In my book, that means being able to walk to class without someone constantly telling you that you are an abomination and are going to Hell.

Heh. This reminds me of my undergrad where we had a guy who would come and stand on the lawn in front of the library and “preach.”

We called him “Preacher Bob”, though that wasn’t his real name. He came by once a week usually in the warm months. He had a special hatred for Catholics since we were “leading all the other Christians astray.” Also, he had a deep hatred for sorority chicks (who he said were sluts) and for men with hair that came down past their ears (who he said were going to hell). He would call out people as they passed and told them what was wrong with them that would keep them out of Heaven.

He was more of an amusement than anything else. Each year he had to get a permit (like every on-campus speaker) from the Student Union. He was kicked off of campus for a year because he touched a student (pushing the student away, I think). But he came right back the next year. Man, could that guy draw a crowd.

Baptist groups *do* tell Catholics that they are going to Hell, and they *do* try to get Catholics out of all sorts of things.

I know. Oh believe me, do I know.

I can see your point in this instance, because the article could have been clearer on exactly what her actions were. However, I still maintain that while people have the right to free speech, they do not have the right to harass others.

While what occurred in this case may not have been harassment, I do think that universities have the responsibility to provide a safe environment for all their students. In my book, that means being able to walk to class without someone constantly telling you that you are an abomination and are going to Hell.

So should you. What happens if there is a resurgence of conservatisim in colleges and 30 years from now Gays are prevented from protesting Baptist-inspired policies because the *gays* are being intolerant? Seem far-fetched? Well, is not far enought for me.

Ever hear of the McCarthy guy? His efforts were very mainstream at the time, weren’t they?

That main issue, as seen in this thread and the ‘Right to be a Christian” thread is simple – who gets to tell people to shut up in public? My position is – no one.

So do you not believe harrassment is innappropriate? Would you be okay with a Baptist group constantly telling you you’re going to Hell because you drink, you worship Mary, statues, etc?* Tried to get CCM kicked off campus because Catholics are going to Hell?

(* I know this is bullshit, so please don’t think I’m agreeing with these ridiculous statements.)

I don’t think the purpose of hate speech codes is to say that one group’s rights are more important than another. If a gay activist was harrassing Christians it would entirely appropriate for them to be punished as well.

I am aware of the definition of heterosexism; that isn’t the topic, any more than the determination of racial identity. That main issue, as seen in this thread and the ‘Right to be a Christian” thread is simple – who gets to tell people to shut up in public? My position is – no one.

As you are almost certainly aware, every single public university ‘hate speech code’ taken to court has been struck down as unconstitutional. Every one. The ACLU points out that the speech codes have been used to silence everyone from Tools of the Patriarchy such as myself to, yes, gay activists.

And that is my argument – it is dangerous to say “that person/group’s rights have precedence over that other person/group’s rights’ (as well as the obvious permutation of ‘that person/group is inferior’). The laws against ‘fighting words’, slander, ‘incitement’, etc. have been around for generations and are clearly understood. Every attempt to add ‘hate speech codes’ has resulted in an erosion of rights, usually of groups far more varied than White Christian Straight Males, too.

I spend a lot of time trying to help liberals, xonservatives, atheists, Christians, etc., etc. actually talk to each other face to face. It isn’t easy. One of the toughest hurdles is often a claim by progressives that a conservative that they disagree with has no right to state their opinion. The conservative walks away from an encounter like that convinced that the progressive has no real interest in learning, nor in freedom of speech. In my opinion, such attacks on freedom of speech are the source of the meme that liberals want to use the courts to force things on the populace.

I usually see this as a bigger wedge than the entire ‘the bible says homosexuals are going to Hell’ bit. Most Christians of that stripe will still listen to gays, and the great majority truly want to help, as they feel is needed. But many gays of my acquaintance simply won’t listen.

Again, the plural of anecdote is not data, but telling someone that stating their opinion is a crime is no way to get them to listen to *you* with an open mind.

zuzu,
“Whiteness” “just is”? “Blackness” “just is”?

DT, read the comment. I know, you’re eager to find something to bludgeon me with, but you know very well that I was drawing a distinction for Tuomas between the immutability of physical characteristics of skin color and the impermanence of racism.

But then, you’re having trouble with that heterosexism concept, so I should have expected you’d be huffing about something.

As to what you should consider yourself, you’re going to have to work that one out for yourself.

It’s about the use of DNA tests to claim privileged status for admissions, scholarships, job applications and other things.

One little tidbit:

Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights.

One Christian is using the test to claim Jewish genetic ancestry and to demand Israeli citizenship, and Americans of every shade are staking a DNA claim to Indian scholarships, health services and casino money.

[Apology: Yes, I know this is a little off topic. But this discussion of group rights--Christian rights, Gay rights, and now black and white rights--has made this article relevant. The point is that however a person self-identifies he may not fit easily into a group that gets special protections.

When reading the comments above about minority gay rights against majority Christian rights, I wondered "what about gay Christians?" They've really gotta be a minority.

Disclosure: Yes, the NYTimes article is being discussed over at Jeff G's place. That's where I saw it first.]