• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

U. of North Carolina to Investigate Christian Singing Group’s Dismissal of Gay Student

August 31, 2011, 1:46 pm

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is looking into whether an officially recognized Christian a cappella group broke the university’s nondiscrimination policy when it voted to remove a member who is gay, The Daily Tar Heel, a student paper, reports. The director of the student singing group, Psalm 100, told the Tar Heel that the student had been dismissed for his views on homosexuality, not his sexual orientation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • Guest

    This is the gay movement’s fault for insisting that homosexuality is a biologically immutable character trait like race, rather than a sexual behavior like fellatio or masturbation which people can choose to engage in, or not. Obviously the Christian singing group can dismiss someone for being against their theological code, so the college’s non-discrimination policy, like all such non-discrimination policies, boxed itself into an illogical trap. Expect more of this. Personally I think it will be good for gays to stop saying they were born gay and don’t have a choice about what they do with their bodies. That’s a terrible way to define yourself because it undermines social accountability and free will.

  • rcdcr

    No doubt, you would consider yourself one of God’s Gentle People.

    But what you truly are, Mr. Lopez, is a bigot.  Just as people have treated YOU as less than human for being hispanic, you turn around and do it to others?

    Were you born straight?  Of course you were.  Just as I was born gay.  I knew at 6 years old I was gay.  I knew it just as easily as I knew my A, B, C’s.  And nothing you say will ever change that or ever make your statement anything other than raw, vile, bigotry carried out in the name of God.

    You should take heed that God will surely judge you for your words, thoughts and deeds and stop hiding behind him to justify your character flaws.

  • bigjoe

    I personally don’t care if someone is gay.  If you wonder about what GOD thinks about homosexuals, you just need to read the Bible.  When you quote from the Bible, you have to consider the entire works and not just a word here or there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=123600063 Brian C Steinberg

    Why?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=123600063 Brian C Steinberg

    Should?

  • dubious

      Please don’t feed the trolls.

  • John Harris

    ..and which god would that be, considering there are so many of them ? Thankfully not all throw tantrums, like the Christian one, if you choose not to believe in them…

  • blog21

    Do you understand how hypocritical that statment is, in light of the arti le itself?

  • annehendershott

    Robert Oscar Lopez is indeed a serious scholar – and a professor at a university.He has a major book coming out–And, he probably has more publications than many of the people responding to this post.  I thought this was a forum for all sides to be heard. Why would you want to silence diversity?

  • http://www.facebook.com/garymklein Gary M Klein

    If you believe that a person’s sexuality is mutable, then how is that different than granting non-discriminatory protection based on someone’s theological code or religion?

    Can you prove that theology or religion is immutable?

    I certainly have changed my religious & theological membership.  And I am clearly not the only member of my church who has walked away from the religion environment that their parents tried to raise them under.

    Can anyone prove what theology or religion legally covers me, at my birth?  

    Unfortunately, USA court system have not promulgated any rules that tell us how to adjudicate situations when counterclaims of differing types of discrimination are simultaneously at odds with each other.

    Who wants to conceive the a cappella singing baby at the UNC-Chapel Hill campus for Solomon to split in half?

  • hypatia52

    His “views” on homosexuality.  Gee, that’s enlightened.

  • John Harris

    I’m intrigued by your suggestion that when a gay person openly defines themselves as such then by so doing they somehow undermine their own free will. If you believe in the concept of free will, then wouldn’t such a self affirmation exemplify it ? After all, doesn’t having free will include being able to freely choose what to do with it…?

    On a different tack, perhaps you could also help us understand how the theory of free will exists for victims of rape, of flood or of famine, of disease, or of murder. Does the idea of free will suggest these billions therefore freely chose their fates ? If free will doesn’t exist in every moment, for every thing, then how can it be said to exist at all ? (And same thus, by extension, for the god chap who supposedly invented it for us ?)

  • jesor

    I’m not arguing for him to not be able to post, he should be able to.   As for the seriousness of his scholarship, I’ll leave that to his peers to decide.   Regarding this specific comment, his implication that it is somehow gay people’s fault that the non-discrimination policy is boxed into a corner is incorrect.  The true source of the absurdity is a student group that says “if you’re self-loathing then you can be part of our group, but if you think it’s ok to be yourself then you’re excluded”  I would expect better logic from a first week freshman comp student.
    Additionally, on a personal note, I’ll leave our vaunted scholar with another set of questions:
    Who is someone with a background in political science and English to tell someone that the logical conclusion of their lived experience as a gay person who has tried to change their sexual orientation and failed, is somehow incorrect?   Where do you you get the experience or expertise to make such a declaration?  Did  I miss the part of your vitae where you studied neuropsychology?  Did you look at medical records for gay people?  Did you conduct a study?  Did you read the current literature?  I find your comments demeaning to myself personally, and quite frankly insulting to the academic reputation of your department and institution.

  • navydad

    Gee, Robert, so you’re saying that people should ignore reality and lie if it works for them politically to do so. That’s a standard Republican tactic. What about the truth, Robert?

  • drangie

    Food for thought: if this particular group cannot deny membership to a gay person, or a person who holds and expresses views on homosexuality that  the group considers to be contrary to its charter and mission, can the campus  LGBTQ organization, by the same logic,  be forced to accept as a member someone who openly condemns homosexuality?  Just askin’.

  • 3manxes

    It is always good to remember that one of the first mentions of homosexuality in the Old Testament, ranks it right in there with the sins of eating shellfish, wearing linen with wool, and planting more than one kind of seed in one hole.  I don’t see anyone getting upset with those who these other sins.  Well some might with wearing wool and linen together.

  • mathmaven

    Haven’t we moved beyond “blame the victim” as a mode of thought?

    Homosexual BEHAVIOR is a choice.  Homosexuality is not.  Just like heterosexual behavior is a choice but being heterosexual is not.  To the best of my knowledge, in the academic disciplines that study such things this is more or less a settled issue.  I find that the only places where it’s not a settled issue is in circles where people need it not to be in order to excuse their own bigotry.  Just my own observation.  

  • zzhu107

    Guys, you are an a cappela group; you’re by definition supposed to embrace the gayness. Just sayin’.

  • drangie

    The falseness of this analogy here is pretty stunning.  Homosexuality is a state, a condition, not an elective activity.  Yes, everyone can choose whether or not to masturbate or fellate, and with whom they might engage in same.  But whether they do it (or choose not to) as a heterosexual or homosexual is NOT a choice.   The ignorance of human behavior exhibited here is startling and sobering, particularly in light of all the evidence to the contrary.  Kind of like refusing to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence on the role of human beings in global warming.

  • westerntc

    To all the heterosexual men who believe that homosexuality is a choice, please take the Dan Savage Challenge:

    1) Find a gay man.
    2) Choose to have sex with with the gay man.
    3) Make sure the sex act is filmed.
    4) Upload the video to the Internet.
    5) Email the video URL to everyone you know with the message, “I’m a straight man, and in this video, I CHOOSE to have gay sex.  See?  Being gay is a choice!”

    If you can’t do that, then you must admit that sexual orientation isn’t a choice.

  • losemygrip

    It’s really bizarre trying to figure out the convoluted logic in Lopez’s statement. 

    I do understand his argument that the Christian group can dismiss someone for being against their stated principles.  The NAACP clearly would not want a KKK member in their midst, right?  The group is indeed saying that they are dismissing the student for his views on homosexuality, not his orientation (whether that’s true or not).  However, I fail to see how arguing for a biological basis for homosexuality plays into this incident.  At all.  Why is he grinding that axe here?

    The second part of his statement–that gays should stop saying they were born gay, that it undermines accountability and free will to maintain a biological foundation for homosexuality–just seems completely irrational.  Ask yourself: did you choose to be heterosexual?  Could you choose to be gay instead?  Doesn’t it REALLY undermine free will to insist that everyone be heterosexual regardless of their innate orientation? 

    It’s unfortunate that someone who seems to be as educated as Lopez has not taken the time to educate himself about this issue. 

  • drangie

    I’ll bet there is a lot of cringing at CSUN whenever he posts one of these doozies. 

  • pragmatist

    He obviously advertised the fact that he is gay, otherwise no one would have known. Therefore, he was probably seeking controversy in the name of “acceptance.” He should just shut up and start a “GLB” singing group – and he would probably be disappointed that no one would care.

  • navydad

    He’s an English professor. When he makes comments about the basis for sexual orientation he is speaking as an amateur and his English scholarship is irrelevant. I’m a psychologist and if I were to make false comments about literature, I’d expect be dismissed as an amateur. As has been said before, Lopez is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. When someone bases his opinion on falsehoods, we are entitled to dismiss his opinion and the fact that he has an irrelevant Ph.D. (irrelevant to the science of sexuality) is, well, irrelevant.

  • 12052592

    1) Find a heterosexual woman.
    2) Choose to have sex with the heterosexual woman.
    3) Make sure the sex act is filmed.
    4) Upload the video to the Internet.
    5) Email the video URL to everyone you know with the message, “I’m a straight man, and in this video I CHOOSE to have straight sex.
    6) Brag about your exploits.
    7) Get sued by the heterosexual woman in the video.
    8) Resign from congress

  • slinkyma

    All sides? Can my dog chime in too? We’re not talking politics here. We’re talking basic intellectual competence, let alone solid scholarhip. The guy is a charlatan and this is all about promoting his new “major book”, along with the pulp he publishes as “articles” for the internet.  
     
     

  • navydad

    Really? Do you advertise the fact that you’re straight? So based on the article, you have concluded that he “obviously advertised the fact that he is gay” and that he was “probably seeking controversy.” Wow, I didn’t see anything in the article to support those suppositions, but maybe you have ESP or something. Also, so what if he “advertised” his sexuality? You sound like the people who keep excusing Brandon McInerney for executing Larry King because King “provoked” and “humiliated” his murderer by cross-dressing and flirting.

    By the way, I think a Christian singing group can exclude anyone they want for whatever reason, but not if they want university recognition and funds. If they don’t want to abide by university policies, then they can get off campus and find their own funding.

  • annehendershott

    To NavyDad
    I was responding to Professor Steinberg’s complaint that Robert Lopez is not “affiliated with
    higher education” In fact Professor Lopez has an academic appointment at a major California university. Mr. Steinberg teaches online but no one is complaining that he should not be allowed to post on this topic.  When you agree with the person who is posting a response, then it really does not seem to matter about “intellectual competence.”  When you disagree, then the credentials of the writer really matter…This is pretty hypocritical NavyDad-
    Go Army! 
    We will be beating Navy this year in DC

  • mathmaven

    What evidence do you have that he “obviously advertised the fact that he is gay”?  Maybe one of the other chorus members happened to see him somewhere on campus with his partner and asked him about it, and he chose not to lie.  I’m straight and I’m seen in public rather regularly with my significant other.  Does that mean I’m advertising the fact that I’m straight?

  • edwoof

    Unfortuantely there is much more heat than light in these comments.

    First of all, the group is a singing group. One’s opinion about sexuality, gender, race, etc., should be irrelevant since the stated purpose is singing.

    Yes, it’s Christian singing, but since there are many many different opinions from self-described Christians concerning God or the Bible’s approval (or non-approval) of homosexuality, this group doesn’t get to force members to adhere to a particular doctrine.

    I can understand a view/opinion litmus test for political groups (e.g. no misogynists in a women’s group) but there’s no excuse for this group’s behavior, if true.

    To Dr. Lopez, your statements that

    “Personally I think it will be good for gays to stop saying they were born gay and don’t have a choice what they do with their bodies. That’s a terrible way to define yourself because it undermines social accountability and free will.”

    are totally untrue and moreover, uncool. Where do I start?

    1. Saying you are born gay does not mean you don’t have a choice what to do with your bodies. Where do you get that? You always have a choice concerning what to do or not do. Perhaps you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you feel.

    2. What about being born straight? Were you born straight?

    3. What in the ^%$# does this have to do with a singing group at UNC?

      

  • yellow1

    Honestly, I’ve learned to zone out Lopez’s comments, which are usually this troubling. I’m more concerned that Lopez’s comments, which are numerous and posted daily, often have double digit likes (like his original post that is sitting at 10 likes). He doesn’t seem to get as many responses or posts off of what he says, so I’m troubled by the distraction away from the article. I think people of Lopez’s mentality should be challenged, but I don’t see the CHE forum as the place to do it. He never seems to jump back in either, so it seems to me he may never even realize how stirred up the pot is when he’s done.

  • goxewu

    For those of you who haven’t followed the ongoing saga of inner conflict and torment of Robert Oscar Lopez and coco_rico on other threads:

    He says he’s bisexual, and says that he finds both men and women “hot.” Presumably, he has sex with other men, but he hasn’t said whether he’s a “bottom” or a “top” or both.

    He’s in the military reserves, and he’s made reference to a wife from whom he must be away (presumably, because of military duty) for considerable periods of time.

    He’s also politically quite conservative (see his “The Colorful Conservative” blog) and has a particular tic about political correctness, a rubric under which gay rights falls. He wants to hang with conservatives, a good many of whom (almost all, save the libertarians) think that homosexuality (OK, homosexual behavior) is an “abomination before God.”

    All of this causes him, in many of his posted comments, to turn himself inside out and back again to try to reconcile everything.

    This reconciling is particularly difficult in parsing out blame for events having to do with homosexuality. He said, for instance, that it was the fault of the people who were trying to overturn “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that a young gay soldier committed suicide. If they’d just gone one letting the kid feel good about skating by because nobody happened to ask and him not having to tell, everything would have been fine.

    With this contorted rationalization, Prof. Lopez gets to have his cake (“I’m a conservative and don’t want out queers in the military”) and eat it, too (“I’m a bisexual myself, and not a homophobe, and don’t want a pogrom in the military to find and discharge homosexuals”).

    Now, the kerfuffle over the dismissal of the gay student from a Christian singing group is the fault of the gay movement for insisting that homosexuality is a biologically immutable character trait, like race. If homosexuality were instead “a sexual behavior…which people can choose to engage in, or not,” then the club would be OK because the gay student would be deliberately violating Christian tenets against homosexuality.

    With this contorted rationalization, Prof. Lopez gets to have his cake (“I’m a conservative and don’t think Christians should have to consort with homosexuals if they don’t want to”) and eat
    it, too (“I’m a bisexual myself, and not a homophobe, and only ask of homosexuals that they admit that they’re *choosing* to do these sexual acts”).

    The nasty little sleight-of-hand that runs through his posts on this particular thread is that gays’ “choosing” to do homosexual things in bed is somehow more divorced from any innate sexual orientation than heterosexuals “choosing” to do heterosexual things in bed. Hets’ having crushes at twelve, heavy petting at fifteen, intercourse starting somewhere between 16 and 20 (OK, I’m old-fashioned), and then cohabitation is somehow at one with the flow of nature (and it is, to the extent that civilization and nature flow in the same channel), but homosexuals’ doing much the same thing is most definitely *not.*

    If coco_rico weren’t so conflicted–if he’d either get right with God, give up rubbing up against naked men, and go 100 percent “Yay!!” (he likes that expression) with Perry and Bachmann, or realize that he’s an anathema to his political cohort and stop “fighting the left” (see his blog)–his posts wouldn’t be so agonized.

    I used to have a kind of pity for the guy, but his acting out in “Brainstorm” comments too often involves blaming victims.

    BTW, Prof. Lopez’s “major book” is forthcoming from the University Press of America. It might not be a vani…..(oops! Don’t want to get sued now, do we?) but…well, go look it up.

  • slinkyma

    No one is silencing anyone. It’s just that when someone claims the world is flat, others tend to tell that person to shut up. While Lopez’ credentials are highly suspect, they are not the issue here. It is all about intellectual competence. That is the only litmus test, and one which he fails.

  • calgrad

    It’s interesting that higher educators here will defend the University’s right to control association here, while in the same issue of the Chronicle we hear how “Britain’s Effort to Monitor Extremism on Campuses Draws Opposition”.

    Looking forward to hearing how those can be reconciled….(http://chronicle.com/blogs/global/britains-effort-to-monitor-extremism-on-campuses-draws-opposition/30718?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en)

  • edwoof

    Gox, thanks for the information.

    I’ve decided that out of respect for ROL and similar, I will no longer call myself “gay” but rather I am now “a person of sexuality.” Cake=Eat.

  • goxewu

    What’s the “double standard” (in calgrad’s comment on the news item from Britain)?

    a) There’s no single entity involved in both these situations, and therefore no “double standard” by it. b) Both CHE stories are news stories, not op-ed pieces, so the CHE isn’t evidencing any “double standard. c) So far, calgrad’s is the only comment on the story from Britain, so if he’s waiting to play “gotcha!” with somebody who favors the investigating the gay student’s dismissal in the U.S. while opposing an investigation into an entirely different matter in Britain, he still needs somebody to ambush.  

  • concerned2011

    They may be trying to become the first college choral group ever without a gay member.

  • bennettj3816

    Isn’t the freedom of expression more important than the right to restrict membership? How is a group allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation at the institution? The student should be allowed to hold a different point of view. What happened the Biblical principal of “love thy neighbor”? Would a gay student be dismissed from a gay oriented group for expressing a positive opinion of straight people? I think not!

  • dank48

    And to find the verses the homophobes love to quote, you have to dig deep. Out of a 1000-page Bible, all these verses add up to about half a page, or 0.05% of the whole. That’s one-twentieth of one percent, for the math-challenged, and by any sane standard, it’s hardly the hallmark of a major theme. 

  • icedgreentea

    Um, they just said he was dismissed for his VIEWS on homosexuality.  According to this, a straight person (me) could simply say, “I think it’s okay for people to be gay” and be dismissed from the group.  I understand this is a Christian group, but who decides what is right for all Christians to believe?  I could be a Christian (accept the divinity of Christ) and still believe it’s okay for some people to be gay. 

  • dank48

    Because the Chronicle believes in free discussion of issues of interest, and free discussion means free discussion. Being an ill-informed, ignorant, deluded bigot (i.e. someone who disagrees with me about anything) is not a disqualification. After all, one-sided debates quickly become tedious.

  • icedgreentea

    If this person were a hater of Christianity, very vocal against Christianity in his views, words and manner, the group would have a point that this person’s presence in the group would cause constant friction.  But he is not. 

  • icedgreentea

    There’s no evidence for what you suggest.  Someone could have heard a whispered rumour about him for all you know. 

  • calgrad

    Let me be clearer.  

    This news item & thread is about an institution of higher education injecting itself into a matter of private association with religious overtones. Some people are opposed to that because of an overriding social interest, others think the religious aspect is most important. That pretty much mirrors the discussion on my old campus on similar issues, where it’s considered a left-right split.

    Yet items like “Britain’s Effort to Monitor Extremism…” are treated asymmetrically.  Even the headlines (which AFAIK are chosen by Chronicle staff) are asymmetric:  ”Christian Singing Group”, but no mention of religious association in the headline on the article about Britain asking about Muslim groups.  Nobody seems exercised that members of the higher-education community are protesting the government’s (British in this case, but there have been similar article about US institutions) attempts to inject itself into a matter of private association with religious overtones in that case.  Do the people who want to defend the right of Christians to religiously select their associates not think Muslims should be able to do that?  Are the people who think the government has priorities that override religion not want to assert that in the case of Muslims?  _Neither_ side seems to engage, and that’s interesting.

    It’s even more interesting that the mere act of noting the difference is somehow being perceived as an attack that’s worthy of attack in return, rather than reasoned discussion.  Perhaps that’s because this thread is already overheated, but it’s a reaction I’ve seen in other contexts too.

    I’m not particularly interested in ambushing anybody.  That’s why I cross-posted the links to the articles, because I’m both personally and academically interested in the difference between the reactions to the two news items. (And it’s “she”, not “he”; have to watch those assumptions of superiority!)

  • Marie M

    Seriously? This thread sounds like a bunch of whiny forum crawlers. quit feeding the trolls.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________

    . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,

    . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,

    . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,

    . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

    . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}

    . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}

    . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./

    . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./

    . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./

    . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/

    . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}

    . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../

    . . . .. . .`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../

    . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”

    . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . /

    . . . . . . `~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..,__

    ,,_. . . . . }.>-._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,

    . .. `=~-,__. . . `,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `. . . . . . ..__

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–==“

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
     

  • Marie M

    Seriously? quit feeding the trolls. Chronicle readers are suckers for a pointless debate

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Robert Oscar Lopez needs lessons in genetics, psychology, and more.  Homosexuality is an inborn trait and while a homosexual can surpress homosexual urges, by doing so that individual creates a wall between himself/herself and self-actualization of being himself or herself.  The “Christian” group is “christian” only in the fourth century CE definition, when the Emperor Constantine I created the Christian Church at the Council of Nicea to stop warfare between competing and battling bishops to save the empire.  If Lopez was referring to the Jesus of the New Testament, that character never had a girl friend nor a wife that is recorded, lived only with men, let a “man” (John the Beloved) sleep on his chest, and was followed out of the Garden who was naked carrying a linen loin cloth used in sexual rituals. (What fragments of gospels exist do not state whether or not Jesus was gay or not, but indications suggest he was gay, if he was a male.)  Masturbation is normal, natural, and healthy, and those who repress it are those with mental distressments. 

    Homosexuals have every right to say they are gay, as it is mentally health (homosexuality is not labeled a disease nor illness by either the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association accepts both definitions). Free will, that Lopez drudges up, allows for a person to be openly gay as an act of free will.  The “Christian” singing group has denied basic civil and human rights to the individual ejected and should lose university recognition and support.  Lopez needs to go back to school. 

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    It is also worth noting that the word “homosexual” is a 19th century invented word and appears no where in the Bible.  No one was condemned for being homosexual–the condemnation was about pagan worship rites where a god-priest dressed as a woman (not dressing according to one’s gender).  Furthermore, Lot offered his daughters to the “people of Sodom” (not the men) and later committed incest with both and made both daughters pregnant. David loved Jonathan “with a love surpassing the love of a woman” and was never condemned, and the “Star” of David was never a star but a shield to protect against the “words of false prophets.”  Lopez’ linguistic skills are as weak as his theological and psychological understanding. If he teaches anywhere, I feel storry for his students, even if they are in a church school. What Lopez writes is not factual, but hate-filled demigoguery.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    I recommend that Lopez read the writings of the monk Pelagius who was the original “Christian” author on free-will–first damned, then accepted by the Manichean and future “Christian” bishop (who did not want to put away his mistress or son Adeodatus) Augustine of Hippo.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Robert Oscar Lopez’ official biography claims that he ”has degrees in Classics, Political Science, and English” but doesn’t state from what school (Marcus Bachmann claims he has a PhD in psychology, but studied online with Union College in Cincinnati that offered a PsyD that was not accredited until 2005).  He claims he is a member of the Tea Party as a Latino conservative (the latter is irrelevant, but the membership in the Tea Party is relative since it denies basic science [endorsing “Intelligent Design” over the repeatedly proven theory of evolution, advocates theocracy led by the NAR that has anointed Rick Perry, etc), and yet, with a degree in classics, shows no linquisitic abilities in classics such as either the Hebrew (Torah) or Greek bibles–neither of which in the scrolls or fragments condemns homosexuality.  He taught (past tense) at SUNY but does not state at what level, in what subject, and so forth, nor why he left. I currently teach English as a foreign language as well as translation and interpretation (and use Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc in my articles, books, and lessons that can be found on line).  My education is in my profile. I find no justification for Lopez’ antiquated ideas except that he most likely is a born-again evangelical and thinks his god wrote the bible in a contempoary language (probably English) yet most of it is plagiarized from far older sources: Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Sexuality is genetic–while behaviour is taught and can be rejected, but that requires revoking past teaching and learning that is difficult for most.  Priests and pastors, rabbis and mullah have taken various vows from the unnatural act of chastity and celibacy, to having but one wife, yet we read of polygamy, polyandry, serial sexuality, incest, abuse, rape, and so forth.  If people would be sexual with consenting others, the problems of violence would dimminish. Deglorifying violence would be essential. Ignorance can equally be changed by reading, and studying.  Having any degree does not mean the person is educated; the Tea Party hails self-proclaimed and self-taught David Barton as an historian who has no comprehension of history at any level, and it oozes laudation on Stephen C. Myer who took a PhD from Cambridge and pontificates on the “reality” of evolution–but memorizing information to repeat on a test to pass an exam does not qualify the individual as educated.  Neither Barton nor Myer are educated people who fooled schools to obtain degrees that they have made worthless, similar to Lopez. An educated person goes beyond the degree and seeks out knowledge that is ellusive and will never truly be gained, but offers steps to work up towards understanding. Being gay is natural (it occurs among all species), normal (it is a regular reoccuring event/action), and good (it does limit population explosion), and the individual who is gay can, if given the chance, contribute significantly to his/her society and culture, as did Michelangelo, Addison, etc.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    I find it absurd when “Christian” groups condemn homosexuality when so many of their televangelists engage in homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple sexulaity etc.  Did Lopez forget Pastor Haggard, Jimmy Bakker, etc? 

    The ancient christian community not only ordained women as priests and bishops, but its clergy married homosexual couples–but then, it seems, Lopez reads neither Greek or Latin, but selects what texts he reads–but if he truly studied classics, he would note that even Plato recognized homosexuality as a “gentle love.” If Lopez would study the ancient Greeks, he would note that for Plato, the only type of real love is the love between two men, and he has dedicated two of his dialogues to that subject: the Symposium and the Phaedrus: After all, homo-erotic love is related to education and gaining knowledge, and this makes it superior to other types of love in the classical world.  I also teach and write on the classics, and I find no objection to gay love (it is even accepted in the Bible: David with Jonathan, and Jesus with John).

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Where do you find evidence that Lopez is a serious scholar? He writes for a few conservative blogs, and according to the Library of Congress (www.loc.gov) and World Catalog (www.worldcat.org) organization, never wrote a published book–to have a “major book coming out” would mean he has an established reputation and has books published.  Did he publish under some other name? Those who have responded do have publications that met with peer review. Have you read any of mine?  You claim he is a professor “at a major California university” in your “biography” but fail to state which university.  After going through the academic rosters of most, I fail to find him on the faculty.  I teach in the School of Foreign Languages, Department of Translation and Interpretation, in the area of English at the Universidad Cesar Vallejo in Chiclayo, Peru, and you can find me on line.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    In order to have a “major” book the author must either (1) have written “minor” works, or (2) is ground breaking in a field of study.  Lopez has done neither.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Correct–and I was not, initially, able to find his “credentials” anywhere.  However, with diligence I discovered he is an Assistant Professor at California State University at Northridge, and his education is B.A. 1993, Yale University; M.A. 2001, 2007 SUNY Buffalo; Ph.D. 2003, SUNY Buffalo. He has no training in psychology, genetics, or any science that would qualify him to write any article or blog condemning homosexuality as being “unnatural” or a point of choice–for even in literature there is no condemnation of homosexuality except in the clerical writings of the 12-14th centuries in seminaries. I feel sorry for his students, for he is writing beyond his own specialty and is advertising his own homosexuality. CSUN is not a premier university (like UCLA or Berkeley, etc) but was established in 1956, and caters primarily to San Fernando Valley, although its enrollment is over 35,000. It has a respectable library, Oviatt, and checked for Robert Oscar Lopez’ publications, and he has none even in his university (http://suncat.csun.edu/search/a?searchtype=a&searcharg=Lopez%2C+Robert+Oscar&searchscope=9&SORT=DX).

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    I agree with your comment, except the word “homosexual” does not appear in any of the ancient languages of the Old Testament. The word that is wrongly translated as “homosexual” actually is “effeminate”.

  • katisumas

    Dr Ide and others, how do you know that Robert Oscar Lopez is really Robert Oscar Lopez???

    However it doesn’t really matter.  Robert Lopez and his preceding alias (which I can’t remember) both (?) have repeatedly stated that he/they are bisexual.  (…and supporter of Michelle Bachman to boot!)

    What troubles me the most is the claim that a persecuted group brought on that persecution themselves.  That claim has a long history: 

    On the individual level, any murderous psychopath and rapist will always tell his/her victim “you made me do it”.  On a larger scale, the “you made me do it” rationale has been used to justify Jim Crow laws and lynchings, it has been used to justify the Holocaust ( = 11 millions individual murdered:  Jews, Gays, Romas/gypsies, anyone of color, Seventh Day Adventists and the  disabled).  It was used in the Rwanda genocide, It was used  by Pol Pot, etc etc etc.  (as for anyone claiming to be a “Christian”, it’s of course as UNchristian as can be….  but then, don’t they say ”the devil speaks with a forked tongue”? )

    I’m no Christian but I like that metaphor.  Whoever Robert Oscar Lopez is he sure speaks with a forked tongue! 

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    Let me say it for you, in your well written and researched comment, Univeristy Press of America is not a highly reputable nor respected press that was founded in 1975.   It acquired Rowman & Littlefield in 1988 and took the Rowman & Littlefield name for the parent company to give it respectability that it was lacking.  On its website, University of America Press, admits it is author-subsidized: “Authors have come to appreciate UPA’s ability to streamline the publishing process: Once the camera-ready copy is submitted and the pre-publication order has been placed, a UPA title is published within five months. If you are unable to prepare camera-ready copy, UPA will typeset your manuscript at a minimal cost per page. Please see our in-house typesetting guidelines.”  It does charge “at a minimal cost per page” to typeset the book but offers no editorial services, has no peer review, and is a sham.  Its webpage is at http://www.univpress.com/aboutus/index.shtml.

  • katisumas

    You’re right and moreover, gay individuals and non-married ones traditionally helped raise children.  For instance, in our own society, a single mother’s best friend and frequent helper is still very often a gay man or a gay couple. 

    Among baboons, a female has a circle of male friends.  She doesnt mate with them but with the local alpha male.  However when she has her young,  it’s her male friends who help her raise it. If she should die, these friends will protect and raise her offspring. 

    In an island society I’m familiar with, in the past, out of a set of brothers there would often be one who wouldn’t marry and “be the uncle” . Of course the others were uncles to their nephews/nieces as well but this expression denotes singlehood and devotion to children not their own.

    This implies that there is a survival advantage for mamalian species which all a portion of individuals only drawn to the same sex as they are  (about 10%?),  It’s not a matter of having fewer offsprings but a matter of having enough people ready to devote themselves to insure the young of the species survive to maturity.

  • katisumas

    To come back to the article, the crux of the matter is not that the singing group at the public North Carolina university is Christian or whatever.  What matters here is that the group is an organization recognized by the university and is thus receiving funds from all students’ fees, including of course gay students. 

    This group could sing their heart’s content in a church or on the sidewalk or in a private house or pool their own money and rent a hall.  They could then be free to discriminate as much as they want.  But as a university club, they have to follow the rules that apply to all  clubs receiving funds from students’ fees.

    If a Christian group was sincerely Christian, it wouldn’t matter to them where they were singing, right?  They wouldn’t demand public funds and public universitys’ facilities to sing…. (of course, if they were sincerely Christian they wouldn’t kick out gay singers  from their midst) 

    The whole issue is a power trip to try to force people to go through the superficial rituals of religion.  I’m digressing, but what comes to mind is an organization in my town which generously provides meals for the homeless but make them participate in prayers before the meal.  Since a forced prayer is not a prayer but the result of a power trip, this reminds me of the insincerity of the a-capella group, not to mention of our purported “Robert Oscar Lopez”

  • katisumas

    “Robert Oscar Lopez” has claimed in previous posts that he’s bisexual.

    What he seems to object to is the whole notion of allowing LGBT people to come out to the closet and building life long relationships.  The examples you cite are all people who had to make do with secret hurried anonymous sexual encounters.  If gays were out of the closet, there would be much fewer opportunity for this.  Also young “gay and proud” are probalby not interested in sex with an older hypocritical  bisexual person…..

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    I fully agree with Katisumas comment–and those self-proclaimed “Christians” are the most dangerous as seen in the Christian mass-murderer Anders Behring Brevik of Norway, Timothy McVey of Oklahoma, and only one who does little to no research would deny that Adolf Hitler defended all of his atrocities with the claim he was defending Jesus.

    When anyone gives himself/herself a title of distinction it is because that individual is attempting to justify wrong behaviour and an impossible dream.  Thus the demented monk Martin Luther called on the German nobility to restrain the church when parishoners stayed away from confession that reaped rewards financial to the church, and went after the Jews and ordered their synagogues and Torahs burnt for not agreeing with his message, and even attacked Muslims who were nowhere near Germany.  Gott mit unus is common around the world and the Crusades for Christ is not reserved to 1095′s Papal conclave at Claremont but has reared its ugly head in Dallas, TX and spread like a disease around the world–an infection that has galvanized the New Apostolic Reformation of C. Peter Wagner and his appointed Rick Perry to serve his god who will ride out of the sky like Muhammad to wage a universal Armageddon to bring all to the submission/slavery of Christianity.  I was once a Christianity, but I cannot defend the hatred of groups like the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod any more than the American Family Association, or similar organizations that promote hatred and back the long rejected “reparative therapcy” of Marcus Bachmann and his mouthpiece Michele who would serve as his voice if she wins the presidency.  But then, too, there is the issue of what is right, with Sara Palin have witches cast out of her community while being blessed by the self-appoint bishop Muthree of Kenya while condemning Obama as being Kenya born.  It is mere hypocrisy.

  • katisumas

    I agree with you that we shouldn’t silence diversity.  But whether someone is “in higher ed” or has publications or not has nothing to do with it.  This is an open forum.  Anyone can participate and that’s a good thing. 

    As for “Robert Oscar Lopez”, how do you know that the poster who uses this name really is the Robert Oscar Lopez you’re thinking of?

  • katisumas

    I strongly disagree with you and others.  The issue is not that of credentials and not even that of “intellectual competence”. The  issue is an ethical one.  The issue is the advocating of hatred.  The issue in this particular discussion having been set by the person calling himself (herself?) “Robert Oscar Lopez” is that the victims of hate crimes are the ones who are to blame for those crimes.  Basically “Lopez” claims gays are causing their own persecution by coming out of the closet, by daring to form long lasting relationships, by daring to marry.

    There is no link in history or in the present between a person’s university credentials and a person’s ethical behavior in the face of political circumstances.  You don’t need to think of the extreme example of Heidegger’s support of the Nazis even before Hitler came to power and the membership in the Nazi party he kept till 1945.  Persecution in all its forms has always garnered the same share of support of university educated people as of the rest of the population.   A PhD is in no way predictive of behavior when murderous hatred takes over a society.  And of course history also shows us that some of the most illiterate individuals know that such persecution is wrong and will risk their lives to assist the persecuted.

  • katisumas

    Religion is part of culture.  You are taught religion from your parents and your cultural environment.  There are an amazing varieties of religions around the world. 

    In contrast, all human societies have a portion of people who are only attracted to people of the same sex as they are.  Most cultures have given them a role, as for instance the Berdache in North American Indian society, or the “Sworn Virgins” in many Mediterranean societies (these were women who swore not to have sex with men and dressed in men’s clothes and engaged in military pursuits).

    Moreover, all mamalian species have a portion (estimated about 10%) of their members only attracted to the same sex as they are… 

    You are mixing up nature and nurture.

    The a-capella singing group could sing in any venue they chose.  They could sing in the street, in one of their own homes, in a rented hall, and oops, why didn’t they think of that:  in a church!  I’m pretty sure there are churches in the area that would be glad to provide them with a venue and allow them to discriminate their little hearts’  content.  BUT if they chose to receive funds from the university which disburses those funds from fees paid by ALL students, including gay ones,  then they have to follow the same rules as all other university clubs do. 

    PS:  the article didn’t say the gay student was not a Christian.  He actually was.  He shared the same religion as the other members of the group did.  So here again you are conveniently mixing up entirely different issues.

    PS2: The judgement of Solomon is irrrelevant to this case.  Perhaps you should  read your bible again?  (it is certainly relevant in the blackmailing the pseudo Republican Tea Partiers have done with the baby being their own country).

  • db_palmer

    Wow. This fits so many discussions I have had regarding the internet’s power for soapboxing rather than discussion, weighing of ideas, and as a place of information. What point is there for any dissent when this is how a person is ‘answered’? Since when do only the Profs in a particular field get to decide what is theirs and not another’s area of knowledge? So much for reducing Silos in education, so much for diversity, so much for collaboration. Who gets to label all people in a group as evil? I thought this was discriminatory? As a Christian, I recognize that we all make choices. We all have differing beliefs. These beliefs necessarily alter how we view the world, what we think is ethically/morally acceptable, and how we “should” then live. These beliefs do not protect me from living in ways contrary to my own beliefs. Far from it, actually. At least as a Christian, and I don’t know about how you see this (but based on this diatribe, I’m sure you’ll let me know in no uncertain terms), I recognize that there is a disconnect, often, from what I believe I should do, and what I actually do. Christians call this sin, and I am guilty of it. I don’t know any Christian, personally, that wouldn’t also assent to this fault. I also know that those Christians I know also deplore those infamous “christians” named herein. We cringe to think that what we struggle with daily, what we work to address in our lives, what we pray for with humility and fear are sometimes those things which others use their “christianity” to cover up; however, that does not make them, due to their status or perceived power, paragons of this faith. Rather, it makes them liars, at best. It disparages those of us who really do believe in peace, hope, and love to be labeled by those here as Nazis, mass murderers, and bigots.

    But then… maybe I have no right to speak, because I’m a Christian. Maybe you should put us in camps, because that seems to be how this train of logic is running. Diversity in your eyes is nothing more than a shift of power from those who didn’t, or shouldn’t have, sought it (Christians) to those who want to quel any and all dissent.

    I cannot apologize for the actions of others who wield the “banner” of Christianity as a bludgeoning weapon to cover their greed and own sense of inferiority. I humbly disagree with many of you. I don’t think that gives me the right to disparage you.

    Now, I’ll wait to see what happens, and hope for the best for each of you.

  • katisumas

    Any university club receiving funds from the university from fees paid by all students is not allowed to discriminate.  So yes, LGBT university supported clubs are not allowed to discriminate against homophobes.

    The mission of the a capella singing group is to sing.  The  person they kicked off was a Christian sharing their views, except he also happened to be gay.  The singing group can sing anywhere they want to but if they receive funds from the university which come from fees paid by ALL students, then they have to follow the same rules as all other university clubs do.

    The singing group is of course free to forego university subsidies and they can sing in any other place (a parking lot, their homes, or the most logical choice:  a church?).  Then they could  discriminate as much as they want (even though it’s pretty unchristian to do so,  but that’s another issue)

  • katisumas

    You’re quite right, however the bible doesn’t mention homosexuality as a category.  There is only the mention in Leviticus that “a man laying with another man” is what has been  translated as an “abomination” though the translation is disputed.  It’s supposed to actually mean that it’s gross, which is a different thing alltogether. 

    And don’t you find it telling that so many so called fundamentalist preachers refer to the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus, than to the New?  If you have the time and patience, listen to one of those preachers on TV.  Have a piece of paper with two columns and put a mark in each one whenever the preacher mentions the Old or the New Testament.   I  guarantee that whn you look at your marks in the end, you’ll  wonder why those preachers call themselves “Christian”. 

  • katisumas

    He said he’s bisexual and that gays should stay in the closet….   draw your own conclusions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WKRZDKWU5E73Q2O7UD2SLJNZ7Q DB

    From Catholic.com – “Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.”
     
    You can disagree.  You can dispute the bible says any such thing.  You can reject God altogether.  But to insist that those who believe homosexuality is a sin are so out of the mainstream that they and 13 animists somewhere in the Kentucky hill country are the only ones who believe so ignores the stated beliefs of 20% of the worlds population.  Include the other billions of Christians and Muslims who teach the same and it is those who preach acceptance who are out of the mainstream.  I know it’s a long trudge down from that ivory tower of sneering dismissal so maybe you ought to get started now.  We’ll meet you halfway. 

  • nerdybaldguy

    The “fact” that “sexual preference is genetic” is simply not supported by the science.  The “fact” is that “sexual preference is influenced by genetic factors”.  Not that Wikipedia is a perfect source (and much less than perfect on controversial topics), but it does often have a good “Reference” section that allows one to do their own research to determine what the real science on a topic refers to.  I also suggest reading “The Blank Slate” by Steven Pinker too, for an excellent, and objective view of this topic.  And his references section is a fantastic source for further digging into the general “nurture vs. nature” issues.   If sexual preference were genetic then one would expect near 100% correlation in sexual preference in identical twins.  However, the result is much less than that, though certainly significantly greater than zero.  That indicates (to me anyway) that sexual preference is not purely genetic, but genetics do play an important role.  It’s also clear from historical evidence that at least some aspects of sexual behavior are environmentally determined.  In England, after WWII, there was a serious shortage of men.  At the same time, there was a large increase in lesbian activity.  The study is referenced in “The Blank Slate”, I don’t have it handy.  Also men in prison who are heterosexual on the “outside” often exhibit homosexual behavior when incarcerated.  Those two examples seem to indicate that sexual behavior is at least partially dependent on environmental factors (such as the availability of members of the opposite sex in these two examples).  Does that mean that those individuals involved have an elastic “sexual preference”?  Does homosexual behavior over long periods of time constitute “homosexuality”?  I always suspect that both sides to this argument over-simplify the issues involved and I believe that the terminology currently in use is not sufficiently flexible to cover observed reality and existing scientific literature.  FYI, I am not a biologist, I am just a well read agnostic lay-person.  I have no ax to grind in this argument, but I do find it interesting, mostly in terms of the larger “nurture vs. nature” issues that have long been debated in many areas.  

  • http://twitter.com/submandave submandave

    I am often surprised how vehemently so many assure us that “homosexuality is inborn.”  AFAIK, there is no disgnostic test that can be performed on two people to determine which is gay and which is straight.  Homosexuality is a self-identified expression of human nature.  One might as well proclaim that having a preference for the color blue is an “inborn trait.”  I am sure that, like many types of human behavior, there are likely genetic indicators or physiological factors that may make a person more likely to become homosexual (not unlike how genetic factors make children of alchoholics more susceptible to alchoholism), but it also seems very likely to me that there are many societal, emotional, and “nurture” issues working on the dynamic of who is gay or not.

    As for the old “Jesus was gay” bit, do I really need to question judging the norms of interpersonal relationships in ancient Judea by modern concepts in America of what is “gay”?  If you read memoirs of US soldiers in WWII you will find many men writing about their foxhole buddies being closer than their wives, of holding each other as they slept, yet I’d hardly hazard to say all these soldiers were “gay” for it.

    Finally, thank you “Dr.” for teaching me that every American has a basic civil and human right to sing in a Christian a capella choir.  Silly me, I thought that freedom of association was mentioned somewhere in the Constitution.

  • spottytoes

    Open forum or not, I for one will be hesitant to comment lest my “expertise” be unacceptable and my resume be up for criticism.

  • teapartydoc

    I gave a buddy of mine the blood test for gay-ness and he went home and blew his brains out when it came out positive. Talk about feelin’ uncomfortable at a wake. Then I found out the test was just some mumbo jumbo cooked up by some college professor who thought he knew a lot about stuff he had no business messin’ with. I messed him up. I’ve got five more years to go. I wonder if they tested some of the bigger guys in my cell block. They all have wives at home, but jeez, it’s all I can do to avoid being a “date” for one of them after the yard exercises. I keep tellin’ ‘em, look, sez I, it ain’t ethical playin’ ’round on yer woman. It’s like adultery. Yeh, they sez, but it ain’t the same, yer not a girl. No, sez I, but if I was, would you think it wrong? Sure, sez them. Now I’m goin’ thru the tests to get my sex changed. I sure hope they can change it back when I get outa here.

  • goxewu

    Actually, it was an assumption of inferiority on my part. “Dat’s right–de woman is (um) smatah!” (A catchy tune, too.)

    The commonality between a particular university in the U.S. investigating what might be a violation of civil rights of a particular student, and a collection of student and faculty groups in the U.K. (which has a different form of government) objecting to being asked to spy on an entire group of students of a particular religion, is, to put it mildly, a stretch.

    If there were a professor at UNC with a visiting appointment as a professor in the UK who, on this side of the pond, said, “Yes, I think the University should investigate the dismissal of the student from the singing group for being gay,” and, on the other side of the Atlantic, said, “I won’t spy on my Muslim students for the government,” he wouldn’t be politically inconsistent, let alone hypocritical. 

  • JWnTX

    And you need to read some real studies on the “innate” gay gene that has evaded all attempts to locate it because it doesn’t exist.  It’s a completely learned behavior by those who are socially retarded and have difficulty forming relationships with the opposite sex.

    And as for the “it’s not a mental illness” issue, the decision to remove it from the DSM was almost entirely a political decision by a bunch of activist psychologists (like the ones currently trying to “normalize” pedophilia).

  • navydad

    Just curious, JWnTX, are you lying or ignorant? Or maybe just throwing out lies in order to generate controversy. Seriously, can you point us to some references to support your assertion that sexual orientation is “completely learned.” By the way, the DSM is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, so I don’t understand how a “bunch of activist psychologists” managed to get the psychiatrists to make a “political decision.” Perhaps you can enlighten us. Or maybe you just confused psychologists and psychiatrists. Oh, and since you referred to an “innate” gay gene, perhaps you can give examples of genes that are not innate.

  • wcipolla

    The recourse to religion in this discussion is very distressing.  I find religious belief to be the most divisive and negative issue in our culture at this time.  To think that sexual orientation is subject to religious laws seems medieval at best and most certainly not suited to the modern world.  Homosexuality was removed from the list of behavioral disorders in the USA in 1973 and I do not believe that any college or university that accepts students’ tuition in the form of financial aid that has been supplied by tax monies, either state or federal, should not tolerate the bias of religious organizations that are organized on that campus.  A genuine spiritual life that supports the moral good and believes profoundly humanistic values remains private.  It does not parade its intolerance in the public square.  Colleges have lost their moral bearings when they allow students and religious leaders to violate the civil rights of any group of students.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Pittelli/1157577837 David Pittelli

    Sounds pretty silly on both sides. Of course, a gay men’s chorus would allow a singer who was  straight, right? And if not, they’d be condemned as bigots by the same people condemning these silly Christians who insist on taking the writings of Paul seriously. As if being a saint makes his opinion worth something. Renounce Paul, ye Christians! Or modern people will see you for the closed-minded bigots you all are. While we’re at it, I think it’s clear that Christians really have to stop reading the Bible altogether — or at least taking it seriously.  Isn’t “Jesus Christ Superstar” enough Christian theology for anybody anyway?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zoe-Ellen-Brain/1036085884 Zoe Ellen Brain

    Genetic? No. Congenital? Yes.

    See Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

    The
    fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male
    direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing
    nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this
    hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of
    belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are
    programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in
    the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes
    place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of
    the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes
    can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in
    trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at
    birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the
    degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that
    social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or
    sexual orientation.

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    Dr. Ide, when determining what the Scripture teaches about homosexuality, it is irrelevant when the word “homosexual” was “invented,” since the name of the issue does not affect the essence of the issue.

    As for whether unrepentant, unbelieving homosexuals incur the judgment of God, perhaps nowhere does the Bible answer more clearly in the affirmative than in Romans 1:18-32. The word homosexuality is not used there, but the relationships/activities described are undoubtedly what we now know as “homosexuality.”

    The example of Lot assumes that the giving of Lot’s daughters to the people of Sodom was a virtuous thing. Since it is obvious that not everything written in Scripture is condoned by Scripture, can you support your assumption from Scripture? On this note, I don’t recommend the argument that because Lot was saved from among the people of Sodom and Gomorra, everything he did was good. David, for example, was called “a man after God’s own heart,” yet was quite clearly a sinner in need of a Savior. The principle, then, is that people who are godly are not perfect, rendering appealing to the idea that Lot’s giving of his daughters was virtuous simply because Lot did it an exercise in futility.

    As for the passage regarding David and Jonathan, I find that argument to be entirely unfounded. I would ask, “Why does David’s woman-exceeding love for Jonathan demand that love to be homosexual in nature?” Following your logic, you have essentially asserted that for a man to love someone more than woman is to imply a sexual relationship. Interestingly, man’s love for God is to exceed the love of woman (Deut. 6, Matt. 22), so should we understand the Scripture to teach that humans should all have sexual relationships with God? Cannot David simply be referring to the closeness of camaraderie/brotherhood/friendship he and Jonathan enjoyed?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    Dr. Ide, I do not know if homosexuality “occurs among all species,” but I am willing to concede the point for now because I’m ignorant in that regard.  That said, there are some linguistic clarifications that should be made.  If natural is understood to mean, “it occurs among all species,” then perhaps homosexuality is natural, but if natural is defined as “the most common practice among all species,” then homosexuality is entirely unnatural.  Similarly, if normal is defined as “a regular recurring event/action,” then perhaps homosexuality is normal, but if normal is defined as, “the predominant way in which sexuality is expressed (i.e., the norm),” then, again, homosexuality is entirely unnatural.  As for your comment about the goodness of homosexuality, if you have rejected God, to what objective standard of goodness can you appeal to even enter a discussion on goodness?  Does not the fact that you think goodness can be known bear witness to the God you claim to have rejected?  If so, that radically changes the whole discussion, as we must acknowledge and submit to the fact that homosexuality has all ready been declared sinful by God.

    To be clear, I am a Christian.  I do not hate gay people.  I love gay people.  I hate homosexuality, a sin with which I do not personally struggle.  I also hate lust and pride, two of the many sins with which I do struggle.  I do not believe homosexuality earns more or less of God’s wrath than my lust, pride and laundry list of other sins.  I believe homosexuality, lust, pride and every other sin equally result in the just wrath of the holy God.  I believe that I and every other human being need a shield from the wrath and judgment we have earned by rebelling against God in the act of cosmic treason.  I believe Jesus, being fully man (1) and having lived sinlessly (2), is the only one sufficiently able to serve as the substitute sacrifice.  I also believe that Jesus, being fully God, is the only one sufficiently powerful to absorb into Himself the infinite penalty of sin.  I believe that the person who hates sin and loves Jesus has the moral perfection of Christ imputed/credited to him as if he lived the life that Jesus lived.  I also believe that the person who hates sin and loves Jesus has his sins imputed/credited to Christ, so that Jesus is treated as if He lived the life the sinner lived.  The result is deliverance from both the temporal (3) and eternal power (4) of sin.  This is the Gospel according to Scripture, and it is unquestionably the most beautiful thing I’ve ever heard.

    As for how I believe Christians should treat homosexuals, I’ve written an article on that subject, and I’d love your thoughts on it if you have time.

    http://www.christsupreme.com/2011/03/03/a-biblical-perspective-on-homosexuality/

    (1) man sinning means man had to die (Rom. 6:23).

    (2) because Jesus was sinless, He personally had no need of deliverance from sin.

    (3) though ebbing and flowing as life goes on, believers will generally grow in Christ-likeness ultimately because of the sovereignty of God, though in accord with the effort of believers, so that believers increasingly reflect Jesus to the world and find increasing satisfaction in Him.

    (4) believers, by sheer grace, enter into heaven, having been covered by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus, and escape what we have earned: hell.

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    Dr. Ide, the engagement of certain Christians in homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple sexuality, etc., quite obviously does not alter what Scripture says regarding them.  It does, however, serve as a reminder that people are sinful and in need of a Savior.

    And I noticed and commented on a previous response to the unfounded nature of your comment regarding David and Jonathan, but Jesus and John? To what legitimate source do you refer when you make such a horrifically unbiblical assertion, as such is utterly absent from the biblical canon?

  • willismg

    @cbizzle:disqus  and all saved Christians.  This reminds me of the old saying, “If you want to make the gods laugh, tell them your plans.”   I think a new version could be, “If you want to make Jesus laugh, tell Him you’re saved.”

  • navydad

    What do the collected, edited, censored, and multiply-translated writings of a bunch of primitive middle eastern tribesmen have to do with any of this?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    @chronicle-104cfe248a0d64c7da3b5a05ef16a054:disqus What do you mean (i.e., your aim in saying that)?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    @chronicle-0c41698cdd6c10a3373fbb4fc5e78670:disqus Those writings have everything to do with this.  If the God who is, who revealed Himself in Scripture, doesn’t exist, meaningful conversation involving morality and/or ethics is logically impossible.

  • navydad

    Chad,

    That is a ludicrous statement. Please educate yourself about the development of morality and ethics. In fact, if we want to talk about morality and ethics, your scriptures are hardly the place to start. Any god who commands that a rapist must pay his victim’s father money and then marry the victim, who commands that his followers kill their children to prove their loyalty, and who condemns people for eating shrimp, is hardly a reasonable source for morality.

  • navydad

    By the way, I have seen this particular lie (that a group of gay activists took over the APA and changed the DSM for political reasons) in a number of recent discussions on completely unrelated websites. Some of the language in these posts is remarkably similar and I doubt that the posts are from the same person. My hypothesis is that this lie is common on conservative websites and is now being passed around as fact. Anyone shed some light on this?

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    In reply to Chad Barnes and others: Collins Dictionary (2009) defines “normal” as “a natural occurence” and homosexuality is a natural occurence. Natural is defined as “in or formed by nature.”  In both cases, when applied to homosexuality, the judgment is that homosexuality is both natural and normal.

    As for “Christian” and “Bibical” definitions–(1) which set of Christians [chrestianos or christianos] and in which century since there was no Christian church before the pagan emperor Constantine I called his warring bishops to meet with him at Nicaea in 325 CE and then by imperial decree established the Christian Church.  There was no “Bible” before 380 when the same emperor commissioned his Arian (heretic) bishop Eusebius to write 50 copies to send to the Eastern churches that were fortresses for fighters.

    If marriage was/is sacred, then why did Jesus never marry, let another man rest his head on his chest, live only with men (as far as the Bible tells its story) and was followed out of the garden by a naked young man? The only mention of Jesus at a wedding was to change water into wine–as it was a common custom to get drunk at a wedding, with the men in one house and the women in another house.  If Jesus was a man, internal evidence suggests he was gay; if Jesus was female, that would explain why she was around males and had John sleep on her breast.

    While patriarchy was the alleged rule, Jesus’ dynasty is traced through his mother, not through Joseph.  We find tenderness for men as with Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha (who disappears after his resurrection–making way for the advent of John), but we find little tenderness for women–save for the woman who bathed his feet with her tears (and no, the Magdalene [meaning a person from the town of Madgala] was not a whore).  I used to be Christian, and an ordained theologian.  There is no place in the bible where homosexuality is condemned (the word does not exist until the 19th century), instead what is in Saul/Paul’s writings is an objection to effeminacy–similar to the mannerisms of Marcus Bachmann.

    As for the existence of a Jesus–there was no concensus on that issue for the first 500 years, and it was “settled” only with bloodshed.  Sabellians, Arians, and others never recorded Jesus to be anything but a mortal.  Only with imperial decree was this “man” declared to be a son of god, much as was Lucifer/Satan in ancient Babylonian texts (cf. Job 2:1).  If there was (there was not) an objection to homosexuality it was because that was a form of temple prostitution as read in the quedash accounts, but then even the term Yahweh (from the Egyptian Yah) indicates sexuality as part of a worshipful rite.  I stopped being a Christian the more I learned about Christians–not a one I have met in life or on paper has ever understood Matthew 7:1 or Acts 10:24.  But I wish you well in your belief system; I do not share it, for I have studied it for over 50 years–and using the scrolls and other texts.

  • http://arthuride.wordpress.com/ Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide

    To Chad Barnes, I am sorry but the “scriptures” as you call the late 4th century Bible was not complete at its time of compilation by Eusbeius, and most of the Bible is but a series of legends plagiarized from far older accounts.  Thus Jesus’ calming the seas comes from Homer’s Odysseus on the ocean, and his changing water into wine comes from ancient Egypt when the Great Magi(cian) did the same in 3000 BCE.  Samson has the same life as Hercules, and the Song of Solomon is the erotic writings of ancient Arabia.  Even Lucifer comes out of Sumeria, and the stories of Adam (meaning “earth”) and Eve (meaning “life”) are taken from Akkadian lore (see my articles on line about them and their “sons”–with Seth being an Egyptian god).  I cannot find one original claim about Jesus in the bible, but can track each comment back to a far older cult.  The Bible is irrelevant when it comes to human behavior, as the Psalmist said, “man is but one step less than the angels” (the word “angels” in both Greek and Hebrew means “messengers” and they served a Lord (the “god” is plural: elohim; singular is el) who ruled over a garden in Iraq.  Even New Testament Letters are but bad plagiarisms, as none can be dated before the second century CE, and their redactions are from the eighth century.

  • teena23

    you are providing useful information thanks.
     
    100 day loans scam?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    @Dr_Arthur_Frederick_Ide:disqus Do you realize that pedophilia also fits the definitions you gave for “normal” and “natural.” Additionally, all prepubescent pedophilia, all homosexual pedophilia and pedophilia involving one or more sterile individuals fit your previously-stated understanding of good (i.e., they prevents population explosion). Would you argue, then, that pedophilia is also normal, natural and good? Are you comfortable with that language? If not, why, since your standards of normal, natural and goodness all fit the aforementioned examples of pedophilia?

    Regarding your comments about the Bible, if the Bible was unidentifiable prior to the 4th century, how were the Marcion canon, which contained in notably altered form most of what we now call the New Testament, and the Tatian canon identified as heretical by the church in the 2nd century?  Apparently, the church knew the canon so well in the second century that they were able to identify the Marcion and Tatian canons as heretical.

    You said:

    “If marriage was/is sacred, then why did Jesus never marry, let another man rest his head on his chest, live only with men (as far as the Bible tells its story) and was followed out of the garden by a naked young man? The only mention of Jesus at a wedding was to change water into wine–as it was a common custom to get drunk at a wedding, with the men in one house and the women in another house.  If Jesus was a man, internal evidence suggests he was gay; if Jesus was female, that would explain why she was around males and had John sleep on her breast.”

    Why does the sacredness of marriage demand that singleness, for example, be unsacred?  As for the laying of one’s head on Jesus’ chest, I’ve hugged hurting men and other men I love, potentially fitting the description of having their heads on my chest, yet I’m heterosexual.  As a college student, I lived only with men in order to build relationships with other guys and preserve my sexual purity, yet I’m heterosexual.  And, if I understand your argument on the next point, you would argue that I’m gay if a “streaker” chases me down the street?  I don’t think that requires further comment.  As for Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus forbid drunkenness, so he certainly didn’t turn the water into wine in an effort to get people drunk.  Further, why do occasions of drunkenness involving men being together in one house and women being together in another demand homosexuality?  Do you realize how many fraternity and sorority houses exist in American colleges in which frequently drunken men live together in heterosexual relationships?  These are poor arguments, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you all ready knew that (i.e., that something other than logic, proper exegesis, etc., motivates your comments).

    Homosexuality is plainly condemned in Romans 1:18-23.  Admittedly, the word “homosexual” is not used, but there is something even more telling: a description of what he is talking about, so that clarity is abundant.  I responded in a different comment thread to your examples allegedly illustrating the acceptable-ness of homosexuality in the Bible.

    As for the settledness of Jesus’ existence, do you think His disciples were confused about His existence when they died for His sake?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    @chronicle-0c41698cdd6c10a3373fbb4fc5e78670:disqus You said:

    “That is a ludicrous statement. Please educate yourself about the development of morality and ethics. In fact, if we want to talk about morality and ethics, your scriptures are hardly the place to start. Any god who commands that a rapist must pay his victim’s father money and then marry the victim, who commands that his followers kill their children to prove their loyalty, and who condemns people for eating shrimp, is hardly a reasonable source for morality.”

    These comments reflect an underlying presupposition that demands the existence of the deity you have denied.  

    For example, who gets to determine what is ludicrous?  In a godless world in which differing opinions exist about what is and is not ludicrous, who gets to make the final determination?  What objective (i.e., universally true and binding) measuring rod exists against which ludicrousness can be determined?

    You also presuppose that morality and ethics are objective, as you had no difficulty calling God’s character into question.  As such, against which objective (i.e., universally true and binding) moral standard did you measure God’s character?

    Sam Harris asserts that evolutionary biology can explain the existence of morals and ethics, and, while I do not know from firsthand experience that biology may be able to determine which portions of the brain deal with morality and ethics, I do not at all find that difficult to believe.  The issue is that such an explanation does not solve the problem.  The existence of moral preferences within individuals does nothing to explain moral objectives for all of humanity.  Yet, you and Sam Harris both apparently believe that rape, for example, is objectively (i.e., universally true and binding) wrong.

    The burden for the person who, 1) rejects God, and 2) believes in objective morality, is to provide (and prove) an objective measuring rod for morality. If such a measuring rod cannot be provided, then there is no foundation upon which any objective moral assertions may be made, so that all moral/ethical discussions may never truly leave the realm of personal preference. The result is that there is no grounds upon which to make the objective statement, “Rape is wrong,” but only the subjective statement, “Rape is wrong for me.”

    As such, the removal of God actually removes the objective grounds you need in order to indict God the way you have.  C.S. Lewis, the well-known Christian philosopher and convert from atheism, said it this way:

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust…?  Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own.  But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.  Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.  Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple.”

    Of course, this conversation does not speak to the absurdity of arguing for morality and ethics when dealing with accidentally evolved bags of carbon and water (i.e., humans).

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    @Dr_Arthur_Frederick_Ide:disqus Regarding your comments about the reliability of the canon, I would argue that the Bible is much more reliable than you claim, as the evidence for it is overwhelming (i.e., scores of fulfilled prophecies in the Person of Jesus (which significantly damage the theory that the Bible is merely a plagiarism, since the difference, of course, would be that what the Old Testament predicted about Jesus actually happened), 6000 ancient manuscripts with quotations by church fathers boosting the page totals to almost 1 million, textual variants among those manuscripts resulting in even somewhat legitimate question about less than 1% of the original texts, evidence from Jewish historians, numerous archaeological discoveries notwithstanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., etc.).  That said, I doubt debating it here would be very fruitful.

    If you’re interested in a well-done response by other widely recognized and respected textual scholars to much of the writings of Bart Ehrman, who, as you probably know, is essentially the poster child for some of the perspectives you hold, I’d recommend http://ehrmanproject.com/.

  • daugmatic

    Yeah, but were you sexually molested before you were six?

  • http://www.christsupreme.com Chad Barnes

    So… conversation over?

  • morningsider

    So, this sounds like bad news to me. My small college was just negotiating with Moodlerooms, we have been trying to find an alternative to Blackboard, which is expensive, clunky, inflexible. Is Blackboard just buying up its competition? Since they have destroyed other competitors they have bought, should we really believe they won’t try to kill what is valuable about Moodlerooms? Will we have nowhere to turn now? 

  • http://twitter.com/michaelbtw Michael Penney

    morningsider  - You have alternatives:-) We’re at least as big as Moodlerooms and have been a Moodle Partner since the Moodle Partner program was started.  We provide hosting, support, instructional design, training and enterprise reporting/program management. http://remote-learner.net/

  • geneloeb1

    A bad development that should immediately be voided or legal action taken. Open source means open source with its natural advantages, and stifling it should not be accepted. attorneys get ready.

  • http://www.twitter.com/garay Ed Garay

    Actually, the way I see it, a lot of good can come out of these new developments.  

    For example, Blackboard Managed Hosting is an impressive service. Their experience and LMS backend infrastructure system administration expertise combined with the talent already at MoodleRooms and NetSpot would benefit all of these hosting services.  I should know. I oversee the Blackboard Learn service at our institution: hiring and retaining specialized LMS system administrators and programmers for a campus-wide deployment is not easy.

    Likewise, Blackboard’s further commitment to open-source and open standards will further fuel their focus and enabling ability to positively affect the interoperability of Blackboard Learn, Moodle, Sakai and other Teaching & Learning platforms not only among themselves but with the myriad of open-source LMS add-on developers, third party vendors, publishers and whatnot that Blackboard already partners with. 

    Open standards interoperability also means embracing other LMS and EdTech system providers that have already invested or are investing in open standards, like Desire2Learn, Instructure Canvas, Pearson’s OpenClass, Interactyx Topyx and Knoodle.

    Aggregation of talent and educational technology developers can be a very good thing for Higher Education.  

    Imagine, in the not-too-distant future, the possibility for Moodle, Sakai and Blackboard to share back-end integration with our student information systems, campus portal systems, academic social network platforms, campus e-Pub publishing initiatives, commercial publishers, electronic portfolio systems, Google Apps, Box, Dropbox, WordPress, Piazza, Elgg, and other cloud-based systems of value to education.  

    Surely, we can do most of this today for one LMS or another, but if you have or wish you have more than one campus-wide LMS or additional EdTech systems, it would be great if we would not have to re-invent the seamless integration wheel, iteratively.

    Students and faculty would also see additional benefits, for example, in having a consistent suite of mobile learning apps or text messaging opt-in capabilities for Moodle, Sakai and Blackboard, especially, with regards to deep intelligent integration with the LMS.

    Time will tell, indeed, how well this all will play out, but I for one, remain optimistic.

  • vceross

    Why is Blackboard allowed a monopoly?  Instead of improving their services, they buy up their competitors.  This should be illegal.  In fact, I thought it was.  

  • vceross

    Blackboard is clunky and outdated and unresponsive.  The reason they have been swallowing up competitors–these are only the most recent–is so that they don’t have to be anything but clunky, outdated, and unresponsive. 

  • http://www.twitter.com/garay Ed Garay

    Unresponsive has not been our experience; we are actually quite  happy Blackboard customers.  As for clunky ad outdated, Google: Blackboard Learn Ocho

  • blog21

    They didn’t buy the source. They bought the services part around the source. And by the way “open source” is not a legal construct protected by law. Only the terms-of-use attached to the code are enforceable as a contract. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=170502404 Mark Vehec

    Well, it might not be a popular way to conduct business, but it is by no means unique to Blackboard. Microsoft, Google and Apple also come to mind when thinking of companies who figure reinventing the wheel just does not make good business sense. I think Blackboard has made some mistakes in the past in terms of trying to fold all of the other acquisitions into the core product, but I think those were lessons learned. The fact that they are allowing Angel to continue as a separate product is a good sign. Moodle will always be an option for those not happy with Blackboard and if the fact that they own Moodlerooms does not sit well with some, look for alternatives. There are many and sure more to come as a result of this announcement.

  • vceross

    Oh, it’s most definitely way behind the curve at this point and you don’t know it because BB keeps gobbling up the competition.  For example, the more advanced course management tools are now very social media friendly, have terrific, user-friendly interfaces, can do all sorts of nifty portfolio and grading stuff, and don’t require five steps simply to grade a student paper or post a link.  BB is about ten years behind its competition, but instead of catching up, it just buys them out.  We are heavy users of BB, but have also been testing other services.  Our only worry is that if we go with one, BB will just buy it and we’re back to jump.  

  • erudden

    Take a look at Instructure Canvas

  • catlkelley

     The legal action should be around antitrust legislation rather than open source.

  • vceross

    Yes, that’s one of those we’re testing:  it’s terrific.  But how long before BB buys it and puts it in the attic.

  • roppenheimer

    Interesting comments.  There is a rumor we are leaving one company and going to another here at my school, and both of these companies are mentioned in these comments.  For obvious reasons, I will omit their names.  My past experience has been in developing both LMS and authoring tools with a very large company that decided not to enter the general marketplace with these products for some reason.

    Now that I have left that company and am working at a school that uses an LMS and a course delivery tool, I can see that the tools I have seen are, to be kind, terrific for, oh, 1965 or so, but have little use in the present.  The huge staff here struggles daily with both the LMS and the delivery tools, and we are a pretty big organization.  Therefore, we are changing the frontend tool.  I think that the LMS will remain the same for some reason, regardless of how poorly it performs.

    From my development days, I can assure you that there is no way to develp a product in this space that will meet everyone’s requirements.  Having one toolset that does everything for every user is simply not something that can be developed–yet.  Frankly, I am somewhat surprised by the poor quality of both sets of tools given that the work we did initially on these items began in the late 1980′s and continued through the 1990′s.  Now that systems have so much more capacity and that communications software is so much more sophisticated, I would have expected that these products would be truly inspiring.  Instead, they are basically ugly and pedantic and offer few usable features that will carry us into the future.  I understand that legacy customers require support and some evolution; why someone has not entered the marketplace with much more sophisticated tools is a mystery to me, but institutions must
    purchase what is available. 

    The other surprise for me upon entering this side of the business was the lack of interactive courseware being used for subjects such as math and other beginning courses.  Somehow I was under the impression that great (meaning inexpensive) authoring tools would be a dime a dozen and that everyone would be developing interacive courseware.  If you live long enough, I guess you get to see all your predictions turn out to be wrong!  How sad that this area of technology has not been more progressive.  Evidently there is not enough profit in it or someone would come along and create better tools.

  • scottsiddall

    Contrary to the sensational statement in the article’s opening paragraph, Blackboard does not own Moodle or Sakai.  They bought two providers of Moodle support and contracted with an insightful and productive member of the Sakai community.  Let’s see where this takes us.  

    Community is key to any project, not the date when development began.   Community source apps like Sakai evolve rapidly and keep pace with needs based on support from a dynamic, global community of stakeholders.  Higher education is blessed with choices for e-learning platforms, some mature and proven, some new and novel, all affecting each other in an ecosystem that needs to interoperate, not just compete.   Thank goodness there’s not one winner, or the market might stagnate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Steffenson/530816464 Mark Steffenson

    Take a look at http://www.itslearning.net    completely cloud based, very easy to use and very affordable.  Includes Web 2.0 functions, video and audio recorder to instantly record and embed video and audio, email, messaging, blogs, eportfolio, wikis, discussion boards, and open format making it easy to migrate content.

  • vmcalpin

    LMS decisions will likely continue to be driven by cost models…..open source models work for learning communities of the future particularly those driven by increased enrollments and dwindling budget realities.

  • garay

    Oh, I too like those course site walls, social networking tools and quick gradebook entries. We want them now! But we also require the mature feature-rich gradebook and online testing environments that systems like Desire2Learn, Blackboard Learn and Sakai have.

    The new slick LMS systems don’t yet have the depth in functionality on some of their subsystems and open standards support.

    In general, however, I think we should procure and support the best possible Teaching & Learning systems that best meets the strategic needs of our respective institutions. It should not matter who hosts the service or owns the technology; what matters is to have reliable, scalable and quality educational platforms that provide the pedagogical opportunities that our faculty want to enhance teaching and learning at our schools.

  • gmanacheril

    We recently switched to Canvas when BB took over WebCT. Our experience so far has been very encouraging. We certainly prefer it to BB.

  • 3224243

     Which Sakai member?  I thought all of the major participants were universities.

  • bryfalcon

    Interesting.  While many will see this move as a shocking mashup of opposing software development philosophies, the participating systems have much in common.   It appears to me to be a consolidation of the old guard.  This move is akin to Daimler merging with Chrysler over a decade ago to fend off innovative disruptors like Toyota and Honda (think: Haiku LMS and Instructure’s Canvas). 

    Going forward, Blackboard must maintain not one, but four products (not to mention the multiple versions of said products).  This is tremendous amount of code debt that can slow innovation even further.  Yes, I’m sure they will develop more “enterprise” features, improved cross-platform systems, and build walled-garden partnerships leading publishers.  Meanwhile: instructors, students, and forward-thinking institutions will be moving to platforms with intuitive user experiences, flexibility, that match the expectations of digital natives.

  • grandeped

    If they can’t see the obvious differences between Moodle and Bb, then that concerns me. To call Moodle crap shows that they probably don’t know much about the market. Everyone that I know that has used Moodle loves it. Its not perfect, but for Instructure to be saying things like that means I would think twice before looking into them.

  • scottsiddall

    Chuck Severance, a thought leader in the Sakai community from the University of Michigan.   See Chuck’s blog at http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2012/03/connecting-blackboard-sakai-and-open-source/

  • grandeped

    I just don’t get Josh Coates comments. Personally, I would rather dump the LMS altogether, but as far as Moodle is concerned I have never heard that people don’t want to use it. I have read many articles about people raving about how much they love it, about high satisfaction ratings, and many other indications that seem to point at it being well-liked. I know system admins often don’t want to have to run a DIY solution, and I get that. Maybe he was referring to that? Either way, still sounds more like a jealous competitor than a comment to be taken seriously. Hope the whole company isn’t like that.

    But still, back to ditching the LMS altogether… I’m still just not seeing that one product that really gets the education market, especially in terms of the growth of MOOCs, open content and other newer concepts. Blackboard is making it clear that they don’t get this, because this move will not take them there. Most of the new ideas I have seen out there are just putting a slick/simplified interface on the same Bb LMS concept, or copying Facebook and putting an education spin on it. I have yet to find an education tool that actually does what I like it to, so like many educators I will be forced to cobble together a solution using WordPress, RSS syndication, and other tools… all “software that began development nearly a decade ago.” Let’s face it – all of the real innovators in online learning are using things that have been around for a decade or more… so that whole statement by Josh Coates just makes no sense.

  • heidi_marshall

    I agree with Ed Garay, here. We are in the process of migrating from eCollege to Blackboard, and it’s exciting to see the potential we have to integrate with other products. At this point, I see major benefits to our student support services like math tutoring and writing tutoring. If tutors and peer mentors can utilize Blackboard-like products without having to go through the red tape of creating new “official” classrooms, it could potentially improve the student experience by making it more unified and cut down on training time. 

  • http://twitter.com/michaelbtw Michael Penney

    I know system admins often don’t want to have to run a DIY solution,Moodle is about freedom of choices – if you don’t want to DIY, there are 50+ Partners who will do all or some of it for you.

    There is a list at moodle.com showing what different partners do :-)If you don’t like the Partner you have, you can switch from one support Partner to another, or move to DIY.

    While Instructure and others talk about ‘innovative models’ – they are more old-school than Moodle – you can host Canvas yourself OR you can get commercial support from Instructure, but you can’t choose and move among a variety of commercial support partners in multiple locations and languages like you can with Moodle.

  • bleckb

    Resistance to Blackborg has become one step more futile.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelbtw Michael Penney

    Independent US/CA/UK Moodle Partner Remote-Learner’s response: 
    http://info.remote-learner.net/blog-0/

  • rwejd

    Why does this happen, and why does the entire LMS scene wreak of inept, hard-to-use, or only partially wrought solutions? Because the entire sector is serving academia – that’s why. For the most part, universities who deploy these solutions have been on a gravy train ride, until very recently. The administrators who have done diligence on and deployed LMS solutions have – as a group – largely failed to innovate within their organizational structures. If it “kind of works”, it’s OK (or it was, until very recently, when the bottom began to fall out of the gravy train that higher ed has been riding since the 60′s).

    Blackboard is a corporate monolith that knows exactly what it’s doing – i.e. taking advantage of a discomboblulated educational enterprise sector that will simply continue to pay for insufficient solutions, because they don’t know any better, or can’t invent their own. Blackboard is to the Education sector what Oracle is to the commercial enterprise sector – both companies deploy fairly competent systems that require constant updating and a host of “consultants” to keep things running, and updated – thus, Oracle’s and Blackboard’s revenue models.

    Of course, college administrators who live in their IT and administrative fiefdoms, unscathed by any threat of competition, have let this happen. So, it’s not Blackboard who is greedy; there is no “evil intention” involved; there is only feasting at the table of incompetence and backwards thinking that currently exists within educational enterprise, and enterprise that requires serious deconstruction, disintermediation, and re-invention.

  • urspider

    Yet another reason to NEVER use BlackBorg with my classes. We need some antitrust action on this.

  • urspider

    BlackBorg only added Web 2.0 features when they saw Google Applications doing what they do for free. As with Microsoft, Bb will only innovate when it must. There’s nothing good in this news about a clunky and closed LMS that puts students and faculty into a gated community. It’s not the real Internet…just a monopoly with a bad and overpriced user interface.

  • virtualmonk

    “Leaders of Blackboard, Moodlerooms, and NetSpot issued a public “statement of principles” swearing commitment to supporting open-source software development.”

    Amusingly meaningless.  As for Coates’ “crappy product” comment, he should know better than to grant an interview right on the heels of a major market shift that impacts his own product.  That’s what news releases written by P.R. people are for.

  • http://twitter.com/PeejyWeegie Paul Jacobelli

    I’m with Mark S on this one.  We looked at all the North American offerings and then asked ourselves one day why we were restricting our choices to the same old-same old. So, we looked at European and Asian LMS and chose http://www.itslearning.com. Bottom line is you get all the bells and whistles that you get with Bb or have to add-on to Open Source in one package and the cost is significantly better. And then there is that video-audio feature Mark talks about… now our test questions can be delivered and answered using a simple to use audio or video option. Just saying’….

  • 3224243

    Interesting piece but I wonder how “open source,” “non-proprietary” and “Blackboard” can be used to describe the same thing?

  • http://twitter.com/wstites William Stites

    I think it needs to be made clear that they own the some of the optional providers if you choose to host you Moodle install externally.

    We have been hosting a fairly large Moodle install on our own network for years.  We’ve had is running on Apple and Linux hardware and not actually have it on two Apple Mini servers.  While Blackboard may be buy these companies they are not buying Moodle.

    One could actually look at this as a sign that Blackboard needs to go this way to get Moodle related business because people are moving toward it as a cost-effective open-source solution.  Blackboard may provide custom solutions or integration hooks that they could charge for, but they can’t charge for the base Moodle code as outline in the licensing.

    If you’re curious how we’ve been using Moodle or how we’ve dealt with managing our own servers for years I’ve been blogging about it here: http://www.williamstites.net/category/moodle/

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1530393732 Josh Coates

    guys,

    just want to chime in.  first off, i’m an opinionated person – and i say a lot of things to a lot of reporters, and i don’t get to choose which quotes they include in their articles – that being said, i stand by everything i say.

    yes, i think moodle is crappy software – this is simply my professional opinion (and i’m certainly not going out on a limb with this assesment http://amplicate.com/hate/moodle ) but i acknowledge that instructure *is* standing on the shoulders of moodle and the moodle community.  they are pioneers in the open source LMS industry, and we acknowledge and respect that legacy.  it’s something that everyone can be proud of.

    also, just to clarify – although moodle has an impressive install base, and many people are enthusiastic about using it, the fact is that we simply don’t see moodle in competitive situations in our market segment.  we have been successful in medium and large educational institutions in the US, and for whatever reason, we don’t see moodle end up on the short-list of decision makers at these types of institutions.  this is the context of the statement that “people don’t want to use it.”

    cheers,

    -josh

  • nashella

    I have to agree with the other responders on this one. We
    currently use Bb 9 and it is not the best system. We were using version 8 prior
    and it was wonderful. I am not sure if the goal was to deliver a more
    sophisticated ’looking’ product but version 
    9 does not have ease of use as one of its attractive features. Clunky
    describes quite well.

  • vceross

    What are the “mature, feature-rich gradebook” components to which you refer on BB?  It takes five clicks to grade a student paper (this wasn’t always the case with BB; each year it seems to get less user-friendly).  It’s a huge job of work to access students’ papers and then to comment on and reload them.  The gradebook is a nightmare to organize and is difficult to read. Sakai’s gradebook is equally non-intuitive and unwieldy.  Neither has any options for portfolio or peer review grading, both of which, by the way, Canvas offers. Add to this that Canvas is user-friendly (I figured out how to use it, including such features as peer-reviewed assessment, on their online sandbox–no training, no searching through incoherent manuals, no desperate emails to BB admins. 
    Please note that I am not affiliated with Canvas or any courseware system, unlike some of the people posting to this board.  I am a heavy user of BB courseware, as are several of my colleagues, and have piloted or researched other types of courseware.  

  • dirkca

     We provide quality moodle hosting at http://www.icampus21.com and have done so for over 10 years. Our customers support free eportfolios which we provide here http://www.portfoliocommunities.com

  • rcharis

    So Josh Coates thinks Amplicate hates is a good source for judging whether a software is bad? I guess he also thinks Google writes crappy software  http://amplicate.com/hate/google
    and Apple
    http://amplicate.com/hate/apple 
    To be fair some of the 115,000 Apple hates may be from people who lost their power cables or had to buy all new ‘usb’ accessories each time they upgrade.

    When Instructure has 58 million users (http://moodle.org/stats/), they will be lucky to have only 1600 people hating them on amplicate (lots of them kids who are mad that they got a bad grade on their test and that the teacher could tell from the Moodle logs they hadn’t studied).

    What it tells me is that Instructure is run by a kid, with all that entails. I predict it will soon be bought by Blackboard when the Angel/VC money runs out. Then the two systems using it can convert to Moodle, which will still be going strong:-).

  • http://www.facebook.com/zwily Zach Wily

    Do you post as “Mchasen” on Amplicate? That’s pretty funny. :)

  • rcharis

    Not me, but that is funny.