"Amerikkalainen lapsen oikeuksia isään ja äitiin puolustava professori Robert Oscar Lopez kirjoittaa American Thinker-verkkolehden numerossa: "Moninaisuusfasistit ovat tulossa hakemaan sinut. He ovat tehneet laittomaksi toisinajattelun laatimalla sääntöjä, jotka ovat sisäsyntyisesti suunnattu kristittyjä ja konservatiiveja vastaan (erityisesti kristittyjä konservatiiveja vastaan)." Hänen rikoksena pidetty asiana oli järjestää konfrenssi, jossa pidettiin esillä lasten oikeuksia tulla kohdelluiksi ihminä eikä kauppatavarana; lasten oikeuksia isään ja äitiin sekä tuntea juurensa:
The modern American university has become a taxpayer-subsidized left-wing gulag. In it, dissenters such as myself can be subjected to Stalinist show trials, spied on, and threatened with loss of livelihood for espousing dangerous ideas or associating with political pariahs. If Republicans continue to moan about "liberal bias" and "losing the culture wars" without mustering the courage to do something about it – à la Ben Carson's stoppage of funding or Glenn Reynolds's abolition of aristocratic loopholes for Ivy League tithing – then the whole notion of higher education is going to be lost.
I have glimpsed the future that awaits the whole country if the Equality Act is passed. My university – which I have nicknamed Gaslight University – has charged me with "discrimination" against gays and women. I suggest that you check out the article by Peter Fricke (or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one). If moved, you are always free to sign the online petition posted by a British academic or the online petition posted by Ruth Institute president Jennifer Roback Morse.
Everything you've heard recently about universities shredding the Constitution is unfortunately true.
The Gulag and the University – Is There a Difference?
What is a gulag? I suppose that's a big question that historians and philosophers ought to debate. I can't debate it right now. I'm still grappling with gulag realities: factoids, dissimulations, and phony legal terms ("interviews" that are really interrogations, "dispositions" that are really judgments, and procedures that define "mutual agreement" as agreement between the investigator and the accuser rather than between the accused and the accuser).
For nearly 400 days I was under investigation for thought-crimes. As of today, I know I'm guilty, but I have heard no word as to my punishment. I keep reporting to work on a campus populated by 40,000 people who know me as a right-wing intellectual terrorist. I can neither clean out my office nor put the whole farce behind me.
When I say "thought-crimes," I am not being facetious or melodramatic. The ultimate finding accused me of a "lack of transparency," citing the fact that throughout the entire 378-day investigation, I had the gall to deny that I was anti-gay when the university's investigators were convinced that I was.
When pressed, I insisted that a conference that the institute to which I belong organized, "Bonds that Matter," was exactly as advertised: a conference about the rights of children to be treated as humans rather than as products for sale, their rights to a mother and father, and their rights to their origins.
"But it was an anti-gay conference," insisted a gaggle of students. They knew I was labeled anti-gay in the world at large, because the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have declared me anti-gay.
I have concluded that the Salem witch trials were not a fluke; humanity returns to the same hysteria with each generation, simply redefining the evil magic they fear and must stamp out. The main evidence against me came in the form of eyewitness accounts: three women and a gay man went into a campus office "in tears, crying," amid nervous breakdowns incited by hearing scholars talk about the role of fathers and mothers, and by being seated at round tables with living, breathing Republicans, forced to eat "lemon-rosemary chicken breast" and "roasted garlic mashed potatoes."
Against these recollections and hearsay, I turned in a mountain of documentation, confident that the "preponderance of evidence" standard would vindicate me. The observable evidence of what transpired on October 3, 2014 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library points to a glaring absence of any anti-gay content. All the presenters were women (including several feminists). I had four hours of video from the conference, showing all the lectures and question-and-answer sessions, which prove that the complainants grossly exaggerated and even lied about "anti-gay" remarks.
But evidence? That's so passé. The video vanished from the list of documents that counted toward the final disposition of October 16, 2015."
The modern American university has become a taxpayer-subsidized left-wing gulag. In it, dissenters such as myself can be subjected to Stalinist show trials, spied on, and threatened with loss of livelihood for espousing dangerous ideas or associating with political pariahs. If Republicans continue to moan about "liberal bias" and "losing the culture wars" without mustering the courage to do something about it – à la Ben Carson's stoppage of funding or Glenn Reynolds's abolition of aristocratic loopholes for Ivy League tithing – then the whole notion of higher education is going to be lost.
I have glimpsed the future that awaits the whole country if the Equality Act is passed. My university – which I have nicknamed Gaslight University – has charged me with "discrimination" against gays and women. I suggest that you check out the article by Peter Fricke (or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one). If moved, you are always free to sign the online petition posted by a British academic or the online petition posted by Ruth Institute president Jennifer Roback Morse.
Everything you've heard recently about universities shredding the Constitution is unfortunately true.
The Gulag and the University – Is There a Difference?
What is a gulag? I suppose that's a big question that historians and philosophers ought to debate. I can't debate it right now. I'm still grappling with gulag realities: factoids, dissimulations, and phony legal terms ("interviews" that are really interrogations, "dispositions" that are really judgments, and procedures that define "mutual agreement" as agreement between the investigator and the accuser rather than between the accused and the accuser).
For nearly 400 days I was under investigation for thought-crimes. As of today, I know I'm guilty, but I have heard no word as to my punishment. I keep reporting to work on a campus populated by 40,000 people who know me as a right-wing intellectual terrorist. I can neither clean out my office nor put the whole farce behind me.
When I say "thought-crimes," I am not being facetious or melodramatic. The ultimate finding accused me of a "lack of transparency," citing the fact that throughout the entire 378-day investigation, I had the gall to deny that I was anti-gay when the university's investigators were convinced that I was.
When pressed, I insisted that a conference that the institute to which I belong organized, "Bonds that Matter," was exactly as advertised: a conference about the rights of children to be treated as humans rather than as products for sale, their rights to a mother and father, and their rights to their origins.
"But it was an anti-gay conference," insisted a gaggle of students. They knew I was labeled anti-gay in the world at large, because the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have declared me anti-gay.
I have concluded that the Salem witch trials were not a fluke; humanity returns to the same hysteria with each generation, simply redefining the evil magic they fear and must stamp out. The main evidence against me came in the form of eyewitness accounts: three women and a gay man went into a campus office "in tears, crying," amid nervous breakdowns incited by hearing scholars talk about the role of fathers and mothers, and by being seated at round tables with living, breathing Republicans, forced to eat "lemon-rosemary chicken breast" and "roasted garlic mashed potatoes."
Against these recollections and hearsay, I turned in a mountain of documentation, confident that the "preponderance of evidence" standard would vindicate me. The observable evidence of what transpired on October 3, 2014 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library points to a glaring absence of any anti-gay content. All the presenters were women (including several feminists). I had four hours of video from the conference, showing all the lectures and question-and-answer sessions, which prove that the complainants grossly exaggerated and even lied about "anti-gay" remarks.
But evidence? That's so passé. The video vanished from the list of documents that counted toward the final disposition of October 16, 2015."
Vastaukset 18
Vanhimmat
The student in question received an A in my class. I never stopped her from commandeering my classroom for 75 minutes on October 6, 2014, and hurling false accusations at me in front of 35 of her classmates. These accusations are precisely the same distortions that reappeared in the complaint she filed a few days before graduating:
She accused me of "coercing" her to attend a conference at the Reagan Library – by giving her an alternative option she thought was too much work (and yet much of her final complaint was that the option she chose required too much advanced research into the speakers, which is why she claimed she didn't know anything about them before attending).
She accused me of "tricking" her – because I gave her the topics, names, and websites of all the presenters during the first week of class. Based on some brand of telepathy, she knew in her heart of hearts that I was really just trying to insult gay people, and the fact that I didn't book any speakers, schedule any talks, or approve any exhibits that targeted gays meant I had a "lack of transparency."
She cried.
Universities like Gaslight have created a shadow legal system under the guise of fostering campus "inclusivity" and "tolerance." There are so many crises in higher education that it is hard to remember that they all flow from the same corruptive tendency. The modern university gathers too many people who think alike. With incestuous cronyism comes inefficiency, leading to the high costs and waste of public funds. With it also comes exclusion of outsiders and ultimately an inability to self-critique. Under such conditions, interactions are poisoned by power games, and learning itself degenerates. What were once halls of learning become corridors of institutional control. Welcome to the gulag.
Robert Oscar Lopez is author of The Colorful Conservative and Jephthah's Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family "Equality" and editor of English Manif and Gaslight University.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/universities_have_become_totalitarian_gulags.html#ixzz3rjdPJRiZ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook"
Lähde:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/universities_have_become_totalitarian_gulags.html
Kamalan monta sanaa luettavaksi ... huh ...
Kannattaa huomata, että itseasiassa tuossa puolustetaan lasten oikeuden rajoittamista, kun lapsella ei saisi olla oikeutta muunlaiseen jakaumaan vanhempia kuin tasan vain aja ainoastaa isä ja äiti.
ArtoTTT
Mitä eikö homoparit enää voisi ostaa lapsia sijaissynnyttäjiltä kotileikkeihin?
Tai lisääntymiskyvyttömät kristityt? Miksi eivät tyydy Jumalan antamaan osaan? Mieti, Arto, joskus mitä sanot. Sinulla ei ole mitään uskottavuutta tällä palstalla enää.
ArtoTTT
Ei se lasten osto ja myynti muutu oikeaksi, oli ostaja kuka hyvänsä.
No, mikset puhu siitä sitten? Vaikea ymmärtää, miten uskonnon varjolla pitää aina halventaa toisia ihmisiä? Miksi et puhu itse asiasta jos se on sinusta tärkeää?
ArtoTTT
Eihän sijaissynnytys ole Suomessa laillista, mutta niin kova kiima saada lapsia ostettua homojen kotileikkeihin, että varmaan tätäkin lakia kohta yritetään....
Kuten kysyin, mikset voi vain puhua asiasta asiallisesti, miksi tarvii halventaa muita ihmisiä? Onko tuo tämän päivän uskovaisuutta, muiden ihmisten halveksiminen ja naurunalaiseksi tekeminen?
ArtoTTT
Halventamista? Kun asioista puhutaan oikeilla nimillä ja siitä mistä oikeasti on kysymys. Homoparien pitäisi saada matkia oikeaa miehen ja naisen avioliittoa, jopa biologian vastaisesti, siten että he saisivat ostaa pikkuvauvoja tähän leikkiinsä, kukaan ei saisi sanallakaan vastustaa heitä, kuten sadussa keisarilla ei ole vaatteita, jota kukaan ei saa sanoa ääneen. Homoparithan tässä omilla valheillaan halventaa biologista ja uskonnollista avioliittokäsitystä.
Aloittaja taitaa tarkoittaa sitä, että lapsilla ei ole isää eikä äitiä ja niitä viedään vankilaan.
Sinä taas et tiedä mitään adoptoista etkä homopareista.
Ei avioliitto ole uskonnollinen. Se on virallinen parisuhde.
Miten niin eivät voisi ja miten sellainen vointi suuntaan tai toiseen sinulle tässä kohtaan edes juolahti mieleen?
Asiallisia kommentteja ovat esimerkiksi...
Mielestäni sijaissynnytystä ei pitäisi sallia, koska...
En kannata homoparien oikeutta adoptoida lapsia, koska...
Halventavia kommentteja ovat esimerkiksi...
Homoilla on kova kiima saada lapsia ostettua homojen kotileikkeihin.
Homoparienko pitäisi saada ostaa pikkuvauvoja kotileikkeihinsä.
Jollet todella erota enää, että mikä on toisten halveksimista, niin olisikohan syytä pysähtyä hetkeksi miettimään ja pitää kommentoinnista vähän taukoa? Se, että halvennat muita ei ole mitään "totuuden" sanomista, se on vain moukkamaista ja ala-arvoista käytöstä. Olet ilmeisesti aikuinen ihminen, koita käyttäytyä kuin sellainen.
Arto oli se, joka ensimmäisenä vaati perustamaan organisaation estämään homojen avioliitot.
Pieleen meni ja katkeruus tuli. On aika säälittävä ukko.
Valtava askel, lasten oikeuksien turvaamiseksi, olisi perustaa hoitokoti sellaisille naisille tai tytöille, jotka joutuvat harkitsemaan aborttia sen tähden, että heillä ei ole taloudellisia mahdollisuuksia hoitaa lastaan tai joita mies painostaa abortin tekoon.
Ne rahat, jotka menevät aborttien tekoon, olisivat paremmassa käytössä, jos tuettaisiin yllättäen raskaaksi tulevia naisia, jotka harkitsevat aborttia.
Eiköhän niille tehdä kaikki mahdollinen parhaaksi. Abortti tulee vihoviimeiseksi.
Mielenkiintoinen idea, jota on kokeiltukin em. Yhdysvalloissa.
Yhdysvalloissa oli laaja hoitokotijärjestelmä (niin kutsutut maternity homes) 1800-luvun lopulta aina 1970-luvulle saakka. Niitä on edelleen, joskin niiden toimintamalli on muuttunut.
Niitä pyörittivät pääasiassa uskonnolliset hyväntekeväisyysjärjestöt. Tarkoituksena oli auttaa "langenneita naisia" ja suojella heitä yhteiskunnan häpeältä. Perheet lähettivät tyttärensä näihin kotiin usein salaa, jotta naapurit eivät saisi tietää raskaudesta.
Toisin kuin ehdotuksessasi, jossa tuki auttaisi äitiä pitämään lapsen, historialliset kodit muuttuivat ajan myötä "adoptiotehtaiksi". Jopa 80 % naisista päätyi antamaan lapsensa adoptioon, usein kovan psyykkisen painostuksen alla. Sosiaalityöntekijät ja uskonnolliset johtajat saattoivat väittää, että nainen on "sopimaton" äidiksi ja adoptio on ainoa tapa hyvittää "synti".
Monet näissä kodeissa olleet naiset ovat kertoneet kokeneensa syvää yksinäisyyttä, pakkoadoptioita ja juurikin riittämätöntä henkistä tukea.
Ehdotukseesi muutamia kysymyksiä:
Jos nainen on haavoittuvassa asemassa ja hänelle tarjotaan taloudellista apua vain sillä ehdolla, että hän synnyttää, voidaanko puhua todellisesta vapaasta valinnasta?
Hoitokodin ylläpito, henkilökunta ja asukkaiden täysi ylläpito on kallista. Jos tuki loppuu lapsen synnyttyä tai tietyn ajan kuluttua, äiti voi pudota tyhjän päälle entistä vaikeammassa taloudellisessa tilanteessa? Pelkkä raskausajan tuki ei poista köyhyysriskiä.
Jos yhteiskunta ottaa täyden taloudellisen vastuun, voivatko naisia painostavat miehet kokea, ettei heidän tarvitse enää kantaa elatusvastuuta tai muuta vastuuta teoistaan?
Jos äiti on alun perin harkinnut aborttia ja päätynyt synnyttämään vain ulkoisen taloudellisen tuen tai turvapaikan vuoksi, miten se vaikuttaa lapsen ja vanhemman väliseen suhteeseen?
Pohdittavaksi, en vastaa kysymyksiin.