What are the odds when over 80-90% of arts faculties are registered Dems? (Science faculties are somewhat better). Lone conservatives have to keep their beliefs hidden to get hired or receive advancement. Speaking out about something like this would be academic suicide. Note the 24 academics and diplomats consulted were UNANIMOUS in selling out the values of Western enlightenment.

To paraphrase, universities are now “islands of repression in a sea of (fast ebbing) freedom”. Marxist riddled professoriates are the first to grovel to a fellow totalitarianism.

Hopefully, there are enough Yale alumni who have grown up since they entered the real world and inflict financial pain on the sellouts by withholding contributions and telling them why.

KyMouse on August 13, 2009

To the progressives, it is the essence of courage to stand firmly against those (Christians) who would never think to raise a finger against them.

Oh for the love of political correctness!

bobkat on August 12, 2009 at 9:52 PM

ALL PC is evil. Yale , it follows, is evil.

I see that aengus is now approving motion picture censorship.

ebrown2 on August 13, 2009 at 9:06 AM

Wow, is everyone here on drugs?

Here is Sam_I_Am’s original comment:

These maggots can try to get a toehold here, there’s only one law of this land, the Constitution. Everyone’s welcome to worship, but extremism is unacceptable. Censorship is extremism. This is America, not Afghanistan.

Sam_I_Am on August 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Then here is what I wrote:

What about the Production Code?

aengus on August 12, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I referred to an instance in 1930, which lasted almost 40 years, where the US government did use censorship on the grounds of public decency and it was not considered unconstitutional at the time.

I was expecting some kind of thoughful response e.g. “Obscenity laws should not be considered an exception to the First Amendment” or some such. Instead Sam_I_Am first refuses to believe that the Production Code ever existed – because the information appeared on Wikipedia which is not politically neutral as reagrds President Obama.

Then when I pointed out that a quick search on Google would produce millions of articles and web sites related to the Poduction Code Sam_I_Am refuses to believe any of it because Google censors web sites in China (does Sam_I_Am reside in China?) which amounts to saying that any internet source is untrustworthy.

When I then recommend two unimpeachale written sources Sam_I_Am can use to verify this information (the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Library of Congress) a second person called ebrown2 chimes in to say that I now approve motion picture censorship. It’s possible that ebrown2 has simply misread the thread but I suspect he is deliberately lying.

How to explain this strange series of evasions followed by a dishonest untruth about what I have said? My guess is that Sam_I_Am and ebrown2 are so discomfited by the fact that the US government did excerise censorship, prior to the era of modern liberalism and seemingly in harmony with the US Constitution, that they would rather use tactics of evasion and obfuscation than simply admit the truth and address the consequnces of it.

I read last week in “World” magazine (one of my favorite magazines) that a museum in Scotland recently put an open Bible on display and encouraged homosexual, lesbian, etc. folks to write on its pages how offended they are by scriptural warnings against their sexual proclivities.

More than one person has noted that a copy of the Koran is not receiving the same treatment, even though homosexuality also is forbidden in Islam.

Spineless. Moral cowards.

this reminds me of something i read forever ago about a book that portrayed indians (“native americans”) as people with blonde hair and blue eyes who didn’t kill animals or grow crops.

somehow reality was offensive.

Of course, Google never allowed the Chinese to censor them.

Sam_I_Am on August 12, 2009 at 10:47 PM

So you’re saying that every web page that can be found through Google is a fraud and everything on Wikipedia is a lie no matter how politically neutral? In that case go to a library and consult a print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica or better yet check with the Library of Congress. I’ve never seen somebody go to such absurd lengths to avoid addressing a valid point.

“A Photo Tour of the Historical Castles of France” – without any photos.

“A Collection of Playboy Playmate Foldouts” – without the Playboy Playmate foldout photos.

Your statement reads:
This is the scholarship equivalent of Yale donning a burqa…

It should read:
This is the scholarly equivalent of Yale donning a burqa…

It’s a great quote, either way, which I used on my blog…but correcting it will avoid giving the appeasers something else to focus on.
Best,
Bruce
http://www.BrucesMidEastSoundbites.Blogspot.com