8 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/19/14 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sarah Kissel called for a “common-sense approach to defending decency” in response to the Center for BioEthical Reform display at Florida Gulf Coast University.While Kissel may believe that the graphic photographs of aborted babies are indecent, the real indecency is that our legal system allows these innocent lives to be exterminated in the first place.Kissel is both right and wrong to object to the Genocide Awareness Project’s comparisons of abortion to the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. She is wrong in that the abortion industry has killed more than 55 million unborn babies since 1973 in the United States alone.Whether done as part of some nefarious conspiracy or as 55 million individual choices, the death toll is still the same and deserves to be considered in the same light.Kissel is right, though, that abortion is not the same as these other atrocities because far more innocent lives have been extinguished by the abortion industry than were extinguished by the Nazis or the Soviets.Turning the signs inward is an illegal, unconstitutional violation of free speech.Neither the government nor a state-supported institution are permitted to engage in content-based censorship of “offensive” speech.The sole purpose of the free-speech protections in the First Amendment is to protect speech on divisive political and cultural issues.Turning the images inward amounts to a cover up to protect the abortion industry and to protect supporters of abortion “rights” from inconvenient truths.Kissel may have read about the Genocide Awareness Project’s display at IU in fall 2001.In the 12 years since, local pro-life activists have stood at the corner of Kirkwood and Indiana avenues with signs purchased from the Center for Bioethic Reform. I have seen minds changed, and I have seen people shocked by the images of what really happens in an abortion.I hope the day comes when the graphic images of aborted babies are never seen again, but as long as babies are being ripped limb from limb, those images are needed to expose the truth about the reality of “reproductive choice.”— Scott Tibbs
(06/05/08 3:34am)
On April 18, a number of men denied the biological sex given to them by God and dressed up as women. This event, referred to as the “Miss Gay IU Pageant” and presented by homosexual-advocacy organizations, is clearly a celebration of the destructive sin of sodomy. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, is very clear on the nature of sexuality and how God views same-sex intimacy. Deuteronomy 22:5 is a direct condemnation of cross-dressing. The Bible calls same-sex intimacy an “abomination” in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. For New Testament examples, see Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Jude 1:6-7 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11.\nThis is not new, as this event has been taking place for many years. What is also not new is that all Indiana University students, including Christians, are forced to contribute financially to the “Miss Gay IU Pageant” through their student activity fees that are due upon registration for classes. Not content with simply having the pageant, the organizers of “Miss Gay IU” force the event on everyone else.\nAs a Christian, I will point out what God’s Word says about sodomy. As an American citizen, I do not have a problem with the event existing. If OUT and other organizations wish to flaunt this particularly destructive sin, they should be free to do so without interference from government or the University. What they do not have the right to do is force others to contribute financially. Christian students who believe in biblical sexual morality should not be forced to contribute to a “pageant” that is highly offensive to their beliefs and is condemned by their religion.\nThis community is very tolerant of sexual sin and there is more than enough support for “Miss Gay IU” for it to be completely funded through private donations. In the 1990s, the homosexual student center was funded completely through private donations after the state legislature got involved to prevent Indiana University from funding it directly. It is long past time for IUSA to embrace tolerance and stop forcing all students to fund “Miss Gay IU.”
(02/25/08 5:51pm)
The Indiana Daily Student editorial board’s complaining about the federal government’s policy forbidding homosexual men from giving blood should be addressed (“Donation Discrimination,” Feb. 13). \nI was pleased to see the IDS argue that San Jose State University’s prohibition of on-campus blood drives was too extreme. That kind of policy is counterproductive, arrogant, cruel, hateful and self-centered. Unfortunately, these extremist views do exist at IU, as we saw two years ago when two letters to the editor in the IDS advocated banning the Red Cross from campus because of the government’s policy.\nWho suffers most from San Jose State University’s ridiculous and over-the-top prohibition of on-campus blood drives? Those who need blood the most. San Jose State University put political correctness ahead of the needs of sick and injured people, the people who need society’s help the most. Whatever you may think of the federal government’s policy, you need to remember: it is not about you! There is no “right” to donate blood. Donating blood is a sacrifice one makes for the good of someone else. The people receiving the donated blood are the ones who we should be concerned about.\nThe problem with comparing refusing blood from men who have had sex with men and black people is that skin pigmentation is not the same as behavior. Like it or not, same-sex intimacy increases the risk one has of contracting STDs such as AIDS. Simply having more melanin in one’s skin does not in and of itself increase the likelihood of contracting an STD. After all, there is a reason that AIDS is referred to as a sexually-transmitted disease.\nThe issue is not, nor should it be, about whether a certain policy helps promote “harmful stereotypes.” The issue is public health and ensuring that the blood supply is as safe as possible for those who need it. If you feel that the blood supply if is unnecessarily low because homosexual men are excluded from giving blood, then do something about it by donating some of your own. Do not demand that political considerations be placed above science, and do not place “tolerance” above legitimate analysis of health statistics.
(01/24/08 2:22pm)
I wrote the letter to the editor in the Herald-Times that prompted Indira Dammu’s column last week (“Point of no return,” Jan. 16.) Yes, I did mention the “abortion industry” in my letter, a machine that is responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million human beings every year. The average of over 3,200 abortions every day is a human-rights tragedy that dwarfs even the carnage of September 11, 2001. Planned Parenthood and all of its affiliates combine for a huge difference between income and expenses, which most people refer to as “profit.” This has been well-documented by Planned Parenthood’s own annual financial reports. Pointing out the number of abortions annually, the average number of abortions per day, or Planned Parenthood’s profit margins is not in and of itself “radical.” Facts are not ideological. Do we need to “assume” that abortion is murder? It is a biological fact that human life begins at fertilization, when a new entity is created that then grows and develops throughout the stages of life. “Cute” comparisons to an acorn and a tree fail to refute basic biology. In the fall of 2001, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform came to campus with the Genocide Awareness Project. Huge photographs of aborted babies are difficult to ignore or deny. The photographs simply show the results of abortion: a shredded and lifeless body butchered by the abortionist’s instruments. See the pictures for yourself at www.CBRinfo.org. The issue is not forcing women to give up their bodies. The issue is making it illegal to kill a human being in the early stages of development. The use of rape and incest as an argument for “reproductive choice” fails when one realizes that these “hard cases” account for a small percentage of all abortions. If abortion is to be opposed based on the human rights of the unborn, should an unborn baby be executed for the crimes of his or her father?\nBanning abortion will be hard, but when you have over 3,200 lives snuffed out every day, is there any other option than criminalizing that killing? Is doing the right thing ever easy?
(05/17/07 12:48am)
On the day before graduation, there was an interfaith ceremony featuring representatives from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. I must say, I am very disappointed with the Christian ministers who participated in this ceremony. This was an act of hatred no servant of Jesus Christ should engage in.\nIn John 14:6, the Lord tells us that “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Acts 4:12 tells us that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Romans 6:23 tells us that “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”\nBy putting the false gods of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism on the same level with Christianity, these ministers denied the gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of preaching His Word with boldness, they went along with the crowd. What a wasted opportunity this was to liberate souls from sin and bring them into the Kingdom.\nWhy did people who profess to serve Jesus Christ deny Him, as the Apostle Peter did three times? Were they placing their own comfort above the souls of others? It certainly would have been very hard to stand for the Gospel in that atmosphere. Or do they simply not believe the very clear words of Scripture?\nGod’s Word warns us against such behavior. Jesus says in Matthew 10:33, “whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” This is a sobering warning indeed.
(03/07/07 5:00am)
According to Walt Becker's "Wild Hogs," the easiest way to get over a mid-life crisis is to get four of your underachieving friends, some motorcycles and an air mattress that only sleeps three. Leave wives and cell phones behind. Adequate clothing is optional.\nThis movie opens with four separate sequences showcasing just how lame the characters have become in their middle-aged lives. Woody (John Travolta) has lost everything in a messy divorce; Doug (Tim Allen) doesn't have the respect of his own son; Bobby (Martin Lawrence) has a crap job and is afraid to stand up to his wife; and Dudley (William H. Macy) is a nerdy computer programmer who is afraid to talk to women. All four men decide to take their motorcycles on the road to reclaim their lives and their manliness.\nThis is an above-par buddy movie. Marketed (and seemingly made) for aging baby boomers, there is still enough slapstick humor and gross out jokes for the sixth-grader in everyone (the method of Dudley "doing his business" in the woods is hilarious).\nThe characters are well-developed and mesh together nicely. Established character actor Macy is the best part of the film, as he plays a role normally reserved for the likes of such buffoons like Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell. Ray Liotta turns in the second-best performance of the movie as the leader of vicious motorcycle gang, "The Del Fuegos." \nThere are great cameos as well from the likes of John. C. McGinnley ("Scrubs") and one-half of Tenacious D. The biggest cameo by far is Mr. "Easy Rider" himself, Peter Fonda.\nA detraction from this movie: It's highly predicable. Right down to the soundtrack (which includes AC/DC's "Highway to Hell") to the stereotypical biker bars, you have seen this all before.\nAlso, Fonda serves as a sad statement of the baby boomer generation. "Easy Rider" was about finding America on the open road. Forty years later, the establishment that "Easy Rider" resisted so much is now the norm. The hipsters lost, and Fonda is here to make sure everyone knows that.\nOverall, "Wild Hogs" is just OK. While the laughs are here, it's hard for the typical college student to relate to these men as they enter their mid-life crisis. My advice, wait until the DVD. Your parents will love it.
(02/15/07 5:00am)
I skimmed the Jordan River Forum of the Feb. 8 IDS and saw several letters responding to a column on homosexual adoption by Abram Hess (“Fathers and mothers,” Feb. 1), so I made a point to read the column before I read the criticisms more closely. Mr. Hess certainly didn’t mince words, so the torrent of responses was expected.\nFirst, let me congratulate Mr. Hess for having the courage of his convictions. It is not easy to stand up for Biblical sexual morality in the city of Bloomington, and it is less easy to do so on a university campus so dominated by “tolerant” leftists, some of whom do things like vandalize the automobiles of IDS columnists who publish “offensive” commentaries. (This has happened to Mr. Hess, by the way.)\nFour of the letters responding to Mr. Hess were a productive extension of the dialogue, responding directly to the arguments presented in the “Fathers and mothers” column. Jim Johnson and Charles Pearce, however, took the unfortunate step of calling for censorship of views they do not like. Apparently, for Mr. Pearce and Mr. Johnson, the fact that the IU campus is a very welcoming place for homosexuals is not enough; opinions in agreement with centuries-old sacred texts must be banished from the student newspaper.\nAs a private entity, the IDS can choose to publish or not publish whatever it wants. The IDS would do a disservice to the free exchange of ideas and the state of political discourse, however, by refusing to print future columns by Mr. Hess.\nI can predict the knee-jerk response to my letter: Would the IDS print a column advocating white supremacist or Nazi beliefs? This is where the common-sense alarm should go off, but usually doesn’t: Behavior is not the same as skin pigmentation, ethnicity, national origin or other immutable characteristics. At its core, the debate over whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children is a debate over whether people who engage in certain behaviors (sodomy) should be permitted to adopt children.\nAt an institution of higher learning, faculty, staff and students should expect to be confronted with ideas they disagree with or find offensive. Insulating the IDS readership from minority opinions does not contribute to preparing folks for the real world. Ideological diversity is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing.\nScott Tibbs\nAlumnus
(08/31/00 4:46am)
Welcome to Bloomington, IU students! Welcome to the university environment, where the free exchange of ideas is the ultimate goal.\nWelcome to IU, where a few months ago IU Students for Life was to be relegated to a low-traveled area of campus for its display of the Genocide Awareness Project, despite the fact that many other groups have protested right where IUSFL wanted to be.\nWelcome to IU, where the Zeta Beta Tau fraternity was thrown off campus not for the laws it broke in a Fall 1997 scavenger hunt, but for the politically incorrect statements on the list of items the pledges were to get.\nWelcome to IU, where in early 1997 the phantom student group known as "IN" was investigated by the Indiana University Thought Police for posting flyers that expressed disapproval of homosexuality. \nWelcome to IU, where in 1994 several senators were forced to resign from the IU Student Association for mispronouncing the name of a local restaurant and generally being politically incorrect.\nWell, maybe IU isn't a place for the free exchange of ideas, after all. In fact, it appears that the First Amendment ends at the Sample Gates. It seems to me that the answer to speech you find offensive is exercising your own First Amendment rights, but apparently the administration doesn't feel the same way.\nIf you choose to exercise your free speech rights here at IU, I hope you have a good Constitutional lawyer to fight for your rights.