Friday, April 21, 2006

A Clarion Call to this Generation

Below are some pertinent letters to the editor at World Net Daily which were written in response to the false accusations of harassment by gay professors against an OSU librarian.

I say it's about time that the truth comes out so that the continual intolerance hurled towards conservative Christians on university campuses gets exposed.

I just received a letter from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) that shared it's goal of pro-activism in confronting incidences like this false accusation against Mr. Savage. Their work will be crucial so that Christians can be rest assured of not being targeted by those who disagree with their free speech rights on college campuses. Such reverse discrimination runs rampant at liberal universities. Incidences like this should never happen again!

Christine

*******

Teacher praises Kupelian's book

I am a daily reader of WorldNetDaily, a high-school English teacher, and I have found Kupelian's book to be clarion call to this generation – WAKE UP! His writing is masterful.

This book will most surely be a watershed treatise on the state of the union and how we sank to the level of moral depravity in which we find ourselves. Thank you, Mr. Kupelian, for your earnest work and your perception of the pitfalls of a godless society.

W.D.


OSU 'staggeringly off-base' in response to librarian

I found the letter to Mr. Savage from T. Glenn Hill of the Ohio State University, Mansfield, human resources department to be staggeringly off-base in several respects.

First, it apparently does not suggest that any punitive actions are being considered against the three men who knowingly, falsely accused Mr. Savage in order to have him fired for reasons that have nothing to do with harassment.

Second, it apparently ignores the fact that a much larger number of their faculty was willing to destroy his career using that knowingly false accusation.


Third, the phrase "However well intentioned the actions ..." attempts to imply that the nasty, dishonest attack on Mr. Savage was actually a friendly, kindly act.


Fourth, (as your article also points out) putting Dr. Jones in charge of cleaning up the mess, who is the very person who falsely accused Mr. Savage, makes as much sense as having the president nominate the head of the Mafia as the new director of the FBI.

Finally, warning Mr. Savage against retaliation, after informing him that OSU was in agreement that he had not harassed anyone, was incredibly stupid. It is common knowledge that an accused is warned against retaliation only if it is uncertain if harassment occurred, or if it is certain that harassment occurred.


This response from OSU is incredibly cowardly, wrong-headed and weak. The professors involved seem to have the OSU administration completely cowed, perhaps afraid that they themselves will be the next targets in another left-wing witch hunt at OSU. These professors will doubtlessly be emboldened when they sense the incredible cowardice and weakness of the administrators.

We have recently seen the presidents of Harvard and Colorado State brought down by a single ultra-liberal professor using these same tactics. Despite doing absolutely nothing wrong themselves, these two university presidents fell all over themselves to backpedal, to apologize, and to defend and sing the praises of the very professors who were viciously and dishonestly attacking them.

Joe Hoffman

*******

Campus Heterophobia

David Limbaugh writes:

"You have to be a semantic contortionist not to realize that any intolerance or hate speech involved in this episode emanated from the professors and their supporting faculty. Then again, conservative thought is obviously not entitled to the same degree of protection, if any, and anti-conservative propaganda is promoted in much of liberal academia. We can only imagine what goes on in these professors' classrooms that we don't hear about.

But Savage's attorney, David French, said that merely dropping the complaint doesn't repair the damage to his client's reputation and career. He is considering litigation.

I think he should seriously consider going forward with litigation against the people and institutions involved. Radical homosexual groups routinely characterize the utterance of opposing opinions – just as in this incident – as hate speech and seek to ban it. They frequently seek to have the expression of opinions running counter to their dogma, branded as harassment or bullying, to make it easier to stigmatize those daring to disagree. Well, in this case – if the allegations are true – the professors appear to be guilty of that which they were accusing Savage: harassment."


*******

Mike S. Adams provides his own recommended letter of support for Mr. Savage within this article which he intends to send to the entire OSU faculty...

There are about a dozen comments to Mike's column, but the best one (so far) has to be "Ironies abound" written by FWPeretto:

"What really makes this case stand out in my mind is that the Kupelian book, which Savage's persecutors most loathed and set out after him for, describes precisely the sort of tactic they used against him as a principal weapon in homosexual activism. The operative term is jamming: "Psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of, or even support for, dissenting opinion." (Paul Rondeau, Regent University) This tactic is explicitly recommended to homosexual activists by "After The Ball," Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's seminal book on strategy and tactics for the homosexual movement.

Plainly, these folks don't want anyone blowing the whistle on their little game.


*******
Added on at 2:00 p.m.

I just saw two videos via Biola University's "Eaglevision" archives that demonstrates a willingness to dialogue between the faculty, students and the visiting Soulforce Equality-Ride Group that visited this conservative Christian university on April 4th, 2006.

Click on this Archive link, scroll down, and click on the April 4th and 5th broadcast dates to view various interviews of students to see for yourself that differing viewpoints can be discussed in a way that is non-combative, not meant to indoctrinate opposing sides and done in a respectful way.

If only such things were possible at liberal university college campuses!

19 comments:

Christinewjc said...

A poll to peruse:

What do you think about the state of academic freedom on university campuses today?

Kupelian's title nails it – it's the marketing of evil 31.83% (593)


Universities are among the most closed, intolerant societies in the U.S. today 30.86% (575)


Universities are becoming more and more fascist, employing brownshirt, jackboot tactics to stifle dissent 24.37% (454)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth ... unless you're a Christian 9.23% (172)


Admittedly, there are a few unhinged professors, but most act professionally 1.72% (32)


Other 0.70% (13)


There are always aberrations, but for the most part, the free and open exchange of ideas is alive on campus 0.59% (11)


Colleges and universities continue to be forums for lively debate on the great issues of our time 0.38% (7)


Free expression has never been more vibrant than it is on college campuses in 2006 0.32% (6)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth 0.00% (0)



TOTAL VOTES: 1863

(Results so far as of 4/21/06 @7:23 a.m. PT)

Go vote!

Christinewjc said...

I just saw two videos via Biola University's "Eaglevision" archives that demonstrates a willingness to dialogue between the faculty, students and the visiting Soulforce Equality-Ride Group that visited this conservative Christian university on April 4th, 2006.

Click on this Archive link, scroll down, and click on the April 4th and 5th broadcast dates to view various interviews of students to see for yourself that differing viewpoints can be discussed in a way that is non-combative, not meant to indoctrinate opposing sides and done in a respectful way.

If only such things were possible at liberal university college campuses!

Christinewjc said...

WND Poll update:

What do you think about the state of academic freedom on university campuses today?

Kupelian's title nails it – it's the marketing of evil 30.99% (1061)


Universities are among the most closed, intolerant societies in the U.S. today 30.75% (1053)


Universities are becoming more and more fascist, employing brownshirt, jackboot tactics to stifle dissent 25.09% (859)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth ... unless you're a Christian 9.93% (340)


Admittedly, there are a few unhinged professors, but most act professionally 1.49% (51)


Other 0.61% (21)


There are always aberrations, but for the most part, the free and open exchange of ideas is alive on campus 0.53% (18)


Colleges and universities continue to be forums for lively debate on the great issues of our time 0.38% (13)


Free expression has never been more vibrant than it is on college campuses in 2006 0.23% (8)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth 0.00% (0)



TOTAL VOTES: 3424

(Results as of 2:14 p.m. PT)

Christinewjc said...

And then there is this which shows what is in store for America if 'gay' marriage and 'hate crimes' laws become law here, and enforced as they already are in Canada.

Goodbye freedom of conscience.

Goodbye freedom of speech for those who oppose the gay agenda.

Goodbye freedom of association when one does not want their individual dues and contributions to a union (or any other organization) to go to 'gay-related' causes for religious and/or moral reasons.

Goodbye freedom to practice, adhere to, speak about, and preach the Bible.

Goodbye to the freedom and right to vocalize opposition to the gay agenda.

Christinewjc said...

Welp...we don't even need to look across the border at Canada's morality and ethics mess.

Just look at the damage being waged against parent's rights over in Massachusetts.

Gay marriage wasn't voted in by proposition through the majority of the people in MA.

Nope.

Gay marriage wasn't voted in by the legislature and then signed by the governor.

Nope.

Gay marriage came to be by a liberal, activist judge who single-handedly ruled that 'gay' marriage is now the law there. Perhaps we now should teach kindergarteners in that state what a socialistic, secular humanistic anarchist is!

Oh wait! Most cannot possibly read such difficult adjectives yet (even though gay activists think they should learn about gay marriage...hmmm...).

I know...just show a picture of Margaret Marshall!

Christinewjc said...

Margaret Marshall picture at Article 8 site. Just scroll down - it is on right side of first page.

Christinewjc said...

WND Poll Update:

What do you think about the state of academic freedom on university campuses today?

Universities are among the most closed, intolerant societies in the U.S. today 30.58% (1227)


Kupelian's title nails it – it's the marketing of evil 30.35% (1218)


Universities are becoming more and more fascist, employing brownshirt, jackboot tactics to stifle dissent 25.57% (1026)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth ... unless you're a Christian 10.29% (413)


Admittedly, there are a few unhinged professors, but most act professionally 1.47% (59)


Other 0.65% (26)


There are always aberrations, but for the most part, the free and open exchange of ideas is alive on campus 0.52% (21)


Colleges and universities continue to be forums for lively debate on the great issues of our time 0.35% (14)


Free expression has never been more vibrant than it is on college campuses in 2006 0.22% (9)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth 0.00% (0)



TOTAL VOTES: 4013

(As of 7:31 p.m. PT)

Christinewjc said...

I shared this post which reveals the blatant attempt to silence Mr. Savage, (the librarian at OSU) through the use of a false accusation of "sexual harassment" by 2 gay professors over at an ex-gay watch site (read: ex-gay disapproval and/or bashing rhetoric site) and what was their collective responses?

1. It didn't fit the topic. (I posted in a thread which asked people to share photos of people who are silenced...I didn't have a photo but shared a story about a librarian who was falsely accused in order to silence his views and book recommendations. But no. My post didn't fit the topic.

2. I was accused of:

a. Not knowing what I am talking about.

b. Bothering people.

c. Displaying hostility.

d. Told to "chill out" with my accusations of the use of "jamming" (see Kupelian's "Marketing of Evil" chapter 1) by the gay professors. (It most certainly was the intimidation device used.)

e. Then, I was told that my post had, "nothing to do with the ex-gay movement or the "Day of Silence." (I think it's very relevant...not in their favor, of course, but quite relevant to similar issues having to do with who is silencing (or attempting to silence) whom.

f. I was told that the professors simply, "overreacted and filed a sexual harassment claim" and that should be the end of the story. (And if the roles and claims were reversed, what would the gay professors have done? Let it alone? I doubt that 100%...that's why there is such a fight to get "hate crimes" laws passed...to punish those who disagree with people like the gay professors, the liberal faculty, and the administration officials.

g. Next, a man who originally said that if I was "civil," I could continue to post there (and, apparently, have a nice, kind dialogue with the anti-ex-gay moderators and commentors there (who consistently bash Stephen Bennett and other ex-gay ministries...which, BTW, was the reason I originally posted at that site in the first place).

Next, he said the following about me, "And the simple existence of an isolated incident gives folks like Christine endless hours of pleasure decrying the Evil Homosexuals who are Trying to Silence Good Christians who only want to Spread the Word of how EVIL those Nasty Homosexuals are."

Yeah right...civil, nice and kind dialogue my a____ er foot!

h. Next, an accusation is hurled at my (by my ole' adversary Boo) that I make, "wild accusations," "outrightly lie," and "use any 'stick' to beat gay people with." So charming...isn't she?

i. There is much more but I won't waste any more time on it. The final blow was that I was told not to post at that thread (so, obviously, I needed to post my replies here.)

Ya know what? I wanted to see if anyone there could have been honest enough to simply admit that the librarian at the university was unfairly accused of sexual harassment by the gay professors, as well as being unfairly treated by the faculty and administration in this incident. If they had (even if it was just one person!), they would have earned a great deal of respect from me.

No one at Ex-Gay Watch had the intellectual honesty to admit that this man was unnecessarily and unfairly targeted by the gay activist professors. No one at Ex-Gay Watch could admit to the fact that he (the librarian) was the victim in this case.

Speaks volumes...doesn't it?

They have proven my point by their inability to admit what most thinking persons who have been interviewed and commenting on this incident have revealed and admitted: Conservative Christian viewpoints are not welcome at liberal universities. They are often targeted in such a way in an effort to completely silence them. In this case, a man was falsely accused of sexual harassment (which could have subjected him to criminal repercussions and/or the loss of his job). But the people at Ex-Gay Watch think it was just an isolated incident that should be forgotten.

David Kupelian's truthful points about gay activism in his book are right on target. But of course gay activists and their ilk would never admit that, either.

Talk about having "a mote and beam" in one's eye...

How sad...I'll continue to pray for them...

Christinewjc said...

Ha! The irony of it all!

Get this:

"Author Kupelian says the almost two dozen professors who voted for the investigation have done him a big favor.

"It's a great irony -- a wonderful irony, from my point of view -- that these professors were so concerned about the possibility that their freshmen might read my book, that outside of the rarified air of the college campus the rest of America has heard about this story and has gone in droves to buy [the book]," he says.

Kupelian's book was published almost a year ago -- but because of the controversy on the OSU-Mansfield campus, sales have "skyrocketed," says the author. "Right now it's [number] 30 or 40 on Amazon.com -- and it's been the number-one current events book for the last three or four days," he says.

And what about the nine faculty members who abstained from voting? Kupelian says he has a theory.

"You have to wonder: why did they not vote on this matter? It can't be because they didn't have an opinion," he speculates. "I say it's because they knew that this was bogus [and] ridiculous to bring a guy up on charges of sexual harassment for recommending a book."

Consequently, he says, those professors could not vote in favor of the investigation against Scott Savage -- but at the same time they could not vote against it. Otherwise, says Kupelian, they would run the risk of being characterized along with him as "a homophobe and a bigot and a hater."

[cough cough... JAMMING...cough cough...]

Kupelian, who is managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, sees another irony in the whole ordeal: his book is available for purchase in the Ohio State University bookstore.


Entire article at:

News From Agape Press

Christinewjc said...

The following is a great, articulate letter:

Here is the letter I sent to OSU faculty:
Friday, April 21, 2006

Esteemed Colleagues,

As a professor of Human Development at Solano College (near San Francisco), I have been regularly subjected to harrassment for much of my 33-year tenure by some of our homosexual faculty and sympathizers. In this case, "harrassment" specifically refers to efforts to get me fired.

The reason: "Your religious faith makes it impossible for you to be impartial or favorable to the rights of the gay community."

Ironically, my best friend on campus, who was until recent retirement also my wife's boss, is a lifelong openly gay man with a lifelong and openly male companion.

My purpose in writing is to express the deeply-held feeling and position that our sexual preference should have absolutely nothing to do with our academic work and treatment of others on the campus. I have never done or said anything in favor of, or against, anyone of any sexual persuasion. Although my daily work is educating students about relationships, a student's sexual preference, or mine, is a non-factor. What goes on in the bedroom is a personal choice and, in my classroom, has never been something appropriate for censure or social pressure of any kind.

Additionally, a students religion, or mine, is also a non-factor. What goes on in a church or synagogue or mosque is a personal choice and have never been something appropriate for censure or social pressure of any kind. My students sometimes can detect my religious attitudes (smart kids, those students!) but never once was it an issue because it is my private life and not pushed onto them. It does not enter into the classroom. Gay students and religious students are all taught and treated alike. Gay positions, if expressed in the classroom or in papers, and religious positions, if expressed in the classroom or papers, are respected alike. The only critique might be as to the academic rigor or grammatical skill of the expression, but never of the position taken. To do so would deny free speech on a campus where free speech is a hallmark value.

Frequently, students will take positions either against or in favor of religion, as well as against or in favor of homosexuality. They are free to do so. They are never intimidated against their own positions, even if their scholarship may be questioned.

I am not any kind of superior educator. I am just one who feels strongly that education should never be confused with indoctrination or advocacy. My job is the challenge my students to think, but not to tell them what to think.

Ironically, one of the books in question apparently is, The Professors, which I have read, by David Horowitz, whose primary thesis is this very issue of classroom advocacy and indocrination.

Furthermore, I am seriously concerned that many who make the most noise about "diversity" are, in practice, willing to harrass and censor those whose opinions are "diverse" (meaning those opinions which differ from the "mine"). Having been the recipient of said harrassment and censorship makes me more than a little interested in this subject.

Some religious persons may, indeed, believe that the gay lifestyle is "evil." That is their right. That is not homophobia, nor is it descrimination. It is their belief. Some homosexual persons may likewise believe that the religious person is "evil." That is their belief, and is their right. To express either belief is also the right of any person under our Constitutions 1st Amendment.

In classrooms on our campus, the gay lifestyle is openly and frequently encouraged and supported by many, if not most, faculty. However, the religious lifestyle has been thoroughly censored, i.e., forbidden. If either student or faculty is religious, the faculty member must hide it and completely suppress it from any discussion or study. At the same time, constant negative and hostile expressions against religion are flagrantly tolerated.

It appears to me that the same thing is being done, or at least attempted, on your campus. You may not care what an outsider thinks, but for what it's worth I am offering this observation.

It appears that Mr. Savage is being harrassed in an attempt to deny his free speech rights because he encouraged a book or several books, which expressed the common religious view that homosexuality is a sin. That is a real, sincerely held, belief of many, including many students and faculty across our land.

It appears that Dr. Jones feels threatened and harrassed by the suggestion for inclusion of these books as reading materials on your campus.

With all due respect, it seems Dr. Jones is either over-reacting to the needed and professed diversity of ideas upon which education should be based, or that he has an advocacy agenda that is being challenged by said books. In any case, his statements to the campus community as reported in the press seem, at best, to be petty, over-wrought, whiney, and censoring more than censuring. And this, even though the books of concern never mention Dr. Jones by name or other implication, other than that he is a self-professed member of a sexual orientation group mentioned in the books.

Every day my students and I live with variations on "Religion is the opiate of the masses." If I ever had reacted the same way as Dr. Jones, in the same words, to the many direct and personal attacks I have endured over these many years, I would have been laughed off my campus. How could I be so thin-skinned and insecure, and survive three decades of campus and classroom debate and challenge?

It Mr. Savage's view is spurrious, let it put forth to students and faculty alike, and be exposed. Let it be debated. But do not let it be cried about. To do so would be immature and unprofessional. Let it not be censored and silenced. To do so would be dictatorial and facisistic.

Sincerely,

J. Stephen Davidson
Vacaville, California


From: TownHall.com Comments

Boo said...

Christine, thank you for demonstrating the truth of my claim over at exgaywatch. I will now once again point out the errors in the claims you are making, which, if past behavior is any guide, you will most likely ignore and continue to propogate:

"No one at Ex-Gay Watch had the intellectual honesty to admit that this man was unnecessarily and unfairly targeted by the gay activist professors. No one at Ex-Gay Watch could admit to the fact that he (the librarian) was the victim in this case."

I'm sorry no one used the exact words you wanted to hear, perhaps you should have let us know, but yes, someone did indeed say that the faculty overreacted and were rightly slapped down by the administration. The reason every commentor did not stumble over themselves to make the same point is because it was obvious to all that you had come merely looking for a fight.

The statement that you did not know what you were talking about was in reference to your continued repeating of the false claim that the gay rights movement all use After the Ball as a playbook.

No one stated "that should be the end of the story" or anything of the kind. It was simply stated that the librarian has no real basis to sue. He was not damaged, unless he wants to adopt the same tactic that was used against him and claim that his feelings were hurt.

The reason the incident was not covered on exgaywatch is because exgaywatch is a blog about (wait for it...) the exgay movement, with which this story had nothing to do. Ironically enough, the reason it was not covered is in fact because the gay rights movement is not a monolithic entity all with the exact same interests and taking orders out of the same playbook.

If you had bothered to discover for yourself (or more likely you already knew but didn't care), the owners of exgaywatch and most of the commenters believe that people should be free to state antigay opinions. They simply believe that those opinions which are backed up by falsehoods should be exposed.

Contrary to your claim, no one stated that the incident should be forgotten.

Contrary to your claim, you were invited by more than one person to submit something to the thread IF IT WAS ON TOPIC. You were also invited to submit off topic concerns to the open forum thread. Since you demonstrated that you had no wish to be civil or reasonable, you were dismissed by most commenters as just another hatemonger.

Exgaywatch has documented several falsehoods promoted by Stephen Bennet and other ex-gay ministries, which is apparently your definition of "bash." If any of these observations are in error, I'm sure you would be welcome to point them out in the appropriate threads, provided of course that you did so civilly.

If you had read the replies carefully, you would have found that at least one person agreed with you that liberal positions should not dominate universities.

If anything I've said to you has ever sunk in, then you would have known in advance that I would most likely agree with you that the faculty overreacted. If you educate yourself on the issue, however, you will find that this is not a case of "gay activist professors" specifically taking orders from some 20 year old book no one's ever heard of, but a more general problem of university speech codes, which deal with much more than just homosexuality.

Some points about the great articulate letter:

Someone who feels the need to trot out the fact that they have a gay friend to rebut accusations of being a homophobe, is a homophobe.

Kupelian's book goes far beyond "the common religious view that homosexuality is a sin." He hysterically condemns as evil any positive media portrayal of the gay community, and makes several false claims which I have pointed out to you in other threads.

"Some religious persons may, indeed, believe that the gay lifestyle is "evil." That is their right. That is not homophobia, nor is it descrimination. It is their belief."

Yes, actually, it is homophobia. By definition. It is their right to be homophobic. Homophobia is their belief.

While the professors overreacted with hysterical claims of being harrassed, it is somewhat disturbing that a university librarian would recommend such a shoddy excuse for scholarship. Perhaps next month he'll advise students to read Weekly World News to get a "balanced perspective" on Bat Boy.

Christinewjc said...

Boo,

Your claim that David Kupelian made up lies in his book is spurious and typical of the liberal mantra of spin. It is well researched and documented.

Also, he does not claim that all of the gay agenda knowingly followed the "After the Ball" book; however, it is so obvious that the mindset in that book has been utilized during the march for gay rights in this country.

Stephen Bennett does not knowingly present falsehoods. I have heard him carefully relate individual salvation stories of ex-gays on his radio program and he tells the audience that not all gays have had the same experiences and/or same testimony to share.

No one is perfect, Boo, including you and me. We dialogue with what we know and have learned. I have learned from the "other side" but it will never change what I have learned through God's Unchanging Word of Truth in the Bible...in regards to what God reveals about the sin of homosexuality or any other subject matter covered in the Bible.

Next, lets look at some definitions, shall we?

evil - 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life. 2. harmful; injurious: evil laws. 3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to fall on evil days. 4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation. 5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: an evil disposition. 6. something evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils. 7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin. 8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something. 9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil. 10. anything causing injury or harm. 11 a disease, as king's evil. - adv. 12. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him., - Idiom. 13. the evil one, the devil; Satan.

homophobia - 1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality [ 1955-60; HOMO(SEXUAL) + -PHOBIA] homophobe, n. - homophobic, adj.

Resource: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 2001.

It is interesting to note that the term "homophobia" originally meant, "the fear of being homosexually attracted to others." Perhaps that was the definition prior to 1955? I'm not sure on that but maybe someone can look it up.

At any rate, we could debate whether or not homosexual behavior is evil and a sin till we are blue in the face. It probably won't resolve anything. However, the reality of evil existing in this world and the fact that homosexual acts are clearly exclaimed as sin in God's Word, the Bible, perhaps the argument(s) exist in, and between, the minds of men but not in the mind of God.

For the sake of those reading along in this thread (estimated to be about 100), here is a link to a previous post at this blog that includes the entire first chapter of David Kupelian's "The Marketing of Evil" book.

So, because some gay professors got their knickers in a twist over some of the content within the book, the students should not have the free speech right, freedom of choice, or freedom to know about this first chapter, as well as the other topics covered in the book so that they can make up their own minds about the content? What is this...the Soviet Union? Communist China/Korea/Cuba? Or America? The home of the free and the brave?

Content chapters list:

1. Marketing Blitz - Selling "Gay Rights" to America
2. Buying the Big Lie - The Myth of Church-State Separation
3. Killer Culture - Who's Selling Sex and REbellion to Your Children?
4. Multicultural Madness - How Western Culture Was Turned Upside Down in One Generation
5. Family Meltdown - The Campaign to Destroy Marriage
6. Obsessed with Sex - How Fraudulent Science Unleashed a Catastrophic "Revolution"
7. Sabotaging Our Schools - How Radicals Have Hijacked America's Education System
8. The Media Matrix - How the Press Creates a World of Illusion We Think is Real
9. Blood Confessions - How Lying Marketers Sold America on Unrestricted Abortion
10. Last, Best Hope - The Fall and Rise of American Christianity

The book ends with an extremely positive, redemptive, hopeful tone that I think every college student and thinking person should read and know.

*******

Boo said...

"So, because some gay professors got their knickers in a twist over some of the content within the book, the students should not have the free speech right, freedom of choice, or freedom to know about this first chapter, as well as the other topics covered in the book so that they can make up their own minds about the content? What is this...the Soviet Union? Communist China/Korea/Cuba? Or America? The home of the free and the brave?"

Christine- seriously now, I know you've got this whole post-modernist take on truth where truth is whatever you say it is, but you really really really need to quit this habit of putting words in people's mouths. You know perfectly well that I and the exgaywatch owners and commenters agree that the professors overreacted. No one thinks that students should be denied the right to read a silly book filled with unfounded accusations and lies. Students are perfectly able to make up their own minds whether navel rings and baggy pants are an evil plot by the devil, as Kupelian claims.

Our differing opinions about whether or not homosexual acts are evil is neither here nor there. Someone who believes that homosexuality is evil is a homophobe. If you want to believe that God commands homophobia that is your right as an American.

"Your claim that David Kupelian made up lies in his book is spurious and typical of the liberal mantra of spin. It is well researched and documented."

And I have on numerous occasions on numerous threads gone through painstakingly to show you exactly where and how Kupelian is lying. Doing it again unfortunately won't accomplish anything, since you'll just ignore whatever I say and then repeat the same garbage in another thread later.

"Stephen Bennett does not knowingly present falsehoods. I have heard him carefully relate individual salvation stories of ex-gays on his radio program and he tells the audience that not all gays have had the same experiences and/or same testimony to share."

You have accused exgaywatch of slandering Bennett on more than one occasion. Please provide examples. Bennett makes numerous claims about childhood molestation, promiscuity, and disease rates in the gay population which are completely without foundation. If his opinions really are true to God's Word then he has no need to back them up with a bunch of phony claims.

"Also, he does not claim that all of the gay agenda knowingly followed the "After the Ball" book; however, it is so obvious that the mindset in that book has been utilized during the march for gay rights in this country."

As I have already pointed out to you, he did not provide any actual instances of the gay rights movement engaging in any dishonest tactics anywhere in this chapter of his book. He simply made an accusation and went on and on about it, possibly in the hopes that readers would not notice the complete lack of evidence for his claim.

Christinewjc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christinewjc said...

Final Tally of WND Poll:

What do you think about the state of academic freedom on university campuses today?

Universities are among the most closed, intolerant societies in the U.S. today 30.50% (1279)


Kupelian's title nails it – it's the marketing of evil 30.29% (1270)


Universities are becoming more and more fascist, employing brownshirt, jackboot tactics to stifle dissent 25.66% (1076)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth ... unless you're a Christian 10.28% (431)


Admittedly, there are a few unhinged professors, but most act professionally 1.53% (64)


Other 0.67% (28)


There are always aberrations, but for the most part, the free and open exchange of ideas is alive on campus 0.50% (21)


Colleges and universities continue to be forums for lively debate on the great issues of our time 0.36% (15)


Free expression has never been more vibrant than it is on college campuses in 2006 0.21% (9)


College campuses are the freest, most tolerant places on Earth 0.00% (0)



TOTAL VOTES: 4193

*******

Sad, but true. Our liberal universities and colleges are among the most closed, intolerant societies in the U.S. today. Many people who voted in this poll agreed that Kupelian's book title nails it as "the marketing of evil" to our kids.

College campuses are intolerant towards traditional, conservative, Christian and/or religious viewpoints; and they get away with it by labeling alternative views as "hate speech, homophobic, bigoted and intolerant."

So...tell me again...who are the intolerant ones??

The liberal left...that's who!


Why can't the term "tolerance" allow for healthy discussion of opposing viewpoints? Isn't that what tolerance is all about? Why aren't people allowed to disagree with a position while being afforded the same opportunity to speak out with their views?

Why can't colleges allow people the right to express their opposition to the typical liberal mantra without said college faculty and administrators debasing the opposing viewpoints, verbally attacking them (as well as filing false 'harassment' claims) and labeling them as hatemongers??

Is the Bible hate speech?

It is God's Word and it unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior as sin. The Bible also tells us that it is a sin, just like any other kind of sin that can, and needs to be repented of!

Why can't liberals who may disagree respect that statement and allow those viewpoints into the discussion?

I'll tell you why.

It is for the very reason that David Kupelian wrote his book. The censoring of opposing viewpoints is what liberals love to do most and their marketing strategy of selling gay behavior (plus all the other immoral topics included in the book) to the public IS the marketing of evil.

The Bible is absolute truth and reveals that moral absolutes do exist whether some people want to face that fact or not. I will do a blogpost on moral absolutes next week.

Liberals can deny the fact of the existence of moral absolutes. They can ignore it, ridicule it, (and call Christians who believe the Bible and want to teach their children according to God's Word), all the hateful names they want. However, one thing that they will never be able to do is discredit and counter God's Word on these moral issues. That is what frustrates them the most. Their agenda will always be opposed by born-again, Bible believing and following servants of Christ.

One day, with the help of books like Kupelians' and several others out there, more minds will be changed away from the evil marketing strategies that have hijacked, brainwashed and corrupted the minds of our children through cultural indoctrination. The filth that has been imposed upon our children over the past 30 years or so can be reversed.

We desperately need a revival in this great nation of ours and then we will see the positive results such as the current tide turning away from the belief that abortion is just a "choice." Are kids are smart and they will not continue to believe the evil marketer who sold them the lie that abortion is just the right of a woman to "choose what she does with her body." She had that choice before she got pregnant. What is really going on through groups like NARAL and PLANNED INFANCIDEHOOD is the reality that each woman who has an abortion is killing her innocent, helpless, unborn child!

It is my prayer that the current, successful, turning of the tide against unrestricted abortion will also one day expose and turn the tide against the spread of immorality that exists through the radical pushers of the gay agenda upon our children. As more and more ex-gay people bravely share their testimonies of release from homosexual behavior and attraction through the power of Jesus Christ residing in their hearts, then people will know the truth and the truth will set them free from the bondages that have been created, wrapped up as a kind of pseudo-freedom, and sold as corruption disguised as freedom by the marketers of evil.

Christinewjc said...

Freshmen required to undergo homosexual indoctrination

It's about indoctrination and, of course, they don't want that fact exposed by the book, "The Marketing of Evil! However, when students at OSU take that mandatory indoctrination course (a perfect example of corruption disguised as freedom), and then read Kupelian's book because of all the controversy, they might rebel against such training! One can only hope and pray that it happens! A new revolution at college campuses! What a breath of fresh air THAT would be!

Christinewjc said...

Indoctrination will be exposed when freshmen read, "The Marketing of Evil!"

Latest news about OSU controversy:

"With last week's stunning revelations that the entire faculty of a Midwestern university campus voted without dissent to investigate a Christian librarian for "sexual harassment" simply because he recommended the bestselling book "The Marketing of Evil," many are asking why not a single faculty member stood up for the librarian.

The question is especially compelling in light of the decision reported Wednesday that the entire faculty had essentially overstepped their own written policies and had wrongly accused the librarian.

The lock-step faculty support for the two openly homosexual professors who led the charge against the librarian might have something to do with the fact that freshmen at the small Mansfield campus of Ohio State University are required, during their first quarter, to undergo what the university calls a "diversity seminar." But critics say the type of "tolerance re-education" OSU mandates uses tactics reminiscent of those of Chinese communist revolutionary leader Mao Tse-Tung.




"What Ohio State University has been doing to Scott Savage by attacking him as a sexual harasser – and to a far lesser degree doing to me by calling 'The Marketing of Evil' 'hate literature' and so on – is precisely what I write about in my book," says Kupelian.

"It is literally the 'marketing of evil' in action. First they desensitize these youngsters in highly manipulative, emotionally charged re-education sessions. If anybody challenges the pro-gay orthodoxy on campus, they are subjected to merciless 'jamming,' as we see with their threatening the reputation and livelihood of the librarian, Scott Savage. For people who are sufficiently confused, the college experience can bring about a total conversion. I explain these three devastating steps – Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion – in detail in chapter one of 'The Marketing of Evil.'"

Christinewjc said...

Another great article on this controversy over at Human Events online.

Another great Kupelian quote:

"In fact, I asked Kupelian about the title of his book "The Marketing of Evil," how he arrived at it and if he defined "evil" in a Christian sense -- "without God"?

He answered: "Chris, 'The Marketing of Evil' is a phrase that describes exactly what we're seeing in America today: Destructive beliefs and behaviors, the sorts of things that would have horrified the World War II generation, are being packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to Americans as though they were good. And conversely, good values and behaviors are being packaged to make them appear bad. What is 'evil'? Well, as M. Scott Peck said in 'People of the Lie,' 'evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force.' For the purposes of my book, I would say it is definitely 'evil' to lie, manipulate and seduce other people into embracing immoral and self-destructive behaviors and worldviews."


People of the Lie...that's a sad but accurate description.

Christinewjc said...

What a contrast between how conservative Christians and their views/opinions/recommendations are treated on liberal campuses vs. how well and decent the Equality Ride participants where treated at 4 conservative Christian campuses.