Phoenix Uprising

Townhall.com ^ | February 12, 2013 | Mike Adams

[Kaslin]

Elon University has now ceased to be a serious institution of higher learning. In fact, it no longer deserves to be called a university in the wake of its decision to create a new Vendor Policy Study Committee. The committee, which was created by Elon's Board of Trustees in October, is part of a response to efforts to ban Chick-fil-A from the Elon campus. Its very existence shows that Elon cannot expeditiously handle simple issues concerning tolerance and inclusion. Instead, it legitimates bigotry by giving serious consideration to anti-religious zealots who would best be ignored.

Elon's 15-member committee is made up of trustees, alumni, students, faculty, and staff members. During five meetings the group has held since the fall, they have had what they characterize (in campus email updates) as "thoughtful and respectful discussions with a collegial spirit." They also report that they have "reviewed" a large volume of materials. In other words, they have been thoughtful and respectful and collegial as they consider banning companies from their campus because they do not hold politically correct beliefs. And they have spent a lot of time and resources doing it.

This Orwellian committee started by reviewing Elon's current vendor and purchasing policies and practices. They have also received input from legal counsel, reviewed actions by the Student Government Association, solicited input from Elon's Inclusive Community Council, and studied more than 200 emails from members of the local community. The committee reports that these sources have provided "a variety of opinions and perspectives on the issues."

In other words, Elon University has launched a McCarthy-style investigation into whether the campus has been invaded by subversives who want to undermine the community by suggesting that marriage requires one man and one woman. Did anyone notice that the Chick-Fil-A sign is bright red? It's enough to cause a modern-day red scare.

In addition, the committee has reviewed decisions by other universities related to Chick-fil-A as well as media reports on the company and its activities. Those media reports have come from reliable sources like the Huffington Post. They show that the chicken vendor has consorted with the KKK. Just kidding, it's worse than that. They've donated to the Family Research Council.

The committee continues to seek input from interested persons and stakeholders on these issues. In addressing the charges given the committee by the Elon Board of Trustees, they are developing options for the Board to consider related to vendor policies and guidelines. They are also developing a set of pros and cons related to Chick-fil-A's continued operation on Elon's campus. In the spirit of inclusiveness, I've included my own set of pros and cons related to their continuing operation at Elon.

Pros:
1. People can eat delicious chicken sandwiches and waffle fries at Elon.
2. Elon can profit from sales of delicious chicken sandwiches and waffle fries on campus.
3. Homosexual activists might decide to boycott Elon.
4. Angry liberals might join the boycott of Elon.

Cons:
1. I can't really think of any.

The Vendor Policy Study Committee anticipates providing a progress report to the Board of Trustees at its March 1-2 meeting. They hope to conclude their work with a set of findings for the Board's consideration prior to the end of the spring semester.

Accordingly, members of the Elon community have been extended an invitation to express their opinion or provide the committee with information on these matters. I am encouraging my readers to do the same by sending an email to vendorpolicy@elon.edu. They claim to welcome the involvement of all members of the Elon community in these discussions. But I think that is too exclusive. I think all Americans should provide them with input.

I plan to write Elon and tell them not to be chicken of a little ideological diversity. If you have a nugget of advice, please share it. But try not to use any fowl language. There's too much hate speech out there already.

[EyeSalveRich]

I am glad you intend to write them, however, the comment above is missing one key truth. Most major universities are RUN BY anti-religious zealots. They are not just giving consideration to the enemy. They are the enemy.

[Elsie]

For the life of me I cannot understand how the whole world in the last 20 years has fallen for the homosexual agenda.

What the hell is wrong with people?

Uh...

You've answered your own question!

---

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Meanwhile; on the OTHER side of the country...

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

[CitizenUSA]

I see you beat me to it. One doesn't have to have faith-based opposition to homosexuality to argue against it. Only in a bizzaro world would anal sex be on par with natural, dare I say normal, intercourse. If anal sex is normal, then why the need to use a condom? There's no risk of pregnancy. Maybe it's because because the anus is not meant for intercourse, and anal sex has very significant health risks, risks that aren't completely eliminated even by monogamous homosexual sex. Why? Could it be because it's unnatural? Well, yeah.

[Perdogg]

It is near Burlington NC

[Oberon]

Eh... Apart from any higher purpose, life is all about risk vs. reward, and you reward yourself with whatever you like to do with your body as long as you are willing to accept the risks. If you start from the assumption that your body is a collection of highly fortunate chemical reactions, then why shouldn't you do whatever feels good?

You're not going to change anybody's mind on this point by coming at it from any kind of top-down argument. In other words, pointing out that homosexuality is bad for the nation simply isn't as compelling as the "two consenting adults" argument, and might make you look like a prig in the bargain.

By the way, I hope you noticed that I answered you without calling anyone names.

[bert]

It was known mostly as Elon College until they they be tripled the tuition and became uppity

[billhilly]

I’m old fashioned and haven’t even tried those search engines. Google has always filled the bill for me. Should I try those engines and what do they offer that Google does not?

[billhilly]

Is it next to the coat factory?

[CitizenUSA]

Oberon: “...you reward yourself with whatever you like to do with your body as long as you are willing to accept the risks.”

As a matter of individual choice, you’re right. I think people should generally have the right to do whatever they want to themselves. However, we live in communities. We aren’t just individuals making individual choices purely for ourselves.

Oberon: “If you start from the assumption that your body is a collection of highly fortunate chemical reactions, then why shouldn’t you do whatever feels good?”

Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it’s healthy or natural. Antifreeze, I’m told, is nice and sweet. I bet it would taste really good over ice on a hot day. I even remember when wine makers illegally added it to their products to improve taste. Doing what feels good in this case would likely result in death, but hey...

[Oberon]

Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it’s healthy or natural.

Well, granted. But in a world in which people assume there's no God, why should anyone care about your particular notions of what's healthy or natural?

It works out to a very good justification of your own choices in the matter, but people will not respect your efforts to apply what they see as your personal standards to their lives... and nor should they, on those terms. It's just a different flavor of the Nanny State.

[Mouton]

The media today is frankly totalled screwed up. I was reading this AM in the local rag about the Pope’s abdication. One of the prime views rendered about a potential successor was “there is little likelyhood of any change in the Church’s stance on current issues no matter the choice for Pope”. REALLY! These guys think morals and ethics are transitory I guess. What feels good or makes people happy or seems modern is right in the current world.

[Perdogg]

LOL.. maybe

[MrEdd]

I noticed you tried to pretend that damage from anal sex is merely a “risk”.
Sort of like dehydration is merely a risk if one quits drinking water.

You are personally dishonest.

That is not name calling.

That is merely straightforward analysis of your posting.

You threw out a loopy assertion that homosexuality can only be opposed on religious grounds. No matter how much you try to twist things that was both a stupid assertion and a dishonest one.

[Oberon]

You threw out a loopy assertion that homosexuality can only be opposed on religious grounds. No matter how much you try to twist things that was both a stupid assertion and a dishonest one.

I am "trying to twist" nothing. I understand the connection between moral philosophy, public policy, and personal motivation, that's all.

I will certainly grant you that you can proclaim to the world that gay sex is a bad idea because it damages your body and, on average, shortens your life. The problem with that is that the same things are true of drinking, illicit drugs, skydiving, motorcycle riding, and jaywalking.

It's a weak case. When weighed against what this fallen world sees as the legitimate personal expression of affection and sex in people whose sexual bent differs from the norm, personal expression wins every time.

So you can oppose all you like on your grounds of "please don't do that, it's not good for you," but without grounding in a worldview that supports your position, it's just you pushing your personal opinion of what people should and shouldn't do.

I'm sorry you consider me dishonest. I do not intend to be, and if I saw where I was being dishonest I would own up to it and correct it.

[CitizenUSA]

Oberon: “...why should anyone care about your particular notions of what’s healthy or natural?”

Because my “notions” about what’s healthy or natural aren’t just opinion. Some things are objective fact. Fact: the anus was not designed for intercourse. It’s physically designed to be a one way valve. Fact: homosexual sodomy has a much higher chance of passing disease. It’s an inherently unhealthy act the risks of which can be mitigated with technology but not eliminated. Fact: homosexual sex does not and cannot result in conception. It’s a natural dead end. A colony composed exclusively of homosexuals would die out in one generation. These aren’t subjective opinions. They are measurable, proven, objective facts.

[CitizenUSA]

Oberon: “It’s a weak case.”

So is a faith or religious based case to people who don’t believe. You can’t get through to some people with either argument. Nevertheless, the natural order of things really does exist, is objectively true, and can withstand scientific scrutiny. A faith-based argument cannot be proven, because it’s based on faith.

That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in either. I do. Homosexual sex is not only against the natural order of things. It’s a sin. I’m only making the point that natural law arguments, separate from faith-based arguments, can be made against sodomy.

[Oberon]

Some things are objective fact. Fact: the anus was not designed for intercourse. It’s physically designed to be a one way valve.

There, now look at that... you've fallen back into a theistic worldview without even realizing it. A "design" requires a "Designer," which as a Christian I have no problem with at all. In fact, it's a premise I endorse. Please understand, though, that if you're going to talk about the "purpose" of the parts involved, that's the problem you're going to run into. "Purpose" requires intelligence, which requires God.

Look... you're perfectly welcome to disagree with me. I have neither need nor desire to fight with you.

[Oberon]

So is a faith or religious based case to people who don’t believe.

Agreed. In fact, that's only one (and not the most important) of the many reasons why we try to evangelize. Life in a nation is incredibly easier on everyone if they all share the same worldview. If that worldview is consistent with reality, then so much the better.

[CitizenUSA]

Well, of course a design implies a designer, but we’re not trying to make a case for God here. Maybe you are, but I’m only trying to point out that one can speak against the normalization and accommodation of homosexuality without using religious arguments. You just happen to hit on the word “design” to press your point. I could easily say the anus is objectively a one way valve that randomly developed that way through evolution. We can’t prove WHY it’s the way it is, but we can prove it exists and works a certain way.

I totally believe in God, but more importantly, He believes in me. My existence is dependent on Him. His is not dependent in any way on me. Nevertheless, arguments against homosexuality can be made without referencing God or religion.