Agape Press, 10/18/06: Column Caper at Southern Miss. Still Unresolved - USM Forum -- Message Board

info · Status: Offline

Agape Press, 10/18/06: Column Caper at Southern Miss. Still Unresolved

Atheist · Status: Offline

I bet those d*mn liberal professors are behind that sex column. No good Christians would allow such articles to be published. Looks like Thames didn't "clean house" well enough. What we need here are some Taliban in leadership positions so our college "boys and girls" are not exposed to these filthy ideas.

Incredulous · Status: Offline

"Reign" in, eh? I guess that fits an imperial president.

Reporter · Status: Offline

Have you noticed that today's Student Printz is not online? Check here:
http://www.studentprintz.com/
Do you think there is a connection?

stinky cheese man · Status: Offline

try--it's fall break. the student newspaper doesn't come out on holidays.

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

The link to the Meredith article two threads down on this page indicates the 10/17 edition is on-line.

-- Edited by Polyonymous at 09:08, 2006-10-19

Reporter · Status: Offline

stinky cheese man wrote:

try--it's fall break. the student newspaper doesn't come out on holidays.

Thanks Stinky. I forgot about Fall break.

LVN · Status: Offline

Atheist, this is unworthy of you. "Taliban"? Please.

LVN · Status: Offline

By the way, the student quoted in the article happens to be Roman Catholic (I know him.)

Atheist · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

Atheist, this is unworthy of you. "Taliban"? Please.

LVN, I put in three

For me "Taliban" just refers to "students of religion" in Afghanistan or "seminarians" who ran Afghanistan according to Islamic law, as they interpreted it. They were not terrorist. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Atheist · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

By the way, the student quoted in the article happens to be Roman Catholic (I know him.)

LVN, Is this the quote?
"I think we've become so politically correct that we're tolerating something that's blatantly evil," Beggerly offers. "I was the first person to contact ... President Thames about this matter; and he hadn't even heard about it until I brought it to his attention."

Since when is discussing sex "blantly evil"? Is sex evil or just the discussion of it in public?

Seems to me it is "blantly evil" to try to use power (going to Thames) to impose your religious views on others, hence my Taliban reference. However, I didn't intend to offend.

LVN · Status: Offline

I think your definition of "Taliban" differs markedly from the perception most Americans have, whether right or wrong. When you say "Taliban" most people read "terrorist."

However, I've said before that I think the columns are a.) silly and b.) in bad taste, but I've already confessed to being an old fuddy-duddy. Parents, community people, students, and other "stake-holders" certainly have the right to object to anything the Printz publishes. After all, it is connected to a tax-supported institution, and it would be no different if the Printz suddenly became an all-religion, all the time publication.

I thought the freedom to object and protest was part of "freedom" --

LVN · Status: Offline

Atheist, I sent you a private message.

Atheist · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

Atheist, I sent you a private message.

I got your message LVN and like your suggestion. But I'm afraid my wife would not appove.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Just a joke people.)

info · Status: Offline

Comment from around the blogosphere:

http://thecollegeweblog.com/college-newspaper-sex-columns-friday-october-13th-edition/

The College Weblog
College Newspaper Sex Columns: Friday, October 13th Edition

http://lustylady.blogspot.com/2006/10/quick-links.html

The Lusty Lady: Blog of Rachel Kramer Bussel

http://parlancheq.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-this-offend-you-6.html

PARLANCHEQ: Can we talk??
Does This Offend You? (#6)

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=278784

Rapture Ready message board
More declining morality: Another college sex column

stephen judd · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

However, I've said before that I think the columns are a.) silly and b.) in bad taste, but I've already confessed to being an old fuddy-duddy. Parents, community people, students, and other "stake-holders" certainly have the right to object to anything the Printz publishes. After all, it is connected to a tax-supported institution, and it would be no different if the Printz suddenly became an all-religion, all the time publication.

I thought the freedom to object and protest was part of "freedom" --

Actually LVN, I think the columns after the opening one have been less histrionic and quite a bit more practical and entertaining. I don;t know if it was a claculated move, but it seems to me as though by opening with a paen to recreational sex in fairly graphic detail it seems to me that anything that follows cannot but seem tamer by comparison.

For my part, this column falls into a pretty broad category of columns that have touched on sexual issues (read the evolution of Ann Landers and Dear Abby over the years) or been pretty explicit (the articles Dan Savage used to write for the Village Voice).

You are right -- people do have the right to protest. I notice that the Printz publishes plenty of articles and letters that certainly are expressions of strongly sectarian points of view. Good for them . . . as long as that is one viewpoint and not THE viewpoint . . . I have no problem.

I'd never censor or condemn someone on bad taste -- some of the world's great art got described that way.

LVN · Status: Offline

It would be interesting to know whether the Printz has seen any impact from its ultimate and most powerful critics -- the advertisers.

DJ · Status: Offline

In this case, it bears repeating that legal precedent essentially, and thankfully, prohibits the administration from censoring student newspaper opinion columns. It is my understanding that here at UT-Austin the Daily Texan is reviewed by the faculty advisor but only with respect to making sure the paper (and, I suppose, the university) are protected to the extent possible from lawsuits (like saying 'alleged' and that sort of thing).

As for the right to protest, there is no question that Beggerley and others have the right to protest. But, let's not confuse "protest" with "demand censorship," which it appears Beggerley is doing. Advertisers certainly have the right to pull their ads. And people are free to refuse to read the Printz. That is protest. Calling on Thames to pull the column isn't protest. That's an attempt to censor the free press, pure and simple, in my book.

Do I think some of the columns (particularly the first) were tasteless? Sure. But, the beauty of America is, at least in part, that everyone doesn't have to share my taste or my opinion.

Shelby Thames is weak...but not for his response to this column. He expressed his disapproval, which is about as much as he can do under the law. Beggerley is just plain wrong.

qwerty · Status: Offline

There's simply no controversy here. Just because the Bible-thumping, Science-hating, Taliban-emulating, Gay-hating, Elmer Gantrys at the AFA don't like it, doesn't make it an issue. There's very little "agape" coming from those folks.

Atheist · Status: Offline

DJ wrote:

...
As for the right to protest, there is no question that Beggerley and others have the right to protest. But, let's not confuse "protest" with "demand censorship," which it appears Beggerley is doing. Advertisers certainly have the right to pull their ads. And people are free to refuse to read the Printz. That is protest. Calling on Thames to pull the column isn't protest. That's an attempt to censor the free press, pure and simple, in my book.

...

Thanks for clearly stating the issue, DJ. I always resent people using the label "Evil" to stop clear thinking instead of discussing the content of the issue. There is never discussion of "why public discussion of sex is evil", or "Why people are offended by certain statements". It doesn't seem to occur to them that they are also responsible for what "offends" them. Usually it is a strange action or word from a different culture that people were taught by someone in authority to be "evil". Usually this "evil"is never debated and is based only on emotions.

LVN · Status: Offline

qwerty wrote:

There's simply no controversy here. Just because the Bible-thumping, Science-hating, Taliban-emulating, Gay-hating, Elmer Gantrys at the AFA don't like it, doesn't make it an issue. There's very little "agape" coming from those folks.

By all means, let's have diversity of thought and opinion. Just as long as it doesn't offend you. While I don't embrace every position of the "religious right" I get very tired of the notion that any opinion is welcome in America except theirs.

And once again I must strongly protest the use of "Taliban" in this context.

Atheist · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

qwerty wrote:

There's simply no controversy here. Just because the Bible-thumping, Science-hating, Taliban-emulating, Gay-hating, Elmer Gantrys at the AFA don't like it, doesn't make it an issue. There's very little "agape" coming from those folks.

By all means, let's have diversity of thought and opinion. Just as long as it doesn't offend you. While I don't embrace every position of the "religious right" I get very tired of the notion that any opinion is welcome in America except theirs.

And once again I must strongly protest the use of "Taliban" in this context.

LVN, I would agree with you if "Taliban" meant terrorist. But "Taliban" is just referring to a religious group imposing their religion on others through force, then the analogy, in my opinion, is correct. Granted the local situation doesn't have the force of government behind it, as in Afghanistan, but the process is similar. Because this is widely known and often in the news, the term gets the message across nicely.

LVN · Status: Offline

No, I must disagree. You are using essentially a dictionary definition of "Taliban" -- when in actual use most people read "terrorist." Besides, if something like a real Taliban were to threaten us, what will you call them once you have used up and watered down the term?

My point is that I see just as much intolerance on the left as the left decries on the right, and qwerty's ugly remark is a good example.

I have vigorously defended the professoriate against accusations of elitism and intellectual snobbery, but I swear, sometimes . . . .

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

Back in mid-September, there was a call for grant proposals in the Chronicle in the combined subjects science/technology/mathematics/religion. For those whose frequent interest in this topic seems to manifest itself regularly on the message board, maybe it would be a way to bring lecturers to campus to stimulate informed discussion. I don't know anything about the funding agency other than what was mentioned in the announcement and what is on the website.

Science and religion (GRANT)

Proposals for grants for interdisciplinary studies and the Templeton Research Lectures on the Constructive Engagement of Religion and Science.

Deadline: January 1, 2007

Contact: Metanexus Institute on Religion and Science, 3624 Market Stree, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA. 19104

Phone and fax: 215.789.2200, web: metanexus.net/lectures

DJ · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

qwerty wrote:

There's simply no controversy here. Just because the Bible-thumping, Science-hating, Taliban-emulating, Gay-hating, Elmer Gantrys at the AFA don't like it, doesn't make it an issue. There's very little "agape" coming from those folks.

By all means, let's have diversity of thought and opinion. Just as long as it doesn't offend you. While I don't embrace every position of the "religious right" I get very tired of the notion that any opinion is welcome in America except theirs.

And once again I must strongly protest the use of "Taliban" in this context.

LVN,

You and I have been friends for a while, but you are wrong about the first part of this, in my opinion. What qwerty said may offend you, and that is your right. What he did NOT do is call for the religious right to be censored. He didn't say that they don't have a right to be "bible-thumping, science-hating, Taliban-emulating, gay-hating Elmer Gantrys at the AFA." He didn't say that they don't have the right to exprsss their opinion. THAT, my friend, is the difference. They don't want to see anything in society that offends their delicate sensibilities. That's just too bad.

As for the use of "Taliban," I certainly don't read it as "terrorist." Informed people know that the Taliban tries to enforce religion as Atheist pointed out. If you are afraid the ignorant will read it as "terrorist," and your protest is that it is misleading, I must insist that you look towards the truth-twisting in the neo-conservative house. Far more dangerous than the use of Taliban in this context are things like calling legislation the "Clean Air Act" which virtually strips all environmental regulation of its power to the great joy of corporate polluters. Atheist and Qwerty don't have a thing on Bushie and Denny Hastert and crowd when it comes to using terminology the uninformed won't understand.

I know you don't believe in censorship, LVN. That is what the AFA and its minions like Beggerley are pushing for. Control of the media doesn't sound Taliban-like to you?

LVN · Status: Offline

I didn't say or imply anything about censorship, nor that qwerty was accusing anybody of advocating censorship. I objected to his characterizations. I don't like his language. If he can call names, I can say that I don't like it.

Atheist · Status: Offline

To be fair to LVN, I must agree that the terrorist in the organization Al Qaeda did have training camps in Afghanistan during the time the Taliban were in power. So even though I haven't seen any evidence that the Taliban knew of or acted in the attack on the Trade Center people can confuse our attack on the government of Afghanistan, in order to get to Al Qaeda, as the Taliban being terrorist. However, none of this relates to the censorship under discussion which, in my opinion, is only concerned with the use of power to enforce religious belief.

Much confusion is caued by the Religious Right's belief that Atheism is a religion. Thus when the government is neutral on religious questions they contend that the government is pushing the "religion" of Atheism. This situation provides in their minds a "justification" for using power to impose their beliefs on others.

qwerty · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

I didn't say or imply anything about censorship, nor that qwerty was accusing anybody of advocating censorship. I objected to his characterizations. I don't like his language. If he can call names, I can say that I don't like it.

Absolutely, LVN ! Why have a discussion if folks can't mix it up a bit? How dull, otherwise. I stand by what I wrote, however, about the AFA. Nomen est numen!

LVN · Status: Offline

Just for grins: as far as I know, the AFA (and I am not defending their stance on anything here) primarily uses the weapon of economic boycott against those with whom they disagree. They don't buy certain products, they don't go to Disneyland, etc. etc.

Ok, well I have two cases of Diet Pepsi in the pantry, because I do not buy Coke products, nor do I patronize businesses who are outspoken supporters of Dr. Thames. My actions seem unreasonable to some.

You draw the conclusion . . .

(PS a little googling revealed that in fact "Taliban" is the new favorite buzzword of the left when describing evangelical Christians. But don't worry, when the armed bands of Presbyterians come for you, you can hide out at my house.)

Atheist · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

...
(PS a little googling revealed that in fact "Taliban" is the new favorite buzzword of the left when describing evangelical Christians. But don't worry, when the armed bands of Presbyterians come for you, you can hide out at my house.)

LVN, can you please supply the link you googled that lead you to say,"...'Taliban 'is the new favorite buzzword of the left when describing evangelial Christians"? Thanks.
(PS I don't disagree. I'm just interested in reading the website.)