Saturday, February 11, 2006

HOMOSEXUALS HARASS CHRISTIAN COLLEGES

Below is an email from Paul Conn of Lee university

We learned several days ago that a national organization called Soulforce has targeted Lee University as one of the most "anti-gay" universities in America. This organization, which describes itself as a group of "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians", announced plans for a two-month bus tour to "confront" nineteen prominent colleges and universities, including Lee, which have policies forbidding homosexual behavior. This group announced they will arrive at Lee University on March 16. The bus tour, which it calls "Equality Ride" is being planned, they say, because Lee and the other targeted institutions are "epicenters of intolerance and oppression" which "force students into fear and self-hate."

We learned several days ago that a national organization called Soulforce has targeted Lee University as one of the most "anti-gay" universities in America. This organization, which describes itself as a group of "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians", announced plans for a two-month bus tour to "confront" nineteen prominent colleges and universities, including Lee, which have policies forbidding homosexual behavior. This group announced they will arrive at Lee University on March 16. The bus tour, which it calls "Equality Ride" is being planned, they say, because Lee and the other targeted institutions are "epicenters of intolerance and oppression" which "force students into fear and self-hate."

Obviously, this rhetoric is extreme. It provides little basis for dialogue and trusting conversation. On the one hand, I recognize the need for Lee students to discuss and explore freely the scriptural perspective of homosexuality, and I understand it is a sensitive and important issue for many students at a deeply personal level.

On the other hand, I do not believe the organizers of EqualityRide offer positive, balanced dialogue. They describe their approach as "take-it-to-the-streets activism." In my judgment, this kind of confrontational event is not a constructive way for the Lee University family to address the issue of homosexuality, and I do not believe our students would be well-served by this approach. I recently talked by phone with the organizers of the bus tour, explained to them my objections, and asked them not to come to Lee . They responded that they are coming anyway, whether we like it or not, and said they want Lee to provide a public forum, such as chapel, classes, luncheons, for them to make their case.

In my opinion, it would be irresponsible of us to offer any public forum, on such a serious issue, to a group of individuals whom we do not know, and who do not know us, who have no investment in our campus culture or life here together, and no accountability to any of us before or after their visit. We would not be so foolish as to try to prevent these individuals physically from coming onto our campus, but we also do not intend to present them with the legitimacy of any kind of official forum.

I have always welcomed personal dialogue, as you know, with any Lee student, alumnus, or parent, on any subject at any time, and that includes those who are struggling with the issues of homosexuality. Many other faculty and staff here at Lee have that same commitment, as we have demonstrated on many occasions. But we have no obligation to provide credibility and validation, to people who intend to come onto our campus only long enough to argue with us.

Here at Lee, we believe that God offers love and grace to all of us, all the time. We believe as Christians we should extend that grace to others, as Christ extends it to us. We also believe that, even as He loves us, God nevertheless requires us to obey certain laws which He has established. We believe that homosexual conduct is one of the behaviors which are prohibited by scripture. Although we are not wise enough to understand the psychological and emotional complexities which produce same-sex romantic and physical attraction, we believe that it is not the natural course of human affection, and that scripture approves sexual intimacy only when it occurs between a married man and woman.

We understand there are people who do not share this view. We respect their right to reach their own conclusions about sexuality, and to live their lives (or choose a college) consistent with their own beliefs. At the same time, Lee University has never been unclear about where we stand on this issue. We openly state, to every potential student or staff member, that homosexual conduct by members of our campus family is not acceptable, and when individuals join our community, they also join us in that lifestyle commitment. This aspect of our Christian discipleship is deeply rooted in our theological tradition, and we are not reluctant to affirm it.

We believe that people who visit our campus should be treated with courtesy and respect, and this of course includes gays and lesbians. Lee University is a place of friendship and grace. It is our goal always to be firm in our convictions while still reflecting the love of Christ to people who disagree with us. If this group insists on coming our way, I confidently expect that there will be no hostility, or expressions of contempt or derision, shown to them by anyone on our campus. It is important for Lee always to be a place where we show a gentle spirit to all people who visit here, even when they are uninvited, and even when they are harsh in their judgments of us and our spiritual commitments.



V Stands for Vulgar at Smith College

Valentine's Day is next Tuesday. However, instead of associating the day with love, romance and affection, students at Smith and across the country now associate the holiday with the zealous "V-Day" campaign and its accompanying rally cry, "The Vagina Monologues."

Instead of positive publicity promoting healthy relationships, both romantic and platonic, students are being subjected to crude and vulgar advertising for "The Vagina Monologues." Pictures of flowers made to look like women's sexual anatomy adorn posters, mailbox stuffers and flyers. Words and phrases such as "Do you multiple orgasm?" and "Sex fair" are being thrown in our faces.

This type of speech is unacceptable for an institution of higher learning, especially one that values strong, female leadership. Besides the vulgarity, "The Vagina Monologues" is decidedly anti-male, commercializes violence against women and reduces women to little more than their sexual anatomy. The manner in which the play promotes the use of graphic language, evident to anyone who has seen a performance or read it thoroughly, is additionally disturbing.

This is not an issue of political preference, as women from both ends of the political spectrum have come out against the use of "The Vagina Monologues" in the V-Day campaign. Noted radical feminist Betty Dodson stated in reference to "The Vagina Monologues," "That's the main problem with V-Day. Women end up with a false idea that V-Day will end violence against women and girls. Ending violence is a worthy cause, and I am all for it, but consistently equating sex with violence offers no real solution."

Instilling a fear of men through "The Vagina Monologues" performances on college campuses across the country will not end violence against women. "The Vagina Monologues" paints a despairingly bleak picture of the male nature, as is evident in all the men portrayed in the play as rapists and child molesters, save "Bob," the single non-violent male character who is obsessed with the female anatomy.

Teaching women not to trust men will not change anything, and furthering the use of derogatory terms against women challenges the core principles of feminism. By highlighting women talking about themselves and their anatomy the way the characters in the play do, the play is allowing men to follow along and to see women in terms of their anatomy instead of in terms of their intelligence, creativity and passion. Men attend the play and hear women shouting out the "C-word"-- not a word associated with empowerment and liberation but rather with derogatory connotations of violence and vulgarity. Using harsh, offensive language is part of the "shock value" of the play, but in actuality such vulgarity contributes little to the feminist cause.

This play does not in any way liberate women. "The Vagina Monologues" sends the message that women identify solely by their sexual anatomy and that the female source of power comes from her vagina. Telling an audience that your vagina feels "chatty," or that your vagina would wear "a beret," or that it is named "Froggie Doodle Mashy Pie" does not make women stronger, but makes them sound pathetic and crude.

A production that is supposed to end violence against women should teach audiences that women should be independent, free thinkers and focus on personality and intellect, not their sexual anatomy. Teaching women how to be great leaders, to be confident, well spoken and poised is far more important than a monologue telling women that their vagina is a "village." Students at institutions such as Smith College should be focusing on all of the strong, capable women that are educated here and go on to do amazing things. We should be honoring women for their talent, not their anatomy. Smith College is an institution that values civil debate and intellectual conversation. We are smart, privileged women, and we do not need to cater to the "shock value" of "The Vagina Monologues" to learn about an important issue such as domestic violence.

On Feb. 11 we challenge all Smith women and members of the Smith Community to make an informed decision as to whether or not to see "The Vagina Monologues."

(From the Smith College Republicans)



FROZEN FOOD NOW INCORRECT

British food correctness at work

Stormy waters lie ahead for Captain Birds Eye. The fish finger company is being forced to find a new berth. Unilever, the parent company, is jumping ship, blaming frozen food's bad image for the decision to sell one of its most famous brands. Despite the good captain's "nutrition mission" on television commercials, and a 60 million pound overhall of the range last year, Birds Eye has struggled to reverse growing perceptions of frozen food as unhealthy and outdated. "It's modern and it's healthy," Trevor Gorin, a Unilever spokesman, said, "but it's hard to turn people's ideas around. The popularity of chilled food has been a big problem, too. The decision to sell was not an easy one, but we can't afford to be sentimental."

Birds Eye, founded by the American biologist Clarence Birdseye in 1922, is one of the iconic brands on supermarket shelves, selling more than 515 million fish fingers a year. More than 1.7 million people a day eat the company's peas. Its advertising figurehead, Captain Birds Eye, has become a household name since he appeared in 1967. He was even honoured with an obituary note in The Times during a temporary demise "after long exposure" in 1974. The white-bearded sailor made a comeback in 2002 after an attempt to replace him with a younger, stubble-clad impostor provoked protests from his fans.

Now the captain and the Birds Eye workforce, who include 900 staff at a frozen vegetable site in Lowestoft, Suffolk, and hundreds more at the fish plant in Hull, must wait until the company is sold before their future is decided. Unilever hopes to complete the sale by the end of the year. Birds Eye's Grimsby factory, where fish fingers had been made since their invention in 1955, closed a year ago with the loss of 620 jobs. Heinz and Findus have also put their frozen food divisions up for sale in recent months.

Reacting to yesterday's announcement, a spokesman for the Transport and General Workers' Union said: "Our members face an uncertain and unsettling future. We are very disappointed that Unilever has chosen to sell." Unilever said that it was also selling most of its European frozen food brand, Iglo, which with Birds Eye has an annual turnover of about 1.5 billion pounds. It will retain control of Iglo in Italy, where the market is performing better, as well as the ice-cream brand Walls.

Patrick Cescau, group chief executive, said that the decision to sell "has been a tough call. It has been a successful business for us over many years. However . . . in recent years growth has been harder to come by." Potential buyers for Birds Eye include the private equity group Capvest, which bought part of Findus this month.

Source

No comments: