Blog Archives

Dr. Ken Howell’s saga #4: the workings of the “sensitive” mind.

Deals with homo activists.

You can find here the content of an E-mail complaint sent to the University of Illinois concerning the teaching activity of Dr. Howell. This is apparently not from the anonymous student who gave origin to the contention, but it would appear that the two have the same forma mentis and are perhaps friends; the attached E-mail (not showed) might well be *the* one.

Let us examine the highlights of this E-mail, because it gives numerous clues about the way these people (don’t) think. I will not make the joke that they can’t think straight.

1) The author of the E-mail never assisted to Dr. Howell’s lessons. He refers what he has heard. This is the worst possible start for a complaint. The author is blissfully unaware of that.

2) The core of the complaint is that Dr. Howell would say “things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith”. The expectation that a system of belief should be taught in a way that is “sensitive” to people of a different faith is downright absurd. If Islam says that I have to be converted or pay extra taxes or die I can be angry at Islam, not at the fact that I am informed of this. Most people have problems with other faiths. This is why they don’t belong to them.

3) The author goes on saying “I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable”. Well no he is – a gay activist, I mean; I have my doubts about his sexual orientation, too – and in pure activist style he introduces the term “hate speech” without giving one example, one phrase, one word to support his assertion. “My friend says the chap is inflammatory” is the only support. This is an opinion out of hearsay, not an argument. Again, the boy is blissfully unaware of this.

4) “It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes”. Here the mask falls off entirely. The problem is not how Dr. Howell teaches Catholicism, but that Catholicism is taught. How one can teach Catholicism without people learning it or its values being perpetuated is a mystery to me. But perhaps the author knows better.

5) “Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation”. It gets worse. Catholicism being taught is confused with the University “having a religious affiliation”. It gets more and more obvious that the problem of whining homosexuals is that there are Catholicism lessons.

6) “Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another”. This is again very confused and shows that the boy needs a course of introduction to Catholicism. That homosexual acts violate the natural laws of men is – beside being evident to every right-thinking man free from sexual perversions – part and parcel of Catholic teaching. Always was. Always will be. The objection is therefore a contradictio in adjecto.

7) “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course”. Here we are again. I might feel uncomfortable at a course about, say, Hindu or Buddhist spirituality. But this would be entirely my problem. I don’t have any right to feel comfortable. These people are pampered boys refusing to accept that they’ll meet people whose opinions they don’t like. Besides, following this line of thought one shouldn’t teach that it is a sin to rape children, because “I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a student convicted for child rape would feel if he/she were to take this course”.

8 ) “I am a heterosexual male”. Not very credible, old boy. Heterosexual males aren’t homo activists and homo activists aren’t heterosexual males. Whatever they may think about it.

9) “My friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma”. It gets more and more absurd. A dogma is, by definition, something which does not allow any room for opposition. You accept the dogma (then you’re Catholic) or you don’t (then you aren’t). Again, the man needs an introduction to Catholicism himself, sharpish.

10) the “founder of the queer studies major” has been copied. The author is acquainted with him. This is the man saying he is not a homo activist. Go figure.

We are still waiting for the decision of the University of Illinois about what to do. Dr. Howell’s lawyers have given today as the deadline to reintegrate him or face litigation.

Still, I thought I would give you my thoughts about this to illustrate the confusion reigning in these people’s minds and their absurd demands that nothing be taught which offends their sensitivity. How very intolerant, how very absurd and, well, how very effeminate.

Mundabor

Fired for teaching Catholicism: The Land of the …. Free?

I wonder if they like Catholic teaching...

Read on American Papist the incredible story of Ken Howell, an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois. Mr Howell has been told that he will not be able to teach about Catholicism because his course “Introduction to Catholicism” mentions that Catholicism condemns homosexual acts; also that he has been so cheeky as to follow up with emails on the subject, after one student’s strong opposition to this Catholic teaching.

The episode is disconcerting for several reasons:

1) The course is about Catholicism. You can’t ask Catholicism to be what it is not. You either “introduce people to Catholicism” or you don’t.

2) The University in question has – as it appears from Mr Howell’s letter – an “Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered concerns”. I kid you not. No trace whatsoever of an “Office of Catholic concerns”. The world has probably gone mad. Some universities certainly have.

3) The idea that people against a certain religion may find any “concern” about what that religion teaches is preposterous. Pure thought control. Not even I would have dreamt of saying that I have “concerns” with Hindus believing in reincarnation or Buddhists subscribing to metempsychosis.

4) Mr. Powell’s reaction is also entirely disconcerting. He presented the argument that if Catholic teaching about homosexuality is offensive, than he should be advised not to touch the matter in his course! This is an astonishingly weak reaction and one which defeats itself from the beginning. If you accept the idea that Catholicism may be censored, you can’t complain when it is. The idea of an “Introduction to Catholicism”excluding the controversial bits is as ridiculous as saying that there should be no “Introduction to Catholicism” if one is so bad as to……talk about Catholicism.

As always, the United States leads the way in political correctness gone mad. The case is now under judicial review and I do hope that the stance will be on the harsh side of “we are ready not to talk of anything which is of concern to lesbians, homosexuals, and other deviants”.

Kudos to the “American Papist” for having the guts to relate such extraordinary events instead of hiding behind the “we don’t discuss controversial topics” stance of so many Catholics, who are interested only in a quiet life and “going along to get along” with everyone.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: