Author Topic: More Liberal Censorship  (Read 180102 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #250 on: March 06, 2014, 10:47:40 AM »
Does not surprise me one bit. 

Rutgers faculty protest of Condoleezza Rice as graduation speaker 'appalling,' lawmaker says
By Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger
March 04, 2014

TRENTON — Republican state Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini blasted a Rutgers University faculty group today for its opposition to Condoleezza Rice's selection as this year's commencement speaker.

Angelini (R-Monmouth) issued a statement calling the faculty vote protesting Rice's selection "appalling and an embarrassment to our state."

"This is nothing more than a political firestorm fueled by their hatred of an opposing ideology, and President George W. Bush in particular. Dr. Rice and the people of New Jersey deserve better," Angelini said.

Last week, Rutgers' New Brunswick Faculty Council passed a resolution calling on the university’s board of governors to rescind its invitation to Rice. The former U.S. Secretary of State is scheduled to receive $35,000 and an honorary doctorate for her speech.

The faculty resolution said Rutgers should not honor Rice because of her role in the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's adoption of waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.

"Condoleezza Rice ... played a prominent role in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction," the resolution said.

In her statement, Angelini praised Rice.

“Condoleezza Rice is a trailblazer and a woman of extraordinary intelligence and diverse talents who has spent most of her career in academia," Angelini said. "She was the first woman and first African-American to serve as provost of Stanford University and has served as a Stanford professor for more than three decades. That alone makes her beyond qualified to deliver the commencement speech at Rutgers or at any university."

Rice is scheduled to speak at the May 18 university-wide commencement ceremony in the Rutgers football stadium in Piscataway. The Rutgers Board of Governors unanimously approved Rice's nomination for the honorary degree last month.

Other honorary degrees will go to Gerald C. Harvey, outgoing chair of the university’s Board of Governors, and Richard Leakey, the renowned paleoanthropologist and environmentalist.

Donald Katz, founder and CEO of Audible Inc. and an award-winning journalist, will receive an honorary doctorate and serve as Rutgers-Newark’s commencement speaker.

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #251 on: March 07, 2014, 10:31:26 AM »
Supporting idiotic wars has consequences, I guess. 

Anyway, unless Rutgers was just looking for publicity, hiring a controversial figure like Rice wasn't a great move -- She HAS accomplished a lot, especially considering her race & gender, but unfortunately for her that's not what she's destined to be known for.  Props to the faculty of Rutgers for not having short memories, I say.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #252 on: March 27, 2014, 01:39:19 PM »
This isn't an example of censorship, but it's a precursor to what is coming.  Any opposition to lifestyle choices will be deemed "barbaric," "hateful," etc. and people will eventually be silenced. 

As Obama Meets Pope, Media Mum on Biden's Slam of 'Bizarre,' 'Barbaric' Christian Position on Gays
By Tim Graham | March 27, 2014

As the media boosted President Obama's meeting with Pope Francis on Thursday morning, none have noticed how the reportedly weekly-Mass-attending Vice President Joe Biden made remarks in Los Angeles at a "Human Rights Campaign" event last Saturday night. Biden expressed disbelief and outrage that anyone's still taking Catholic teaching on sexuality seriously in this modern age.

The gay newspaper The Washington Blade reported Biden used words like "close to barbaric" to describe the present system of religious liberty -- the notion that a religious employer doesn't have to hire (and can fire) gay activists. Biden even said "the world -- God willing -- is beginning to change." He then cited Pope Francis (out of context) saying "who are we to judge?" (video below)

Biden called on Congress immediately to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, saying the lack of prohibition on anti-LGBT workplace discrimination is “close to barbaric.”

“It’s outrageous we’re even debating this subject. I really mean it. I mean, it’s almost beyond belief that today, in 2014, I can say to you as your employee in so many states, ‘You’re fired because of who you love,’” Biden said. “Think about that. It is bizarre. No, no, no. It really is. I don’t think most Americans even know that employers can do that.”

Gay activists are upset that Team Obama hasn't just gone around Congress and issued an Executive Order instituting this "anti-discrimination" policy. Biden also said the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality is a "sick" cultural norm that has to go:

“The single most basic of all human rights is the right to decide who you love,” Biden said. “It’s the single basic building block; it’s the single most important human rights. And hate can never, never be defended because it’s a so-called cultural norm. I’ve had it up to here with cultural norms. I really mean it. If a cultural norm is sick, it's sick, it’s simple. There’s never a justification for a government or an individual politician to play off the bigotry and hatred.”

Biden paid tribute to the courage of gay activists: “All of you spoke up and stepped out and came forward, you came out and you marched, you demanded to be recognized, demanded your constitutional rights, demands a basic American dream. You demanded respect...your tenacity, your integrity, and yes, your physical courage, and your pride, bent the moral arch of this nation, and it’s finally moving in the right direction.”

Biden claimed they not only “liberated millions, millions in the LGBT community...you liberated tens of millions of straight guys and straight women,” who can now speak up for gay activism.

Biden's not only disagreeing with his own church's teaching. He's openly proclaiming it's "sick" and "close to barbaric."

Pope Francis could have also asked Obama how House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi can be both Catholic and accept a "Margaret Sanger Award" from Planned Parenthood on the same day as this meeting. Penny Starr at CNS News reminds readers that Sanger wrote against “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families” and believed “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Hollywood sponsors of the HRC's Los Angeles gala included HBO, Disney-ABC Television Group, A&E, and DirecTV.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/03/27/media-mum-obama-meets-pope-joe-bidens-denunciation-bizarre-and-barbaric-#ixzz2xCJP5GNg

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #253 on: March 31, 2014, 12:55:05 PM »
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti

Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
 
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
 
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
 
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
 
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
 
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
 
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
 
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
 
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
 
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
 
So, what’s the problem?
 
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
 
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
 
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #254 on: April 03, 2014, 05:10:23 PM »
Liberal Tolerance: Mozilla Employees Demand CEO Step Down Over his Support of Traditional Marriage
March 28, 2014
By Todd Cefaratti

Employees at Mozilla, the organization that created the Firefox web browser, has shown their warped sense of commitment to “tolerance” by demanding the termination of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich because he dared to oppose gay marriage.
 
Or, put another way, Eich is being targeted by his employees for his support of traditional marriage.
 
Eich cofounded the organization in 1998 and served as the company’s chief technology officer before becoming CEO. Eich is also well-respected in the technology field for having invented the Javascript Web Scripting language in 1995.
 
Eich supported California’s Proposition 8, the prohibition of same-sex marriage in California that was approved by voters, but killed in the court system.
 
Upon ascending to the CEO’s office, Eich was forthcoming about his opposition to same-sex marriage, and noted on the company’s blog,
 
I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla. I hope to lay those concerns to rest, first by making a set of commitments to you. More important, I want to lay them to rest by actions and results … I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain.
 
Employees have taken to Twitter to vent their outrage that their company’s leader dares to have an opinion on the matter that is not en vogue with contemporary misunderstandings of the concept of marriage.
 
Chris McAvoy Tweeted, “I love @mozilla but I’m disappointed this week. @mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way.”
 
Kat Braybrooke, curator and co-design lead at Mozilla, Tweeted, “Like many @Mozilla staff, I’m taking a stand. I do not support the Board’s appointment of @BrendanEich as CEO. #Prop8”
 
Reportedly, the issue has been much ado about nothing as Eich has been open at meetings about his position and inside sources have reported that such a position doesn’t seem to be hindering the success of anybody based on sexual orientation.
 
So, what’s the problem?
 
This is a micro example of the kind of intolerance surrounding the traditional marriage debate. The left has worked tirelessly to label the right for homosexuals to marry as a moral absolute that pits not one opinion against another, but right versus wrong.
 
But in reality, those who so often preach that this is an issue of tolerance remain the most intolerant in the discussion. Those who support the traditional definitions of marriage are too-often attacked and targeted by the “progressive” left.
 
Make no mistake: there is no room for coexistence with this brand of leftist zealotry. Though they express a desire for tolerance, liberals want not a rational discussion of viewpoints, but demand a complete, unconditional surrender of those with whom they disagree.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/28/liberal-tolerance-mozilla-employees-demand-ceo-step-down-over-his-support-of-traditional-marriage/

Good grief.   ::)

Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
Reuters By Sarah McBride

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company's web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.

The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.

"We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act," wrote Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a blog post. "We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry."

The next step for Mozilla's leadership "is still being discussed," she added, with more information to come next week.

While gay activists applauded the move, many in the technology community lamented the departure of Eich, who invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla.

View galleryA man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand …
A man is seen next to a Firefox logo at a Mozilla stand during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelon …
"Brendan Eich is a good friend of 20 years, and has made a profound contribution to the Web and to the entire world," venture capitalist Marc Andreessen tweeted.

Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

His resignation came days after OkCupid.com, the popular online dating site, called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world's No. 2 Web browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.

On Monday, OkCupid sent a message to visitors who accessed the website through Firefox, suggesting they use browsers such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer or Google Inc's Chrome.

"Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples," the message said. "We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid."

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-says-ceo-resigns-amid-gay-marriage-controversy-195338477.html;_ylt=AwrBEiT.yT1TKDYAllnQtDMD

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #255 on: April 03, 2014, 07:32:38 PM »
11 pages and Bum still has no clue what the word censorship means

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #256 on: April 07, 2014, 05:56:01 PM »
Why are so many liberals afraid of different viewpoints?  The really unfortunate things about this is how young those women are.

Tolerant Feminists Tell Conservative Young Woman: We Don't Want You Here
Katie Pavlich | Apr 02, 2014

Campus Reform is a conservative outlet that keeps tabs on liberal university indoctrination and hypocrisy. Recently Campus Reform's Katherine Timpf, who considers herself a libertarian, attended the "inclusive" National Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Crystal City, Virginia to ask young women questions about what feminism means to them.

Not surprisingly, the liberal women at the conference weren't happy about Timpf being in attendance. She was discriminated against based on her place of employment, attacked for her assumed political views and was told "you guys aren't wanted here." Organizers of the event are seen repeatedly seen saying, "Campus Reform is a conservative outlet, just to warn you if you're going to talk to them."

 “They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/02/tolerant-feminists-tell-conservative-young-woman-we-dont-want-you-here-n1817656


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #257 on: May 15, 2014, 12:10:28 PM »
Quote
Kirsten Powers: Liberals' Dark Ages
May 14, 2014

Each week seems to bring another incident. Who will the thought police come for next?

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II. We have slipped into an age of un-enlightenment where you fall in line behind the mob or face the consequences.

How ironic that the persecutors this time around are the so-called intellectuals. They claim to be liberal while behaving as anything but. The touchstone of liberalism is tolerance of differing ideas. Yet this mob exists to enforce conformity of thought and to delegitimize any dissent from its sanctioned worldview. Intolerance is its calling card.

Each week seems to bring another incident. Last week it was David and Jason Benham, whose pending HGTV show was canceled after the mob unearthed old remarks the brothers made about their Christian beliefs on homosexuality. People can't have a house-flipping show unless they believe and say the "right" things in their life off the set? In this world, the conservative Tom Selleck never would have been Magnum, P.I.

This week, a trail-blazing woman was felled in the new tradition of commencement shaming. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from delivering the commencement speech at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, this trend is growing. In the 21 years leading up to 2009, there were 21 incidents of an invited guest not speaking because of protests. Yet, in the past five-and-a-half years, there have been 39 cancellations.

Don't bother trying to make sense of what beliefs are permitted and which ones will get you strung up in the town square. Our ideological overlords have created a minefield of inconsistency. While criticizing Islam is intolerant, insulting Christianity is sport. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is persona non grata at Brandeis University for attacking the prophet Mohammed. But Richard Dawkins describes the Old Testament God as "a misogynistic … sadomasochistic … malevolent bully" and the mob yawns. Bill Maher calls the same God a "psychotic mass murderer" and there are no boycott demands of the high-profile liberals who traffic his HBO show.

The self-serving capriciousness is crazy. In March, University of California-Santa Barbara women's studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus' "free speech zone" (formerly known as America). Though she was charged with theft, battery and vandalism, Miller-Young remains unrepentant and still has her job. But Mozilla's Brendan Eich gave a private donation to an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago and was ordered to recant his beliefs. When he wouldn't, he was forced to resign from the company he helped found.

Got that? A college educator with the right opinions can attack a high school student and keep her job. A corporate executive with the wrong opinions loses his for making a campaign donation. Something is very wrong here.

As the mob gleefully destroys people's lives, its members haven't stopped to ask themselves a basic question: What happens when they come for me? If history is any guide, that's how these things usually end.

Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #258 on: June 19, 2014, 09:00:30 AM »
Liberals doing what they do:  shutting down different viewpoints.



Andrew Lampart couldn’t right click.

Yet the 18-year-old high school senior from Woodbury could left click with relative ease.

Denied access to conservative-leaning websites by the school district’s Internet firewall, the soon-to-be graduate of Nonnewaug High School lodged a formal complaint with the Region 14 Board of Education Monday night over what Lampart said is double standard.

While doing research for a assignment on gun control in the school’s library, Lampart said he tried unsuccessfully to visit the websites of Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association on his Android tablet that was connected to the school’s WiFi network. Woodbury is 13 miles from Newtown.


Lampart said he ran into similar roadblocks while surfing the websites of anti-abortion and traditional marriage organizations — and even the Connecticut Republican Party.

Access to the websites of the Connecticut Democrats, the pro-gun control Newtown Action Alliance and advocacy groups for the LGBT community was unfettered, according to Lampart, who took screen shots from his Internet browser.

“It was appalling to see that it was very one-sided,” Lampart, who is bound for the Christian-oriented Liberty University in the fall and is in the process of starting up a Young Republicans chapter in Woodbury, told Hearst Connecticut Media Wednesday.

Jody Ian Goeler, the superintendent of Region 14, which serves the towns of Woodbury and Bethlehem, denied that the district has a political agenda.

“There is not a bias,” Goeler told Hearst Wednesday. “We’ve done everything we can in a our power to ensure that students have access to a variety of resources and a variety of different perspectives.”

Goeler said that the website of the Connecticut Democrats should have also been blocked by Dell SonicWALL, a paid firewall service that the district uses to filter sites accessed on its computers and WiFi network.

Any website that is political in nature is restricted under a uniform policy, according to Goeler, who said that political parties are treated no differently than groups such as a the Ku Klux Klan or Neo-Nazis.

Teachers do have the ability to override the restrictions on a case-by-case basis if a students needs to visit a website for an assignment, he said.

“From a policy perspective, I think we’re solid,” Goeler said. “We have a very good policy.”

From bullying and sexually explicit websites to those political in nature, Goeler said there are 64 categories of restricted sites.

The superintendent said he spent an entire day with the district’s information technology officer after Lampart went to the school board. Additional websites that might have an advocacy component such as the Newtown Action Alliance are also blocked now, said Goeler, who added that the district is reviewing its choice of firewall provider.

Messages seeking comment were also left Wednesday for John Chapman, school board chairman for Region 14.

State GOP Chairman Jerry Labriola Jr. condemned the district’s Internet access policy.

“If it’s true, it’s very troubling and constitutes a dangerous form of censorship,” Labriola told Hearst Wednesday. “I call upon the school district to give equal access to political viewpoints across the spectrum. The last thing we need are young innocent minds poisoned by a radical liberal ideology espoused by clueless so-called educators.”

Lampart said he brought the matter to the attention of Goeler toward the end of May.

“When I first went to the superintendent, he seemed surprised and vowed to fix the problem,” Lampart said. “Nothing was done.”

Lampart said he complained to members of the Region 14 school board and went so far as to speak at the body’s meeting Monday night.

“As of right now, the issue has not been fixed, nor do I know of any course of action they’re taking,” Lampart said. “Somebody must have categorized the websites initially. The teachers also have the ability to block or unblock some websites.”

Even the official website of the Vatican was blocked, according to a screen shot provided by Lampart.

Lampart said the student body at Nonnewaug is split between liberals and conservatives like himself.

“You can definitely tell what side of argument that teachers stand on,” Lampart said.

More screenshots provided by Lampert:
[/quote][/img]

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #259 on: September 24, 2014, 09:42:16 AM »
School accused of 'purging' Christian books
By Todd Starnes
Published September 23, 2014
FoxNews.com

TheHidingPlace-cover.jpg

It’s hard to imagine that any school would have a problem with a book about a Christian family that helped Jews escape the Holocaust.

But Springs Charter Schools in Temecula, Calif., not only had a problem with “The Hiding Place,” they also took issue with any other book that was written by a Christian author or included a Christian message.

“We do not purchase sectarian educational materials and do not allow sectarian materials on our state-authorized lending shelves,” Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer wrote in a letter to attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI).
 
Why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.
Pacific Justice Institute is representing a parent who discovered what they called a “Christian purging” of the charter school’s library.

“She was told by one of the library attendants that the library has been instructed to remove all books with a Christian message, authored by Christians, or published by a Christian publishing company,” read a letter PJI sent to the public charter school. “The attendant advised that the library would no longer be carrying those books. Indeed, our client was told that the library was giving those books away, and she actually took some.”

Among the books deemed inappropriate, the PJI said, was “The Hiding Place” the biography of Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch Christian who was imprisoned by the Germans for helping Jews escape the Holocaust.

“It is alarming that a school library would attempt to purge books from religious authors,” said Brad Dacus, president of the religious advocacy group. “This is a major sweep by this charter school to eliminate the religious viewpoint. Libraries cannot engage in an open purging of books simply because they are of a Christian perspective.”

Dacus said the charter school must reverse “their ill-conceived and illegal book-banning policy.” If they fail to do so, he said, PJI is prepared to take further legal action.

So why would a public charter school take issue with books written by Christians?

I figured Superintendent Hermsmeyer would be more than willing to set the record straight and explain the book purging. It seems I figured wrong. I gave her 24 hours to return my calls, and as of this writing, she has not done so.

But she did reply to the letter she received from Pacific Justice Institute. And what she told them was a bit alarming.

“We are a public school, and as such, we are barred by law from purchasing sectarian curriculum materials with state funds,” she wrote. “We only keep on our shelves the books that we are authorized to purchase with public funds.”

I’m guessing Harry Potter is OK but Frodo is not.

Pacific Justice Institute said the charter school has violated the First Amendment. They cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that said “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.’” If you’d like to read the entire case – it’s “Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico.”

Hermsmeyer denied they were discriminating against Christian authors or publishing companies.
“At no time, however, have we discriminated against Christian authors or publishing companies who create secular educational materials,” she wrote.

Heaven forbid the children find a Bible in the library.

It’s quite unfortunate that the charter school endorses the banning of books.

“Some of the greatest literature of Western civilization comes from religious authors,” Dacus said. Are they going to ban the sermons or speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?”

I oppose all book banning. If a book offends you, don’t read it.

The way I see it – book banning is just one step away from book burning. And I don’t mean to pour gasoline on the fire, but we all know what regime did that.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/23/school-accused-purging-christian-books/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #260 on: November 21, 2014, 03:09:38 PM »
Colleges and universities are supposed to be the marketplace of ideas; a place where kids can express and discuss viewpoints, including viewpoints people consider offensive. 

Except if you are a liberal, then you only get to discuss what the liberal agrees with.  Tolerance.   ::)

Teacher to student: If you don't support gay marriage, drop my class
By Todd Starnes
Published November 21, 2014
FoxNews.com

Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professor and was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.

The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation -- without her permission.

“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

“Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.

Abbate disagreed.

“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

The student said he did not know the answer to her question.

“Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.

At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

“Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class]  to make homophobic comments.”

The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic.

“This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals,” he said. “Because they’re homosexual, I can’t have my opinions?”

And that’s when the teacher dropped the bombshell.

“You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”

So the student dropped the class.

“I understand that other people have very different views than I do and that’s understandable,” the student told me. “But when a student is not allowed to have an open discussion in a discussion-type class on a specific issue because it’s regarded as homophobic – that really irks me.”

Marquette Professor John McAdams, who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, accused Abbate of using a tactic “typical among liberals now.”

“Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” he wrote.

The student told me he filed a complaint – but he said university officials dismissed his concerns.

McAdams wrote that he was not surprised because the university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor.

“Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university,” he wrote. “And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

A university spokesman told me they were viewing “both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member.”

“We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly,” the spokesman told me. “In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.”

Abbate told the website Inside Higher Ed that the “class discussion was not meant to be an opportunity for students to express their personal beliefs about political issues.”

She said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.”

“It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty,” she told Inside Higher Ed.

The only thing toxic at Marquette are teachers who oppose Catholic doctrine and try to silence dissenting opinions.

I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.

I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions.

Nevertheless, the student’s behavior does not excuse Marquette University’s successful attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas.

So let’s review -- an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.

I’m not a Catholic – but it seems to me Marquette University is one of those CINO schools – Catholic in Name Only.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/11/21/teacher-to-student-if-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-my-class/?intcmp=latestnews

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #261 on: January 09, 2015, 03:50:55 PM »
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015

atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #262 on: January 09, 2015, 05:13:27 PM »
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015

atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

good riddance

now he can spend more time reading his bible

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #263 on: January 09, 2015, 05:34:08 PM »
good riddance

now he can spend more time reading his bible
He looks a little light in the loafers.  Probably wouldn`t be any use with a plow or rake.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #264 on: January 14, 2015, 10:34:23 AM »
Good commentary.

New York Times Applauds Atlanta's Religious Intolerance
By Tony Perkins | January 14, 2015


Apparently, the New York Times is in favor of faith in the public square -- if the purpose is to mock it.  Editors at the Times poured gasoline on the fire of Atlanta’s latest controversy with an editorial that should shock even their most liberal readers.  Just when you thought the media couldn’t sink any lower, the Times takes on the same First Amendment that gives it the freedom to print these vicious attacks on Christians.

In a stunning editorial Tuesday, the newspaper argues that men and women of faith have no place in public management of any kind.  The piece, which shows a remarkable disinterest in the facts, claims that Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran didn’t have permission to publish his book on biblical morality.  Not only did Cochran have permission from the city’s ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend.

But the shoddy journalism didn’t end there.  Editors insisted that Cochran’s book was full of “virulent anti-gay views” -- when in fact, the 162 page book only mentioned homosexuality twice.  And both times, the conversation merely echoed the Bible’s teachings on the subject.  For that -- privately espousing a faith that a majority of Americans share -- Kelvin was fired.

“It should not matter,” the New York Times conveniently suggests, “that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians.  His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”  And what is that “standard,” specifically?  That he has no First Amendment rights?   If so, that’s the height of hypocrisy for these editors, who just days ago championed the press’s freedom to ridicule religion in the public square.  Apparently, the New York Times believes in the freedom of the press to attack faith, but not the public’s right to hold a faith in the first place.

“Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe,” the editors say (somewhat ironically, since that’s what they seem to be doing).  “If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.”  At no point did Kelvin Cochran “foist” his views on anyone.  And if you follow the Times’s suggestion to its natural conclusion, then there’s no place in this country for Christians in any position of authority!

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of Cochran supporters spilled into the rotunda of the Georgia Capitol to stand up to the city’s religious intolerance -- and then marched to Mayor Reed’s office where they left nearly 50,000 petitions from citizens across the nation.  Together with Atlanta’s religious leaders, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, I urged Americans to fight this notion that Christians have to check their faith at the workplace door.

“This past weekend the world marched in Paris recognizing that free speech is the cornerstone of a truly free society.  A realization is now sweeping Europe that political correctness has become lethal and it is an avowed enemy of true freedom.  But whether a journalist in France satirically writes about religion or a fire chief in Atlanta, Georgia writes about the sacred teachings of his faith, the silencing of either is a threat to the freedoms of all...Chief Cochran has spent a lifetime, ready at a moment’s notice to fight the fires that threatened lives and property, today he stands ready to fight the flames of intolerance fueled by our own government that threaten our most fundamental freedoms.”

It’s time for the city of Atlanta to end its campaign of discrimination against Christians, whose only crime is exercising the same liberties our forefathers came to these shores to protect.  The New York Times is calling for public servants to be held to a different standard when it comes to their freedom of speech and religion.  But I think most Americans are quite happy with the standard that we’ve had for the last 226 years -- the First Amendment!

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. This is cross-posted from his Washington Update.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tony-perkins/2015/01/14/new-york-times-applauds-atlantas-religious-intolerance#sthash.ySCREd9d.dpuf

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #265 on: January 14, 2015, 11:38:41 AM »
Hey Bum ,where is the link to the NY Times story?

I think we'd all rather read it and draw our own opinion about it rather than hearing Tony Perkins (obviously biased) opinion about it.

Clearly Perkins is too much of a pussy to include a link in his own commentary so his readers can draw their own conclusions rather than being spoon fed an opinion about it without being able to check and see if it is accurate or not.

Did you happen to notice this quote in the original story that you posted

Quote
However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.


LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30828
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #266 on: January 14, 2015, 12:29:20 PM »
Fire chief fired after gay comments in book
Julie Wolfe, WXIA-TV, Atlanta
January 7, 2015

atlantafirechief
(Photo: City of Atlanta)

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published controversial comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a monthlong suspension in November. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.

"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said.

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.

Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement is the basis of the problem," Reed said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-fired-gay-comments-book/21378685/

What an idiot.  Now  if someone wrote a book calling blacks unclean, vulgar or inappropriate, he would be the first one to start howling with outrage.  But when he throws the same bullshit onto someone else, it's ok.   ::)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #267 on: January 21, 2015, 08:46:50 AM »
Why are liberals so afraid of opposing viewpoints?  I'm sure he would have had no complaints if the default channel was MSNBC.  Too bad United caved. 

Former Obama Aide Furious Over Newsmax TV
Tuesday, 20 Jan 2015
By Jim Meyers

A former senior White House aide to President Obama became furious after he noticed Newsmax TV airing on a United Airlines flight.

Bill Burton, who served as Obama’s White House press secretary, was apparently outraged when he saw Newsmax TV yesterday on the plane’s video screens, and quickly tweeted:

"Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes."

Burton apparently doesn’t have much use for the liberal ideals of free expression or allowing for an open exchange of ideas and opinions – at least when it comes to Newsmax TV.

Newsmax TV, the new and fast-rising cable and online channel, went on air in June of 2014. It is broadcast 24/7 to more than 35 million homes and businesses on DIRECTV Ch. 349 and DISH 223.

Numerous companies, such as airlines and hotels that offer DIRECTV or DISH, can easily broadcast Newsmax TV. United temporarily has been broadcasting the network as its airline default channel.

Burton seems to have cowed the airline into submission. United responded to Burton's complaint with their own tweet: "@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel."

Burton’s and United’s tweets have now gone viral, and some United customers are not happy about the airline’s quick cave-in to P.C. browbeating.

One person tweeted back: “Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?”

Burton served as chief strategist for the Priorities USA Action committee that backed Obama’s 2012 re-election, as well as communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election cycle.

Hey there, @united. Why on earth is newsmax tv the default channel running on all of your screens when boarding your planes? #tcot

— Bill Burton (@billburton) January 20, 2015
@billburton In the coming months we will be removing that as our default channel. ^JT

— United (@united) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton Why would you remove it? Because some liberal whined?

— Chris Dengler (@chrisdengler) January 20, 2015
@united @billburton please don't replace it with that moronic MSNBC

— Jae Onasi (@JaeOnasi) January 20, 2015
@united what a pathetic bunch of surrender monkeys you are. Your airline sucks @billburton

— Stelios Karakolis (@agrianthropo) January 20, 2015

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-burton-newsmaxtv-united-flight/2015/01/20/id/619609/#ixzz3PTW1E1B3

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #268 on: January 26, 2015, 03:11:10 PM »
Good for him. 

This is true:  "If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian."

Christian ex-fire chief fires back at Atlanta mayor, files discrimination complaint
By Todd Starnes
Published January 26, 2015
FoxNews.com


Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran (Fox 5 Atlanta)

Former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran says he was fired because he wrote a book expressing his Christian faith, according to a discrimination complaint filed Jan. 19 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my religion,” Cochran wrote in the complaint.

His attorney, Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith, said the ADA wants to vindicate the former fire chief following his “unjust termination.”

The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.
“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live without fear of losing their jobs because of their beliefs and thoughts,” Tedesco said.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed threatened that the former fire chief’s reputation would be destroyed should he file a lawsuit.

“He’s gonna lose,” Reed told television station WAGA. “And in the process his reputation is going to be destroyed because people are going to see he’s dishonest.”

The EEOC complaint is the latest move in a battle between Cochran and Reed that has generated a national debate over religious liberty in the public marketplace since it began in November.

Cochran was suspended without pay on Nov. 24 for writing a book about biblical morality, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” He said homosexuality is “vile” and listed it among other forms of “sexual perversions.”

He was also accused of giving the book to colleagues at work with whom he had personal friendships.

An investigation by the city of Atlanta found that “firefighters throughout the organization are appalled by the sentiments expressed in the book.”

The report went on to say that “there is also general agreement the contents of the book have eroded trust and have compromised the ability of the chief to provide leadership in the future.”

But the investigation found no evidence of discrimination against LGBT firefighters.

“There is currently no indication that Chief Cochran allowed his religious beliefs to compromise his disciplinary decisions,” the report states. “No interviewed witness could point to a specific instance in which any member of the organization has been treated unfairly by Chief Cochran on the basis of his religious beliefs.”

Cochran was cleared of any wrongdoing. But on Jan. 6 – the day he was supposed to return to work – he was fired.

The mayor denied that Cochran’s faith had anything to do with his dismissal. Instead, he said it was lack of judgment and management skills. He also said Cochran violated the city’s code of conduct.

Folks, this was nothing short of an old-fashioned witch hunt led by the mayor, LGBT activists and the city’s left-wing firefighter’s union.

According to the city’s investigation, they interviewed a retired lesbian battalion chief who harbored “suspicions” about Cochran’s Christian faith.

“She stated that she took a voluntary demotion because of these suspicions,” the report states.

What a load of fertilizer.

The Atlanta Professional Firefighters Local 134 piled on, commending the mayor for firing the Christian fire chief.

“Local 134 supports LGBT rights and equality among all employees,” the union said in a statement, urging the city to “improve LGBT rights by adding an LGBT liaison for the fire department.”

Now, the leadership of Local 134 is either ignorant or illiterate – because the official investigation clearly shows the fire chief NEVER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST LGBT FIREFIGHTERS.

The New York Times editorial board said it doesn’t matter if Chief Cochran was innocent. That’s not the point, it wrote Tuesday in a scathing editorial titled “God, Gays and the Atlanta Fire Department.”

“It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians,” the Times wrote. “His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard.”

The mayor may have the LGBT activists, the union and The New York Times on his side – but Chief Cochran has some much bigger firepower – the nation’s evangelical community.

Leading the charge is Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham told me he’s known Cochran for years – and found him to be a decent and honorable man.

He said Cochran has become the latest victim of a national cleansing of Christians in the public marketplace.

“We need to stand up with Chief Cochran and others when they are persecuted,” Graham told me. “This man is being persecuted because he believes the Bible.”

Robert White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, called The New York Times editorial “quite remarkable.”

“It declares his innocence and then declares him guilty,” he said. “Guilty of what? He didn’t discriminate against any homosexuals. He vowed that he wanted to have a healthy workplace for all of his employees.”

The Times went on to argue that while Cochran is free to believe whatever he wants, there are limits to where he can believe and still maintain gainful employment in the public arena.

If I didn’t know better, I’d say The New York Times is suggesting a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for public workers who happen to be Christian.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/26/christian-ex-fire-chief-fires-back-at-atlanta-mayor-files-discrimination/?intcmp=trending

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #269 on: January 26, 2015, 03:34:36 PM »
The dumbass shouldn't have been handing these out at work.

If he had a half a brain he would have waited until he retired to self publish his stupid book

It's not like the world couldn't have waited a few years for another anti-gay screed from a fundie dipshit

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #270 on: February 09, 2015, 12:37:12 PM »
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #271 on: February 09, 2015, 12:45:05 PM »
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.


http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/

almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship

for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63585
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #272 on: February 09, 2015, 12:48:36 PM »
Not censorship, but definitely intolerance.  Another liberal hallmark. 

Ben Carson Placed on ‘Extremist’ Watch List
February 8, 2015
By Greg Campbell

ZCarsonThe Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), like so many liberal institutions started decades ago, began with noble intentions. Today, however, they serve as a partisan group dedicated to a brand of political extremism that they, ironically, purport to work against.
 
They throw around terms like “extremist” and “terrorist” in order to intimidate and sensationalize. While so many on their “extremist” list are, by most measures, extremists (Klan members and other assorted neo-Nazis), they also include many who represent a challenge to the liberal narrative.
 
In 2011, they notoriously included Kentucky Senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate Rand Paul on their list. Like him or hate him, it’s ridiculous to include Rand Paul on a list that includes KKK members.
 
Now, they are including famed neurosurgeon and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson on their list of “extremists.”
 
The reason, according to the SPLC, seems to be little more than the fact that Carson supports traditional definitions of marriage and that he famously spoke-out against Obama’s policies at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.
 
Evidently, supporting the longstanding institution of marriage and taking issue with the Dear Leader’s failed leadership is enough to qualify for entry on the SPLC’s political hitlist.
 
The SPLC explains why he’s on the list: (Emphasis added)
 
Although the book amplified Carson’s name recognition, the breakout incident that made him a sensation in far-right political circles was his audacious public criticism of President Obama, who was sitting nearby at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He lectured Obama on the national debt, called for a tax system along the lines of biblical tithes and touted health savings accounts that could be inherited by family members as a better option than any government plan. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other right-wing political commentators lavished praise on Carson. The Wall Street Journal headlined a positive review of the speech “Ben Carson for President,” noting that he may not have been politically correct, “but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.”
 
In a March 2013 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Carson bolstered his standing with hardliners by appearing to equate gays who wish to marry with pedophiles and humans who have sex with animals. Although he later apologized for the remark, claiming it was taken out of context and asserting that he loved gay people just as much as straight people, his words triggered an avalanche of protest from faculty colleagues and students at Johns Hopkins. He had been scheduled to deliver the university’s commencement address just two months later but withdrew rather than stoke further controversy. At around the same time, Carson, at age 61, announced his retirement from Johns Hopkins, effective July 1, saying he wanted to leave surgical practice at the top of his game….
 
Legal Insurrection makes a good point about the real-world dangers of the list, saying,
 
Landing on SPLC’s Extremist list can be politically deadly, and also deadly in the real sense.  TheFamily Research Council made the list because of its position on same-sex marriage, inspiring Floyd Lee Corkins to go on a murderous shooting spree at FRC headquarters.
 
It would be fine if the yahoos at MSNBC declared Carson “extreme” or other political commentators did similarly; what this represents, however, is a shocking display of partisan behavior from a group that is supposed to be tracking so-called “hate groups” and potential domestic terrorists. While such a Quixotic task will ultimately rely upon a bit of subjectivity, the SPLC’s recent addition is pathetic and transparent in their intent to smear a political contender for daring to criticize the Obama Regime and stand by the institution of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/08/ben-carson-placed-on-extremist-watch-list/

Dr. Carson's response:

Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List

Image: Ben Carson: 'Christian Values' Landed Me on 'Extremist' List (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Monday, 09 Feb 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald

Likely 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson Monday fired back at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has included him in its "Extremist Files" because of his long-stated opinions against same-sex marriage.

"It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance," the retired neurosurgeon said in a statement. "That means being respectful of those with whom we disagree and allowing people to live according to their values without harassment."

Further, said Carson, the nation is approaching the stage where "wrong is called right" at a time "when embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred" and "it is nothing but projectionist when some groups label those who disagree with them as haters."

By naming Carson to its list, the SPLC includes him along with former Ku Klux Klan leader and Louisiana politician David Duke and numerous KKK members, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and more.

The SPLC, using a series of Carson quotes to back up its assertions, claims that after Carson came to conservatives' attention with his speech condemning the Affordable Care Act at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, he soon "was appearing as the keynoter at a rash of right-wing and hate group gatherings, linking gays with pedophiles, comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany and endorsing biblical economic practices for 21st century America."

The SPLC is based in Montgomery, Alabama, and describes itself as a civil rights organization. It includes on its "Hate Map" what many on the right consider to be simply conservative groups, such as the Family Research Council.

Carson is not the first prominent conservative to land on one of the SPLC's lists, reports The Blaze. Last year, historian David Barton and American Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney were also added to the center's lists.

The SPLC says its "hate map" targets those groups that follow "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics" and is "compiled using hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports."

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ben-Carson-SPLC-extremist-file-gays/2015/02/09/id/623629/#ixzz3RHbVngIc

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39263
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #273 on: February 09, 2015, 12:48:55 PM »
almost nothing on this thread is an example of censorship

for example, the fundie moron fire chief published his book and no one "unpublished" it or is preventing him from selling it, giving it away, etc so absolutely ZERO censorship there

Go back to bed loser.   

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: More Liberal Censorship
« Reply #274 on: February 09, 2015, 12:55:53 PM »
Go back to bed loser.   

am I talking to you

aren't you the closet queer who claims I stalk him yet you can't stop responding to any post I make whether it's directed to you or not