Family, the conservative Christian organization whose headquarters is two miles from his church.

As spokesman for the conservative-dominated evangelical movement, he says he wants to broaden the brand.

"Many in the religious right would say the only issues are same-sex marriage and abortion and judges. I say no way. There's social justice. Eliminating poverty. The environment. The Bible is not about two or three issues.

"Some members of the religious right believe it is impossible to be a Bible-believing liberal. I believe you can be a Bible-believer and a liberal.

"People come from all ends of the spectrum. If they're liberal, they find it shocking to find they're an evangelical, because they equate that with Jerry Falwell. If they're coming from the right, they find it disappointing to learn that these other people will have a place in heaven right next to them."

Haggard has become an outspoken leader in evangelical efforts for stronger environmental protection.

"It makes no sense to save a baby and have it choke to death on the air."

He said the National Association of Evangelicals "does not stand with" evangelicals who want a Christian government in the United States.

"I support the ideology of a pluralistic society with a fundamentally secular government," he said. "The church is a voice, but not the only voice." [my emphasis]

"But a secular government is not an atheistic government... . We don't want to be discounted just because we're people of faith."
_________________________________________________

Personally, I disagree with Mr. Haggard on a number of points, but thought it only fair to present some defense against the charge of "hate-spewing." Beyond this, I have nothing further to say on this topic.

"How many other of these so-called religious right leaders who are obsessed with denouncing gays are repressing their own sexuality? I don't think Haggard is alone.

Haggard's hypocrisy is a perfect argument for accepting human sexuality as God creates it, in all its many hues and colors, unrepressed by the hate spewed by the religious right."

Atheist,
Does your acceptance include child molestation? That's one of those many hues and colors. Sometimes repression is in order.

Atheist wrote:

---

Incredulous wrote:

---

"How many other of these so-called religious right leaders who are obsessed with denouncing gays are repressing their own sexuality? I don't think Haggard is alone.

Haggard's hypocrisy is a perfect argument for accepting human sexuality as God creates it, in all its many hues and colors, unrepressed by the hate spewed by the religious right."

Atheist,
Does your acceptance include child molestation? That's one of those many hues and colors. Sometimes repression is in order.

---

Incredulous, the quote above is from Qwerty, not I. But to answer your question, I don't accept any form of child molestation, including the mental and intellectual molestation of telling them statements are true when they are only beliefs not supported by evidence.

---

Sorry, Athiest. My bad.

DJ,

You've unfairly misinterpreted my comment. I was not referring to any specific person. I was reacting to the suggestion that we accept people's sexual orientation in any way it presents itself. The argument that a given behavior should not be repressed or punished if it's natural or innate for that person is a weak one. Some people are pathological liars who don't know what they are saying. Some people have uncontrollable tempers which lead to violence. And, yes, some people (hetero and homosexuals) are sexually attracted to children. In all these cases there are sanctions, formal or informal.

DJ wrote:

---

---

I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone brought child molestation into this, even though there is NO basis for it in the discussion of what Ted Haggard has done. I am 'incredulous' at the obfuscation here.

For the record, Ted Haggard didn't commit molestation of either a child or an adult. What was "immoral" about his activity was a) he was a married man engaging in sex with someone outside his marriage and b) he was holding himself out against equal rights for gay people while living a closeted life. However, it is important to note that when authority figures, particularly in a religious context, preach against homosexuality they run the risk of doing serious emotional molestation to children and teens who are other than heterosexual. In this sense, they abuse underage people as well as adults.

It is also important to note that the science indicates that something over 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual in orientation. To bring child molestation into this is reckless at best. I don't know any LGBTQ person who is interested in children. The debate over same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with relationships between an adult and a child. It has everything to do with treating consenting adults equally regardless of the genders of the adults involved.

Finally, I agree with LVN partially...to this point. I am certainly sad to see Pastor Haggard's wife and children suffer in this instance. I would never wish this suffering on any person. But, their suffering is caused by a matter of infidelity on the part of their husband and father. It is not a result of anything gay people have brought onto their family. As a matter of principle, I am normally opposed to the 'outing' of any gay person. That is for them to share. However, in the case of a public figure who heads a 45,000 church organization comprising about 30 million people, he set himself up for exposure. I can only hope that this will be fair warning to others who insist upon throwing stones while living in glass houses. His family does not deserve this sorrow, and I am sympathetic to their plight. But it would be ridiculous to blame their difficulty on anyone other than Mr. Haggard.

---

Excellent post, DJ. I just like to add that besides the sex (adultery) we have a violation of drug laws, if what I read was true. So it seems like a huge character flaw problem to me.