Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Langue_doc]

NYT quiz on offensive words:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/22/opinion/words-you-cant-use-anymore.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20230101&instance_id=81555&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=46382589&segment_id=121323&te=1&user_id=349c6abacc09730a88f6caaeae2eed71

[kaysixteen]

Again, my apologies for more or less disappearing for several days....

As to sources to explain further the reasons why the NT overrides certain OT laws (essentially, two out of the three types of OT laws, namely the 'judicial laws' (think death penalty for a variety of offenses, but Christians disagree on this) and especially the 'ceremonial laws', such as dietary laws, laws about mixing cloth, and the animal sacrifices, )), I have no scholarly bibliography to cite, but that this is true is clear from any cursory reading of the NT, especially in Acts and several letters of Paul.  Certain Protestants have long used language like 'types and shadows' to describe why the OT laws were in force in the first place, but whatever one thinks of such exegesis, one just cannot avoid the NT texts involved and thereby call it 'contradictory' that Christians do not obey such laws.   OTOH, well, that homosexuality is part of the moral law, with its sinfulness as a malum in se clear from the text, even if the punishment for it does not have to be the same as in OT law, or, perhaps, even if it is no longer necessary for a secular state to criminalize it at all.

Now wrt the notion that Christians should not be enforcing/ forcing upon others, their morality, well... ok, but, ahem, well, the idea that 'you cannot legislate morality', well, that's sufficiently dumb as to not be worthy of the serious consideration of a bunch of academics.  All laws legislate someone's morality, and if we had no laws, well, that would be legislating a certain perverse version of morality as well.  Society has some rights-- all rights do not devolve on individuals.   Take abortion--- the only justification for opposition to it would be that the fetus to be aborted is in fact a human being, who deserves the protection of the state against its killing.   Even if, in doing so, this interferes with the woman's right to control what she does with her own body (which, of course, would be the reason why life of the mother abortion would be acceptable, if we believe that people have the right to kill in self-defense).  IOW, in every moral or ethical issue, as with other sorts of controversies, business, education, etc., sometimes hard choices have to be made, and some people will not end up getting their way.  I believe that God has ordained marriage only to be between a man and a woman, but there are loads of thoroughly secular reasons to oppose gay marriage as well, though some of these are much more solid than others.

[little bongo]

I've gotten to know a bit about the three kinds of Old Testament laws, and how what seems like mere picking-and-choosing has a point. I'm still skeptical about what seem to be some pretty elaborate rationalizations, and I still feel that musical comedy has the best answers for just about everything--here, a musical response to Proposition 8 some years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hyT7_Bx9o

As for lying in polls, there's some research on the subject--one can look at "Bradley Effect" and "social desirability bias" as phenomena that social scientists look at (and disagree about) with regard to how much effect they actually have on results. (There are some that would argue for what is known as a "Shy Trump" effect with regard to the 2016 election, but that is also disputed.)

Finally, I think there's an interesting connection between a literal interpretation of the Bible and the this-is-what-happens-when-knuckleheads-try-to-be-woke response to the professor posting the Muhammad-themed art. Both the most literal and conservative of Christians and those who would speak on behalf of offended Muslims are espousing an extremely narrow and blinkered view of both Christianity and Islam. And, with regard to Paul, there's fascinating evidence that his own internal conflicts with his homosexuality (i.e., the "thorn" in his side) pretty much shaped both the inclusive love and the let's-condemn-the-gays aspects of Christianity. Seems to me, if we want to follow the New Testament, we could concentrate more on the inclusive love if we wanted to.  For more context:

https://qspirit.net/apostle-paul-homosexuality/

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, my apologies for more or less disappearing for several days....

It's kind of funny when you disappear, clearly to think through your response, and then pop back up with a somewhat prolix commentary full of your own subjective interpretations of culture and Scripture.

I have no scholarly bibliography to cite, but that this is true is clear from any cursory reading

So you looked, did not find anything, and came back here to try to make your case among academics who generally respect scholarly or at least thoughtful sources. 

This does make it appear that you've either been fed your beliefs in-person, possibly by a Baptist pastor, or that you have had to rationalize what you believe however you can.

Now wrt the notion that Christians should not be enforcing/ forcing upon others, their morality, well... ok, but, ahem, well,

Ok, ahem, well, believe whatever you want, attend your churches however you want, but leave your religion out of my life.  I have the Constitution on my side.

The world is perfectly capable of exploring morality without mythology and folktales from the Iron and Bronze Ages.

All laws legislate someone's morality, and if we had no laws, well, that would be legislating a certain perverse version of morality as well.  Society has some rights-- all rights do not devolve on individuals.   

Was never in contention.  This is a strawman.

Just don't expect to legislate morality based on your provincial and self-serving reading of the Scriptures.  Again, do whatever you want, but don't expect me or anyone else to follow simply because you believe God has spoken to you through an ancient book.

sometimes hard choices have to be made, and some people will not end up getting their way. 

I am afraid, in this era, this is you.  Gay marriage is now legally protected everywhere in the United States, and LGBTQ rights are being increasingly recognized all over the world.

I believe that God has ordained marriage only to be between a man and a woman,

This is your right.  It is also prejudice.  Go ahead and froth all you like about God's micromanagement of human sexuality while Putin fires missiles at the Ukraine. 

but there are loads of thoroughly secular reasons to oppose gay marriage as well, though some of these are much more solid than others.

You have yet to substantiate these "loads of thoroughly secular reasons."  Just saying something exists does not make it exist.

[Wahoo Redux]

CHE: Most of All, I am Offended as a Muslim

[Wahoo Redux]

ProPublica: Muzzled by DeSantis, Critical Race Theory Professors Cancel Courses or Modify Their Teaching

[Wahoo Redux]

A College Fired a Professor for Showing a Painting of Muhammad. Now, It Could Lose Its Accreditation.

While the school was roundly criticized for its swift silencing of faculty academic freedom, the college is private, and thus largely protected from legal consequences.

However, one free speech group has found a way to penalize Hamline: filing a complaint with the school's accreditor, which explicitly requires that colleges receiving accreditation protect academic freedom.

This, BTW, is their "Learning Resources" page, make of it what you will:

https://www.hamline.edu/about/office-inclusive-excellence/resources

[marshwiggle]

A College Fired a Professor for Showing a Painting of Muhammad. Now, It Could Lose Its Accreditation.

While the school was roundly criticized for its swift silencing of faculty academic freedom, the college is private, and thus largely protected from legal consequences.

However, one free speech group has found a way to penalize Hamline: filing a complaint with the school's accreditor, which explicitly requires that colleges receiving accreditation protect academic freedom.

This, BTW, is their "Learning Resources" page, make of it what you will:

https://www.hamline.edu/about/office-inclusive-excellence/resources

Hah! The first entry on the page:

Robin Diangelo workshop on white fragility

Pretty much clarifies their priorities.

[Wahoo Redux]

No groundbreaking new developments but a more in-depth news report from the good ol' NY Times:

A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.

Story is truly national now.

[Parasaurolophus]

No groundbreaking new developments but a more in-depth news report from the good ol' NY Times:

A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.

Story is truly national now.

This one is incredibly stupid. Ugh. Despite their claims to the contrary, it sure seems to show that admin doesn't actually care about DEI considerations, except perhaps as a means of striking against faculty.

[marshwiggle]

No groundbreaking new developments but a more in-depth news report from the good ol' NY Times:

A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.

Story is truly national now.

This one is incredibly stupid. Ugh. Despite their claims to the contrary, it sure seems to show that admin doesn't actually care about DEI considerations, except perhaps as a means of striking against faculty.

Does it? Or does it rather show that they don't want to explicitly state what should happen when the academic enterprise requires facing sensitive topics with potential DEI implications?

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: Amid Backlash, Stanford Pulls 'Harmful Language' List

Lower Deck:

The university's effort to remove racist, violent and biased language from its website morphed into a PR disaster. Other colleges' initiatives have fared better—perhaps because they are less transparent in their practices.

The university was swiftly criticized for suggesting the elimination of words like "American," "immigrant" and "grandfather," prompting it first to remove the list from public view and then, weeks later, to pull it from its website entirely.

The 13-page guide contained more than 150 words and phrases organized into 10 categories of harmful language: ableist, ageism, colonialism, culturally appropriative, gender-based, imprecise language, institutionalized racism, person-first, and violent words and phrases. Words and phrases such as "brave," "seminal," "American," "take a shot at," "no can do" and "submit" were deemed harmful.

Hilarious.

[FishProf]

Grandfather? WTF?

[Scout]

Grandfather? WTF?

Likely referring to the phrase grandfather clause, which has its roots in voter suppression laws after emancipation, which allowed white people to be able to vote who would have been blocked by newly enacted  laws designed to keep newly freed Black people from voting.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/10/21/239081586/the-racial-history-of-the-grandfather-clause 

[marshwiggle]

Was "Slavic" on the list? Departments of Slavic languages will have a big problem.....