I feel pretty and witty and gay

Georgia Grad Student Sues University Over Gay Sensitivity Training

Jennifer Keeton Says She Was Told to Change Her Christian Beliefs or Be Dropped From the Program
[...]
David French, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund and also director of its Center for Academic Freedom, told ABCNews.com that the lawsuit on Keeton's behalf is one of about a half-dozen similiar cases involving counseling or social work students in the last few years.

Hmm, David French, where have I heard that name before? Oh wait, I remember:

Eastern Michigan U. student's lawsuit is dismissed
[...]
Julea Ward says she was removed from Eastern's counseling program because she refused to counsel gay clients, saying she believed homosexuality was morally wrong.
[...]
Alliance Defense Fund attorney David French says the group will appeal the decision.

Oh where to start ... I'll start here: Jennifer Keeton wasn't told to change her beliefs, she was just told she'd have to attend sensitivity classes. And if she didn't attend them she couldn't complete her studies.

That sounds reasonable to me. They didn't ask for her to change her beliefs, they just asked her to attend more classes.

Julea Ward also failed in her attempt to get a degree so she could impose her religious beliefs on the public.

That also sounds reasonable to me.

Look, if you're going for a geology degree, and you think the Earth is 6000 years old, you flunk. Because you can't do your job.

If you're a pharmacist and you refuse to sell condoms, or any other legal BC, you flunk. Because you can't do your job.

Frankly, if your religious views make it impossible to do your job? Find another job.

By bringing their doxastic errors into secular professions they are imposing their religion on others. The 1st Amendment doesn't work that way.

Freedom

I'm not a lawyer. Surprised? Too much work, too much school. But I do love the law, and read about it often. So I was not surprised when I found this critique of Sonia Sotomayor from conservatarian blog Point of Law:

I suggested hope that she might apply such strong free-speech views to cases involving campaign finance restrictions.

Alas, we now know better. A former member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor has written aggressively in favor of strict campaign finance regulation:

The tolerance in this country for questionable behavior by public officials is illustrated by the persistence of extremely troubling--but legal-- practices in the public arena. In one of the murkiest and least well-controlled areas, we find ourselves debating what the quid pro quo's are for campaign contributions. Here we have abandoned standards we would surely apply in any other context. We would never condone private gifts to judges about to decide a case implicating the gift-givers' interests. Yet our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a "democratic" society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? If they cannot, the public must demand a change in the role of private money or find other ways, such as through strict, well-enforced regulation, to ensure that politicians are not inappropriately influenced in their legislative or executive decision-making by the interests that give them contributions. (footnotes omitted)

As I read her comments, Sotomayor seems either woefully ignorant of or utterly unconcerned by the centrality of political speech to the First Amendment, and the pretty self-evident notion that monies spent on or donated to campaigns constitute political speech.

Crap. simply crap. I know, having buckets full of money entitles one to buy a big house, a private jet, a fancy car. But the weird fetish of the right that political contributions are "free speech" makes no sense at all.

Until one understands that they want, they encourage, government takeover by the wealthy, and the corporations. Then it all makes sense. Bribery as a public policy is a feature, not a bug.

Clearly the writers of the 1st & 14th amendments had no intention of these laws being used for this purpose. It is a perverse agenda-driven analysis that sees a wealthy person's contributions to a political campaign as being worth more that someone donating pennies. Yet the conservatarian right continues to sound this cry, that being able to donate $1,000,000 to Sen. X's campaign will give you a quid pro quo with Sen. X after he/she is elected.

Yes, you can donate anything you want to a campaign. No, you can not expect anything in return except that your dollars are sepnt by the campaign.

Fools, idiots, bastards.

The little brown church in the vale

(Saddleback Church video tour-it's huge!)

Some interesting stuff in the news about McStraightTalkExpress and the Saddleback Church love fest. But that's not important right now.

Why was a mega-church, that has its own street and practically its own ZIP code, charging people to attend the Obama-McCain event? It wasn't a fund raiser, and it was a chance to watch historical Democracy in action, yet this rich church charged people.

The Glibertarian OC Register had this to say:

"Church officials said they decided to charge admission for people who wanted a chance to see the Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls because of the expenses to stage the event and provide television feeds to a host of networks."

This is utter crap. I have done audio tech work at Saddleback Church as I mention a few posts ago, and I've seen their operation.

They have audio & video facilities that would embarrass the L.A. NBC, CNN & CBS affiliates, including high-tech and expensive fiber audio & video links between various parts of the campus, ProTools rigs for recording every utterance that comes out of Warren's mouth, state-of-the-art wireless microphones, a recording studio, complete audio & video post-production, all with the finest equipment available.

This place could handle any Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical with simultaneous satellite up-linking, network distribution, SAP language feed, and a full orchestra without breaking a sweat. They could do that in the main church, while holding a rock concert in one of the other venues, while rehearsing an 80 voice choir in still another building.

This place is more high-tech than the L.A. Music Center and Kennedy Center combined. The only thing that might complicate their "feeds to a host of networks" might be buying a few more $10 BNC cables, available at RadioShack. In other words, it's a complete lie.

In this case, I don't know who are the biggest bastards, the church, or the OC Register.

Who said this?

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

This guy?



Or this guy?



Huckabee has finally thrown off his 'politician' disguise and announced himself as a Dominionist.

In 1987 George Grant wrote The Changing Of The Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action, in which he made his call for a theocratic overthrow explicit. On reading these passages, there can be no doubt exactly what Grant is calling for:

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ – to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

Watertiger at Dependable Renegade has the ... uh... best response.

Bryan of Why Now? has the Juan Cole link.

Sorghum Crow of Sorghum Crow's General Store has this.
(crossposted at Rants from the Rookery)