Roman Polanski Rapes a Kid & Eric Holder Screws the Pooch -Way To Go Stedman!

How this mannequin with a moustache, Eric "Stedman" Holder keeps a job, let alone remains America's top law enforcement ( rather Scoff Law-in-Chief) is truly a wonder.

He sues Arizona, because he refuses to execute Federal Law; He dogs around on the KSM Trial; Gitmo? What Gitmo; We are a Nation of Cowards -New Black Panther Cover Boy; and now does a check's in the mail and Roman Polanski avoids justice.

LOS ANGELES — The Swiss government asked the U.S. Justice Department to release sealed transcripts in the Roman Polanski case just days before a Los Angeles judge was told that the Swiss did not request that information, according to a letter from Swiss officials that points to apparent miscommunication in the case.
The officials said that the denial of access to the information was the key factor in the refusal to extradite the film maker to the U.S., according to the letter to the U.S. Embassy in Bern, Switzerland.
A district attorney's spokeswoman said their office was never notified of the Swiss request and did not know that the Justice Department had turned it down.

The letter dated Monday was obtained by The Associated Press on Wednesday night. It provided a time line of when the request was filed and when it was turned down.
The letter blamed the denial of extradition solidly on the refusal by the Justice Department to show transcripts of testimony by the film director's original prosecutor to Swiss officials.
"Since the additional documents requested were not transmitted in full, extradition of Roman Polanski to the United States of America is thus denied," said the letter.
Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said she had no comment on the matter.
The Swiss said that they wanted to know whether Polanski, who was being held in a 33-year-old sex case, had already served his sentence.
The Swiss had said from the beginning that their extradition laws allowed Polanski to be sent to the United States only if he was going to be required to serve at least six months in prison. They sought the testimony of original prosecutor Roger Gunson to clarify the matter.
On May 13, the letter said, the Justice Department "responded that the desired copy of the statement of Roger Gunson could not be given out."
The letter added, "Under these circumstances it cannot be excluded with certainty that Roman Polanski, who was imprisoned in the Chino State Prison for 42 days, has not already served the sentence imposed on him."
It was the first indication that the Swiss were potentially accepting arguments raised by Polanski's lawyers who claimed he was a victim of misconduct by now deceased Superior Court Judge Laurence Rittenband. The letter mentions Rittenband by name and said authorities wanted to know whether Rittenband had promised Polanski that his time undergoing a diagnostic study in prison would be his entire sentence. He had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
The request was transmitted to the Justice Department, they said, on May 5, 2010.

Eric Holder, America! Your Attorney General!

Read more: Click my post title

Anti- Bill Brady Ad Planned Parent Hood Sheep's Wool Ad is a Howl!

If you're a woman or have a daughter, a mother, a sister, a wife, an aunt-- or even just a friend or a neighbor or a co-worker who is a woman-- then you have a reason to help us stop Bill Brady.

Oh, Heavens! Bill Brady thinks that crushing a baby's skull is bad at any age!

That's all you've got girls? Bill Brady sounds Okay to this Democrat. I like Pat Quinn, but I am personally and completely opposed to a woman's choice to snuff out a life.

Pat Quinn could have done without this stupid ad, but Bill Brady will pick up Democratic votes.

http://www.democraticgovernors.org/

I Like Tea and Tea Parties . . . for Other Folks

I watch eight seconds of MSNBC celebrated nit-wit loudmouth Chris 'Milky' Matthews and his guests Salon's Joan 'Weepy' Walsh and Mother Jones' David 'Crum Character' Corn doing a stomp on the usual targets Tea Party People and Sarah Palin.

MSNBC is in full panic - The Ship of Fools is going down faster than a Dago battleship.

Pop-eyed, mouth-like-a-fire-bucket Matthews was sputtering on and on about racists, Jim Crow, and signs that don't exist. He then went after Nikki Haley, a gorgeous Indian American running South Carolina with the mope that she defeated-

How do you figure your state out? It's pretty conservative obviously. It's Strom Thurmond country in many ways and, and it has people like DeMint pretty far over and then people like Lindsey Graham who are sort of regular conservatives. But then you nominated, your party has nominated an Indian-American woman, Nikki Haley. Obviously an attractive candidate, she knows how to present herself obviously, but what's that about? Is that just an interesting little aspect? "It's okay to be Indian-American but we got a problem with this black president?" What's that about?

Yeah, Milky, everyone has a problem with this President - he is in way over his head and is surrounded and advised by dummies. The only people calling Barack Obama a BLACK President are the morons of MSNBC and CNN - two tanking cables.

What a moron!

I witnessed several Tea Party demonstrations in Chicago's Loop and they were about as threatening as Disney on Ice.

I am and remain a 19th Ward Democrat - Anti-Abortion, No Gay Marriage -civil unions you bettcha, Seal the border and then talk about Amnesty, reduce taxes.

Can not do the Tea Party. I like them and admire them, but I am pretty buttoned down and square and have been wearing the same fashion template since 1965 - Oxford cloth shirts, short hair-cut Princeton not buzz-cut, wools and cottons.

The Tea Party calls to mind too much Colonial America get-up. I don't do pony-tails, or wigs. Tri-cornered hats? Not a chance.

However, there is no racism. No race hate. Three of my black neighbors in Morgan Park are Tea Partiers and wear the ColonialDon't Tread on Me, Chump! regalia

MSNBC needs to run old movies. Chris Matthews needs a tail to chase to keep him busy.

Daily Herald Editorial Board Nails University of illinois "Inclusivity" Hypocrisy

The American Progressive!



Here is the full text of a wonderful editorial by the Daily Herald Editorial Board
concerning the oafish and hypocritical firing of "admitted" Catholic Professor Kenneth Howell over an ambush e-mail complaint by the friend of a one of Howell's students.

This Progressive Witchunt of Catholics will continue unabated so long as marriage continues to be between a man and a woman and abortion is fought at every turn,

Great to see one newspaper taking a stab at common sense and heroic defense of the facts.

It may be too early in the debate to condemn the University of Illinois for firing an adjunct professor whose orthodox Catholic views on homosexuality deeply offended some of his students. But the university's action against religion professor Kenneth Howell certainly bears more, and careful, scrutiny.

The principle of academic freedom is one of the critical underpinnings of a strong and intellectually vital university - especially a public university that purports to serve the society in all its rich diversity. So, there's a darkly Orwellian irony in the U of I's firing of Howell for violating the school's policy of "inclusivity."

"Inclusivity" at the University of Illinois, it would appear, does not apply to devout Catholics describing their points of view on morality.

It must be said that freedom of speech in general and academic freedom in particular do not justify dangerously irresponsible statements. One is not free, nor should one be free, to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, as the U.S. Supreme Court has famously determined. Similarly, we cannot tolerate in the name of free speech those who advocate the violent overthrow of the government nor those who call for violence against any individual or group.

But from the early reports, it's hard to see what Howell said that could rise to that standard, Indisputably, he argued in an e-mail that homosexual acts are a violation of what the Catholic Church and he himself regard as "Natural Moral Law." He also stated that students "are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter" if they have not adequately studied it, perhaps implying that the grade they could expect on a pending exam might depend on their adherence to his own prejudices though he insists he would not penalize students for holding views different from his.

If the definition of "hate speech" stoops to the level of such expressions, it's not just academic freedom but all speech freedom that is in trouble. For on such grounds, the assessment of almost any statement is reduced not to its inherent logic or lack thereof, but to the whim of the people in authority.

The people in authority at the University of Illinois wisely have agreed to examine this situation more thoroughly, and they are right to go about that business with the notion of protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals and groups in the university community. Yet, they must also keep in mind that - at a university, of all places - offensive statements are not necessarily dangerous statements. The prospects of firing a professor for teaching and defending the point of view of one of the world's dominant religious denominations are in themselves an act of intimidation that surely would send shudders of fear through any professor whose pronouncements could be construed to offend the powers that be.

In such an environment, it is not Howell's ideas but the intolerance of them that truly threatens the doctrine and practice of inclusivity.

If You Like Shakman Monitors, You Gotta Love Todd Stroger!

That's Boss Shakman! Right there in the Middle! Boss Shakman!

In fact, the revolving door of employees has picked up speed in the wake of Stroger losing the February primary, according to a report issued Tuesday by Mary Robinson, the Shakman compliance administrator charged with ensuring the county adheres to a federal court-ordered ban on political hiring.

Todd Stroger is where he is today thanks to more than forty years of Shakman! In fact, young Todd is a Shakman Baby - born of the death of the vile but effective Cook County Machine!

Wait a minute, hold the phone - Shakman Monitor's have been on the case saving all of us from poiltical crooks, cut-purses and ne'er-do-wells!

Really, Murial?

Shakman, Michael Shakman, the Cook County Michael Shakman Decree, like Andy Shaw on the case for the BGA, is the best bet for tax-payers to not get good government and have their wallets lifted.

Michael Shakman was running to join the Illinois Constitutional Convention, CON-CON - Dig this from Chicago Encyclopedia - afixed bag of special interests re-telling history. Fixed you say? Yes, read on!

Shakman Decrees
In 1969, one man made his stand against the Chicago political machine. Michael Shakman, an independent candidate for delegate to the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention, battled against one of the most enduring traditions in Chicago's politics: political patronage, or the practice of hiring and firing government workers on the basis of political loyalty. With many behind-the-scenes supporters, Shakman's years of determination resulted in what became known as the “Shakman decrees.”

Shakman filed suit against the Democratic Organization of Cook County, arguing that the patronage system put nonorganized candidates and their supporters at an illegal and unconstitutional disadvantage. Politicians could hire, fire, promote, transfer—in essence, punish—employees for not supporting the system, or more particularly, a certain politician. The suit also argued that political patronage wasted taxpayer money because public employees, while at work, would often be forced to campaign for political candidates.

In 1972, after an exhaustive court procedure and much negotiating, the parties reached an agreement prohibiting politically motivated firings, demotions, transfers, or other punishment of government employees. A 1979 ruling led to a court order in 1983 that made it unlawful to take any political factor into account in hiring public employees (with exceptions for positions such as policy making). Those decisions along with companion consent judgments—collectively called the Shakman decrees—are binding on more than 40 city and statewide offices.

Roger R. Fross

Now that's historical, Roger - you were co-counsel on the Shakman case and yet you do the that patented Movie Preview "ONE MAN" in your opening sentence! Que Hombre!
More than One Man, Rog - as you make two and two makes a . . .conspiracy? No, an enterprise.

Roger Fross has extensive experience handling mergers and acquisitions, financings, business successions, and general corporate matters for privately-held firms, not-for-profits and high net-worth owners.

He approaches estate planning from a business planning perspective whether it is dealing with the personal and generational issues of business succession or the dollars and cents’ objectives of minimizing wealth transfers.

Mr. Fross’ clients cut across many segments of American industry and are geographically dispersed throughout the United States. He has worked with numerous individuals and companies on their capital-raising, disclosure, compliance, and securities matters. Much of Mr. Fross’ work has addressed the day-to-day concerns of corporate ownership, such as customer, supplier, and distributor arrangements; key employee contractual and compensation matters; licensing of property rights; joint ventures and ownership succession and wealth-transfer strategies for privately owned businesses.

His experience also includes representing marine transportation companies in financing and operating matters, insurance companies in capital-raising transactions, and community banks with acquisition, regulatory, and Community Reinvestment Act problems. He has also been active in the demutualization of insurance companies and representation of nonprofit organizations.
Mr. Fross serves on many boards of directors and committees, including The Joyce Foundation, the Chicago Metro History Fair, and the Southeast Chicago Commission. In addition, for more than 30 years, Mr. Fross has participated with co-counsel in the landmark anti-patronage case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Shakman v. Democratic Party, et al. He is listed in Who’s Who in America.

Mr. Fross served as managing partner of the Firm from 1981 to 1987, and has served four terms on the firm’s executive committee.

Education
J.D., University of Chicago Law School, 1965

B.A., Mathematics and Physics, De Pauw University, 1962
Gold Key, Rector Scholar

Talk about cozy insidered, Roger and Michael. You boys must have known one another and that's Anti-Shakman . . .well, now.

The Shakman Decree ham-strings good government services and opens the public troughs to real cretins, feebs, dummies and crooks.

Here's the deal -

1.Good people can not be hired to serve Cook County and Chicago government if they are in any way related, familiar with, hold a nodding acquaintance or brushed up against the hiring boss at church, thanks to Michael Shakman.

Shakman is a straw dog. It is a phony dodge that kills political organization and the precinct and Ward levels.

The intent of Shakman was the goof could not get himself elected to CON_CON in 1969 and was percieved by the outsiders who wanted to get inside as a means of power.

Take it to the streets? Hell, no take it to a Judge. Courts gave us Shakman - not a vote.

Our Shakman monitors help the Chicago Media tell us who received . . .gasp! . . .Overtime! Everytime stories appear about how much some poor slob is paid and who put in a seventy-hour week and finds that he is portrayed as Todd Stroger's boot-black, you can bet that Shakman Industries - Monitors, Goo-Goo Clusternuts, Media darlings and sharp University of Chicago trained activist lawyers are amassing more power to prevent good government services.

My precinct captain, my Ward Committeeman knows my neighbors and their needs. Michael Shakman? Noelle Brennan? Roger Fross? I don't think so.
Instead Shakman Industres has become the clearing house -paid mightily don't you know-for political hiring and outsources to Public service unions (SEIU & etc.).

Ain't that nice! Oh, Tut! They'll protest - "we only monitor!" Now, I know that common sense is a stretch, but let's try this.

Look Goo-Goos -People who worked more hours than they are normally asked to work get OVERTIME! News Flash?

If a Metra cop is told that due to cut-backs, he must work more hours -OVERTIME

If a Streets and Santitation Snow Plow Driver is told by Tom Skilling that a blizzard will last 48 hours -OVERTIME!

Who hired the Shakman Monitors? Who's their clout? Why can't my alcoholic, half-wit, and larcenous pals get jobs with Shakman?

Why is the Shakman Machine doing all the hiring? Who pays Shakman? I do.

But after five years under the shackles of a federal hiring monitor, aldermen said Thursday they no longer have a dog in this fight.

“We can't touch hiring. [Daley] can't touch hiring. [Monitor] Noelle Brennan does the hiring, so what do we care?” said Ald. Tom Allen (38th).

Sun Times, June 24, 2010.


Shakman Decrees and all of their nepotism and in-bred pay-to-play looters of the tax-payers need to go!

Click my post title and monitor YOUR Cook County Shakman Monitors!!!

Happy Birthday to The Beautiful and Talented Terry Sullivan!

Happy Birthday to the most beautiful, chic, dignified, kind, devout, and musical woman on terra firma!

Marie Terry Sullivan graced this earth with her eternally tiny feet only a few semesters ago.

Thank you for your warmth, trust and indulgence from a man who is lacking in most of the adjectives above.

Happy Birhday, Terry! Now, get down off of the bar, Sophisticated Lady.




When You Are Old -Bill Yeats

WHEN you are old and gray and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;

How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;

And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face among a crowd of stars.

Australian Drunk Not as Stupid as University of Illinois

I bought BP shares in April of last year.

I worked for John McCain.

I went Sturgeon Fishing with my face.

I entertained myself by Casino gambling.

I eat bacon and lard sandwiches.

I drive the speed limit and stay in my lane on Vincennes Ave..

I read Huffington Post and Progress Illinois

but I never would have fired Kenneth Howell, nor would I get a skin full of booze and hop on the back of a Croc . . . I don't imagine I would ride Croc.

My Letter to University of Illinois President Michael Hogan Concering Catholic Professor Kenneth Howell's Firing

Dear President Hogan,

Congratulations of becoming President of University of Illinois.

The placement scandal was a feather in a whirlwind. The firing of a Catholic teacher of Catholic Studies following a smear of Hate Speech is your Oil Leak, Katrina, Tsunami.

I would take this matter a serious affront to Catholics and scholars of all faiths and inclinations. More importantly, you might make this crisis an opportunity study and consider the fatuous nature of neologisms like Inclusivity, Diversity and Hate Speech. It is an atrocity what academic charlatns have done to language and social intercourse.

President Hogan, I wish you the best. Let's see what you will do.

Sincerely,

Mr. Pat Hickey
10%%& S. Rockwell
Chicago, IL 60655

"The Idea of a University"by Newman and Then There's University of illinois

Catholics not wanted at University of Illinois!

Nor is there surely any thing derogatory to the position of a Catholic in such a proceeding. The Church has ever appealed and deferred to witnesses and authorities external to herself, in those matters in which she thought they had means of forming a judgment: and that on the principle, Cuique in arte sua credendum. She has even used unbelievers and pagans in evidence of her truth, as far as their testimony went. She avails herself of scholars, critics, and antiquarians, who are not of her communion. She has worded her theological teaching in the phraseology of Aristotle; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Origen, Eusebius, and Apollinaris, all more or less heterodox, have supplied materials for primitive exegetics. St. Cyprian called Tertullian his master; {7} St. Augustin refers to Ticonius; Bossuet, in modern times, complimented the labours of the Anglican Bull; the Benedictine editors of the Fathers are familiar with the labours of Fell, Ussher, Pearson, and Beveridge. Pope Benedict XIV. cites according to the occasion the works of Protestants without reserve, and the late French collection of Christian Apologists contains the writings of Locke, Burnet, Tillotson, and Paley. If, then, I come forward in any degree as borrowing the views of certain Protestant schools on the point which is to be discussed, I do so, Gentlemen, as believing, first, that the Catholic Church has ever, in the plenitude of her divine illumination, made use of whatever truth or wisdom she has found in their teaching or their measures; and next, that in particular places or times her children are likely to profit from external suggestions or lessons, which have not been provided for them by herself.

John Henry Cardinal Newman -The Idea of a University

A complaint was later made on behalf of a student in Dr. Howell's class objecting to the exposition of Catholic moral teaching contained in the professor's e-mail on the grounds that it constituted "hate speech". The complaint was circulated among university administrators and presented to Dr. Robert McKim, the head of UI's religion department, who met with Dr. Howell and informed him that he would not be asked back to teach future courses.

Dr. Howell offered to compromise by electing to refrain from discussed the subject of homosexuality in all future classes; an offer summarily rebuffed by McKim. Howell then appealed to his first amendment rights and the principles of academic freedom, pointing out that he had done nothing more than his university-approved job of presenting his students with the unembellished facts of Catholic moral doctrine. This plea was also ignored, and Howell was informed that McKim's decision not to renew his employment was final.

Dr. Howell has since related his dismissal to a number of fundamental religious disagreements between himself and Dr. McKim.

Examiner Cleveland

Yet, The University of Illinois summarily fired Professor Kenneth Howell over an obivious ambush by a student and his friend who found a willing heart in Howell's Department Chair, Robert McKim.

One of the great Victorian essays, found in the canon of every genuine English Department's curriculum was written by Catholic convert -John Henry Cardinal Newman - The Idea of University. That essay is a scholarly arugument for the development of a Catholic university in Ireland -University College Dublin -because Catholics were not welcome at Trinity College. Until that enterprise, Catholic intellectuals either 'took the soup' and affected Protestant devotion like Edmund Burke, or went to France for university education, like Daniel O'Connell.

Religious Toleration, like the Diversity chimera, is a parlor game. Robert McKim, who parses a fatuous and dodgy but fashionable religion presentation which is embraced by agnostic and aetheists and thus also Progressive secularists has a book on religious diversity coming out in 2011. This tome gives cover to the Bill Mahers of our culture as God, to McKim is very, very hidden.

Some Catholics could care less, they tend to be Democrats and elected officials, who also play ball with Gay Advocacy Agenda Groups and the Abortion Industry. They give little or no thought to religious convictions, unless trolling for votes in the 19th Ward or at the Father Perez Council Knights of Columbus and then tell Catholic Street Cred Yarns about Fenwick, De La Salle, or Decatur St. Teresa. Religion is only a button to push.

However, most Catholics live their faith as cops, firemen, teachers, tradesmen, civil servants, nurses and business people. They send their kids to Catholic grammar schools and high schools and nurture the Faith in their children. They tell their kids to remain faithful in this secular melange that we call American Life and kids find that they are as welcome as Amish Kids at Navy Pier, in the circle of the University. The Progressive bullying at the University level is real and empirically evident with this incident. The Faith is under fire.

Newman and Howell are Catholic intellectuals. The University of Illinois revealed that Catholics have no place in it's secularist, gutless, soulless and cowardly idea of a university.

Catholics are not welcome.


http://www.examiner.com/x-57178-Peoria-Religion--Politics-Examiner~y2010m7d12-Catholic-professor-dismissed-from-UI-for-teaching-Church-doctrine

Hey Rev. Didn't Slaves Used to Runaway To Ohio?

Jesse Jackson says the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers sees LeBron James as a "runaway slave" and that the owner's comments after the NBA forward decided to join the Miami Heat put the player in danger.

Now, I always thought Slaves ran away from the south to Ohio. Did I miss the full context of Reverend Jackson's latest step on the Old John D'Conqueroo?

Two Huge Self-Proclaimed Catholics on University Board of Trustees

Our great public university University of Illinois has Catholic Prep School Fenwick Grad Pat Quinn, Illinois Governor serving as Ex Officio member and a genuine Kennedy Catholic chairing most of the heavier-than-whale poop spots on the Board.

Pat Quinn is a great guy.

Chris Kennedy is . . . a Kennedy and an Illinois Panjandrum. He gets appointed to plum spots, because he is . . .well, . . . a Kennedy and he could not hold a political rally in an old timey phone booth.

A Catholic professor of Catholic Studies was fired for teaching Catholic Studies.

That seems like a good opportunity for two Catholics to kick up a great deal of sand. Cats or Kitties?

Catholics vote.

Catholics drop millions of dollars to every civic enterprise.

Catholics are being abused in the media, academia and in the courts it seems.

Catholics should wise up to themselves and their core beliefs.

Two Catholics need to get out in front of this abusive incident for a Catholic.

Quinn and Kennedy need to step-up.

Board of Trustees

The University of Illinois Board of Trustees consists of thirteen members, eleven who have official votes. Nine are appointed by the Governor for terms of six years, and three student trustees (one from each campus) are elected by referenda on their campuses for one-year terms. One of these student trustees is appointed by the Governor to have an official vote. The Governor serves as an ex officio member.
Members of the Board
Member Ex-Officio
Honorable Pat Quinn, Governor
Term 2005-2011
Frances G. Carroll, Chicago
Karen Hasara, Springfield
Carlos Tortolero, Berwyn
Term 2007-2013
Timothy N. Koritz, Roscoe
James D. Montgomery, Chicago
Lawrence Oliver II, Orland Park
Term 2009-2015
Christopher G. Kennedy, Kenilworth
Edward L. McMillan, Greenville
Pamela B. Strobel, Winnetka
Student Members (July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010)
Matthew M. Reschke, Urbana-Champaign
Bogdan "Dan" V. Zavorotny, Chicago
Derek R. Felix, Springfield

Officers of the Board
Chair: Christopher G. Kennedy
Treasurer: Lester H. McKeever, Jr.
Comptroller: Walter K. Knorr
University Counsel: Thomas R. Bearrows
Secretary: Michele M. Thompson

Committees of the Board of Trustees
Executive Committee
Christopher G. Kennedy
Edward L. McMillan
Pamela B. Strobel
Standing Committees
ACADEMIC AND STUDENT AFFAIRS
Karen Hasara, Chair
Frances G. Carroll
Timothy N. Koritz
Lawrence Oliver
Carlos Tortolero
Matthew M. Reschke
Bogdan V. Zavorotny
Derek R. Felix
AUDIT, BUDGET, FINANCE, AND FACILITIES
Edward L. McMillan, Chair
James D. Montgomery
Lawrence Oliver
Pamela B. Strobel
Derek Felix
GOVERNANCE, PERSONNEL, AND ETHICS
Pamela B. Strobel, Chair
Karen Hasara
James D. Montgomery
HOSPITAL
Timothy N. Koritz, Chair
Frances G. Carroll
Carlos Tortolero
Matthew M. Reschke
Bogdan V. Zavorotny
Representatives to External Boards
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS FOUNDATION
Christopher G. Kennedy
CIVIL SERVICE MERIT BOARD
Karen Hasara
James D. Montgomery
Lawrence Oliver
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
James D. Montgomery
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS RESEARCH PARK, LLC
Edward L. McMillan (chair)
ILLINOIS VENTURES, LLC
Edward L. McMillan
ILLINOIS BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Frances G. Carroll

Board of Trustees Office
Board of Trustees Office
352 Henry Administration Building, MC-350
506 South Wright Street
Urbana, IL 61801
217-333-1920

Stabat Mater - for Professor Kenneth Howell; Quinn and Kennedy Grow a Pair!

Huffington Post is up and spinning a very skewed justification of the firing of Professor Kenneth Howell by the bigots of the University of Illinois.

Governor Pat Quinn - grow a pair.

Illinois Professional Panjandrum Chris Kennedy - come out of your ivory 'whatever it is you own' and take action. You two gents play at being Catholic. Let's see something.

Try not to live up to my expectations. ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka kindly left me an e-mail telling me that he needs to look at the facts. Facts are troubling things to everyone but a Progressive.


Catholics need to slam shut their wallets to Planned Parenthood and GLTB Advocacy Fronts.


In the mean time.

University of Illinois Robert McKim - The Gay Agenda's Grand Inquisitor

Dr. Robert McKim of University of Illinois A face that would drive rats from a barn
Robert McKim is Head of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religious Studies and of Philosophy. He has a Ph.D. in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Yale University and has been a member of the UIUC faculty since 1982. His major research interests include philosophy of religion, the history of early modern philosophy (especially Berkeley), and applied ethics. He has recently taught courses in philosophy of religion and in environmental ethics. He is currently writing a book on the implications of religious diversity.

Diversity! One Must Love Diversity! How could one not! Diversity . . .Embraced by people who will never live near or engage socially with any residents of Chinatown, Pilsen, Englewood, Gresham, Roseland, Mount Greenwood, or Canarywille!

Our Orwellian Euphemism for Cow Pies! The U of I Big Chief Medicine Man ( religion head) Robert McKim is writing about religious diversity having fired a Catholic colleague! Witness the McKim Canon!!!!

<

span style="font-weight:bold;">Some Recent Publications by Robert McKim

Review of Problems of Religious Diversity by Paul Griffiths (Routledge, 2002) in Faith and Philosophy, October 2003, 496-500.

"The Goodness of the Real" in Sophia Volume 42, Number 2, October 2003, 172-78.

"Berkeley" in Encyclopedia of Ireland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 89. (The Encyclopedia of Ireland has also been published in Ireland by Gill and MacMillan.)

"The Hiddenness of God" (an excerpt from Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)) in Ten Essential Texts in the Philosophy of Religion: Classics and Contemporary Issues, edited by Steven M. Cahn (Oxford University Press, 2004), 494-499; in Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, Second Edition, edited by Steven M. Cahn (Oxford University Press, 2004) and in the Third Edition, 2009; also in Steven M. Cahn, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion: An Introductory Anthology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

"Berkeley's Notebooks" in The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley, edited by Kenneth P. Winkler (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 63-93.

"George Berkeley [Addendum]". The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edited by Donald M. Borchert. 2nd ed. 10 vols. (New York: Thomson Gale, 2006) Volume 1, 584-588.

Review of The Land We Share by Eric Freyfogle (Washington: Island Press/Shearwater Books, 2003) in The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Volume 20 Number 2, February 2007.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1486703p4450484/fulltext.pdf

“Christianity and Religious Pluralism” in Theology for Today, Volume 1 (Dublin: The Priory Institute, 2007) (prepared for BA distance learning programme, accredited University of Wales, Lampeter), 53-106.

“A Path to (and beyond) Tolerance” in Religious Tolerance through Humility: Thinking with Philip Quinn co-edited by David Basinger and James Kraft (Ashgate, 2008), 75-84.

“On Religious Ambiguity” Religious Studies Volume 44, Number 4, 373-392, December 2008.

“Responding to Religious Diversity: Some Possible Directions for the Interfaith Youth Core” Journal of College and Character, 11(1), Art. 9. DOI: 10.2202/1940-1639.1012 February, 2010. Available at: http://journals.naspa.org/jcc/vol11/iss1/9

On Religious Diversity Monograph forthcoming (in cloth and in paper) from Oxford University Press, 2011.

Quotes on God and Religion by McKim -

“We seem to have a remarkable capacity to find arguments that support positions which we antecedently hold. Reason is, to a great extent, the slave of prior commitments.” (p. ix). This is exactly what I said elsewhere.

“The majority of people get their religious beliefs from their upbringing, and they grow up to inhabit a religious world that feels as real and solid, or almost as real and solid, as the physical world.” (p. ix),

“The fact that god is hidden (if God exists) suggests that one ought to be wary of the claims that the theistic traditions make about God: they probably are claims that exceed what may be reasonably be said with confidence.” (p. 123).

“The implication is that theists ought to be skeptical of many of the claims about God that are made by the dominant theistic traditions, including their own tradition.” (p. 124).

“We should look with skepticism on the claims of those who believe that they have a clear account of God’s nature—who carry on, in short, as if God were not hidden.” (p. 124).

“A main project in this book is to present a case for tentativeness in beliefs about religious matters.” (p. 124)

“Responsible religious belief should involve dialogue, openness, exchange, open-ended exploration, and conversation with various other bodies of discourse. Anything less is parochial and unsatisfactory.” (p. viii).

Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity (Oxford, 2001). This is a book for every Progressive secularist as it debunks faith.

Here is the real Robert McKim -Departmen Cahir of Religion at University of Illinois

A complaint was later made on behalf of a student in Dr. Howell's class objecting to the exposition of Catholic moral teaching contained in the professor's e-mail on the grounds that it constituted "hate speech". The complaint was circulated among university administrators and presented to Dr. Robert McKim, the head of UI's religion department, who met with Dr. Howell and informed him that he would not be asked back to teach future courses.

Dr. Howell offered to compromise by electing to refrain from discussed the subject of homosexuality in all future classes; an offer summarily rebuffed by McKim. Howell then appealed to his first amendment rights and the principles of academic freedom, pointing out that he had done nothing more than his university-approved job of presenting his students with the unembellished facts of Catholic moral doctrine. This plea was also ignored, and Howell was informed that McKim's decision not to renew his employment was final.

Dr. Howell has since related his dismissal to a number of fundamental religious disagreements between himself and Dr. McKim.

Another Distinguished Professor - Like Billy Ayers, Y'all! - of the University of Illinois

AmadaunMcKim!
1. You're as thick as manure but only half as useful

2. A face that would drive rats from a barn

3. You are seed, breed and spawn of an English whore

4. I never forget an Irish face but in your case I'll make an exception

5. May you melt off the earth like snow off the ditch.

6. May your pipe never smoke, may your teapot be broke

7. May your spade never dig may your sow never pig

8. May the cat eat you and the devil eat the cat

9.When you were born you were so ugly the nurse slapped your mother

10. You're as sharp as a beachball

U of I Anti-Catholic Bigotry - The Fatal E-Mail and the Compliant Coward McKim

NOW, That's Progressive Americans!


This is a Full Text Reprint of both e-mails from the News Gazette

Professor Howell's E-Mail and subsequent Comments

E-mail that prompted complaint over UI religion class instructor

Other Related Content

Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
E-mail complaint from student about UI religion instructor
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 7:00am | Jodi Heckel
From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it's right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it's right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it's okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it's fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like "informed consent." Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that "informed consent" might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don't think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won't go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows "logically" that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn't answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

–

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John's Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Tags:
News Religion University of Illinois Champaign Champaign County Local Urbana
Login or register to post comments Printer-friendly version Send to friend
#1Judy Olson wrote 1 hour 36 min ago
It's obvious this guy has issues. The message purports in the beginning to be *about* utilitarianism, with homosexuality supposedly an example--not the point of the message. But he never mentions what i learned, at least, was the distinguishing feature of utilitarianism: the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. More strikingly, he *drops* utilitarianism part way through, never to return, and turns instead to "Natural Law"--making it clear that his purpose is not after all to explain utilitarianism but to make an argument about homosexuality grabbing at any philosophical structure that seems useful. And note that he's doing this on his off time in an overly--one might say obsessively--detailed message. Supplementing by his own admission an inadequacy in his lecture. I've known a few other religious closet cases in my life . . . I'm deeply alarmed by the absence of academic freedom for faculty members off the tenure track--but this guy's agenda alarms me too. Academic freedom is supposed to protect people whose arguments are *within* disciplinary norms.
Login or register to post comments
#2kheff wrote 1 hour 11 min ago
No, the email doesn't say it's about utilitarianism. It's clarifying a class discussion about homosexuality that brought up two views on the subject -- utilitarianism vs. natural law. The students receiving the email were IN the class, so probably grasped that, even if you didn't. And the professor did it in his "off time" because he was preparing the students for a final, and professors tend to send emails outside of class. His "agenda" is to teach the topic of the class -- Catholicism -- and his email explains what they ran out of class time to cover. His argument is within his discipline because it's about the religion he is teaching. Where is the problem?
Login or register to post comments
#3Stephen wrote 1 day 17 hours ago
I utterly disagree with the concepts that Professor Howell explains in this email (...that is to say, homosexuality is morally okay by me), but his dismissal is totally unjustified and a real educational loss. I am rapidly losing respect for U of I Champaign.
Let's review the purpose of a focused college religion class such as this (I have taken one). You take it to learn about a given religion. Not just that -- you want to try to understand the religion from the inside out, as if you were a follower of that religion. Of course you'll never fully understand a religion unless you join it, but the fact that Professor Howell is a practicing Catholic who shares his views with his students means that his students are privy to another level of understanding. They have a human example of Catholicism right there in the classroom! It's really sad that a university that thinks so highly of itself doesn't know an educational opportunity when it stares them in the face. Does U of I believe in REAL education or watered-down, politically correct education?
What has this professor done wrong? Since when has it been unacceptable for professors to profess their views, GIVEN that they allow their students to disagree with them and to express their disagreement? Professor Howell allowed for disagreement; he claims that he always made that clear to his students. All he asked of them is that they would learn the Catholic arguments and suspend their biases long enough to assess them objectively.
College courses SHOULD be controversial. A liberal arts education is about being exposed to ideas, contemplating them, accepting or rejecting them, and hopefully changing or solidifying your own position. The students in this class could have come away from it with much more self-checked, sound arguments for their beliefs, but it seems that they wasted their time bickering and being offended, instead.
This professor didn't coerce them to accept his views, but merely challenged them to hold their preexisting beliefs up against Catholic reasoning. What a perfect opportunity to strengthen one's pro-homosexuality stance!
That being said, I have a suspicion that this professor has his flaws as a teacher. Particularly, he seems to be poorly educated in the realm of human sexuality, which is unacceptable given that his subject and the subject of human sexuality clearly intersect. (Professors are supposed to be EXPERTS!) It seems that his squeamishness has held him back from really investigating the nature of homosexual relationships, which has seriously diminished the quality of his argument. See how he attempts an unconvincing and irrelevant argument about how anal sex (which he cannot muster the courage to type) is "sometimes" damaging to health. It's this unwillingness to learn about things he is not comfortable with that signifies that his arguments have not received adequately rigorous testing. What a good opportunity for students to see the value of testing arguments -- what a good opportunity to become better critical thinkers!
Login or register to post comments
#4NickfromPange wrote 1 day 21 hours ago
Even if you agree or disagree with his morals, I believe this email to be nothing but poorly researched crap that lacks actual scientific facts and truths. If anything he should have been fired for being a bad teacher.
Login or register to post comments
#5Tony wrote 1 day 21 hours ago
For some reason he happens to believe, as the Catholic Church says, that certain things are wrong. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he should still be allowed to clarify the Church's position on the issues.
Why is it that anti-Bush sentiments and such are the ones that go uncensored?
Login or register to post comments
#6David in Houston wrote 1 day 22 hours ago
Whenever someone uses obvious "slippery slope" arguments regarding man/child and man/dog sex, they lose all credibility. It really is beneath someone with a Ph.D. to grasp at such inane concepts to prove their point. There is a term "age of consent" that applies to all morally accepted sexual behavior. Children are intellectually, emotionally and physically incapable of consenting to adult sex. Does that really need to be explained?
There is an immense amount of scientific evidence that demonstrates that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that people are born with: identical twin studies, male birth order studies, gay/straight brain scan studies. To ignore this research does a disservice to the students, who might be struggling with their own sexual orientation issues.
The teacher also fails to acknowledge that some heterosexual couples participate in sodomy. Look up the word... they do. Based on his "theories", heterosexual sex is just as immoral as the homosexual version. Also, his reasonings behind why people get sex change operations is laughable. They do so because they feel they were born as the wrong gender. Not because they want to experience new ways to have kinky sex. This is just common sense and common knowledge.
Login or register to post comments
#7Karamazov wrote 10 hours 30 min ago
Dr. Howell was not using a "slippery slope" argument. He set up a logical syllogism and then replaced the terms to illustrate an example of the logic of utilitarianism, which is a valid logical move. It seems that he did this in order to show how such examples would hold true in a utilitarian structure. I may be wrong, but it seemed that Dr. Howell wanted nothing more than his reader to understand what they accept if they accept this utilitarian definition. He, probably being intelligent, wouldn't intentionally use a logical fallacy nor is it likely that he would accidentally slip into such an obvious one as the "slippery slope" argument. Read more cautiously next time when you begin reading an article that you know you are going to disagree with the author. To give anything less than the benefit of the doubt to the author, whom you may suspect but haven't confirmed has a sharp intellect, is intellectual dishonesty. A benefit you seem to have denied Dr. Howell when reading his section on sex changes, since he does not insinuate a specific reason for people's desiring sex changes other than that they have made a distinction between sexuality/the body and who they are as individuals in that we can "manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be."
Login or register to post comments
#8mspontiac wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
Good grief...I would hate to be in this class. The email alone put me to sleep halfway through.
Login or register to post comments
#9Becky08 wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
I agree that there was nothing wrong with this email. I even found it interesting to ponder the points made. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the idea of NMT, the man was not imposing his beliefs on the class or anyone else who may be reading this email now. I'm guessing had people not known he was Catholic, or had it been a protestant or atheist teaching the course, people would not have been so riled up. It is only because this man believes what he is teaching. And I would much rather take a course on Catholicism from a Catholic, just like I would rather take a class on Islam from a Muslim or Luther and the Reformation from a Lutheran, or a Queer Studies class from a homosexual. These people who believe in what is being taught in a class on that topic and experience it in their daily lives are (in general) more knowledgeable in the area.
And as for what you said Tony, I also agree that much worse has been said and nothing has happened. I was in a class where I was constantly belittled and openly harassed to the point of tears by the Professor for what seemed to be no good reason. Her derogatory treatment of me was actually detrimental to my grade as well. The entire class noticed it and commented on it and tried to come to my defense. At the end of the semester, after I received my grade, I brought it to the attention of the department and NOTHING was done about it. At all. I was waved off.
It seems to me, the University is off to persecute this poor man for doing what he was hired to do, and doing it well. Shame on you UofI. Shame on you.
Login or register to post comments
#10WRITETORIGHT wrote 2 days 9 min ago
No comment should be removed because the leftist socialist Democrats are engaged in deception and propaganda to promote only views that support so-called "acceptance" of homosexual sodomy. There was nothing hateful in the professor's e-mail. This smacks of totalitarian fascism in that the immoral homosexual-lesbian minority wish to silence all religious, scientific and philosophical viewpoints that object to their agenda. Homosexuality is immoral - that is not so-called "hate speech." Unfounded accusations like that are based upon shame and guilt on the part of homosexuals which they fantasize will disappear if they sanitize the universe of discourse and stiffle public debate. Our inalienable rights to freedoms of thought, speech, religion, expression, press, peaceable assembly and petitition cannot be abrogated simply because of a mere self-serving baseless accusation intended to silence legitimate opposing views. It is true: anal sex is unnatural; the anus is for excretion of wastematter. The vagina is a female sex organ created for the male penis. That is not so-called "hate speech." This is the stark truth, this is reality, this is science, this is biology. Homosexuals-lesbians wish to contrive a world of fantasy whereby everybody toes the line in using sanitized and sterile words like "gay," "alternative lifestyle," "same sex marriages," etc... instead of bringing "truth to power" as they so hypocritically proclaim regarding other subjects like apartheid. Homosexual sodomy is not only unnatural, but it is as immoral as it is anti-life, anti-science, anti-women, anti-biology, anti-logic and anti-good sense. This fascism must stop. My God, this is the United States of America, the original birthplace of spiritual liberty, religious freedom, and freedom of conscience! Homosexuality is immoral, wrong and unnatural. That is not so-called "hate speech." That is reality, truth, and real scientific, common sense. We pray all of you come to your senses and repent, instead of taking pride in an abomination that spreads disease and death!
Login or register to post comments
#11bgrave1 wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
<<<<<< Homosexuality is immoral, wrong and unnatural. That is not so-called "hate speech." That is reality, truth, and real scientific, common sense. We pray all of you come to your senses and repent, instead of taking pride in an abomination that spreads disease and death! >>>>>>>
What part of that was not "Hate Speech"?
So, would you say "Because God wants it that way" or "Because Nature wants it that way"?
There is always the "This is my opinion and I can't speak for others" comment..... I imagine you won't go that way though.....
My next 2 pennies....
Login or register to post comments
#12WRITETORIGHT wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
We are human beings who know right from wrong, truth from falsehood, and good from evil. For example, theft is wrong, immoral, unlawful, and illegal, and we have laws, courts and jails to prove it. Consequently, the real question is: As every specific organ is created for its own respective biological function in processing the laws of thermodynamics for affirming and sustaining natural life and morally right living that must go hand-in-hand, then, for breakfast, do you drink water, milk or juice, or do you drink sulfuric acid from your battery? You can't drink sulfuric acid for breakfast, thus, in this context, it is not a matter of opinion. Likewise, you will run from carbon monoxide once you know it's there, and will rush to oxygen in order to live. Thus, there are absolute standards of right and wrong sustained by natural law for life-affirming moral liberty and political freedom. We are not monkeys, we are Human beings created in the image and unto the likeness of God, from whom, as the Declaration of Independence firmly states, our inalienable rights originate. Thus, there are willful choices such as anal sex that are both immoral and unnatural, as practiced in homosexuality and lesbianism.
Login or register to post comments
#13Stephen wrote 1 day 16 hours ago
WRITETORIGHT:
I would argue that right and wrong are either taught to a person or derived from natural empathy. (That is, even if a person isn't taught that torturing an animal is wrong, they might refrain from doing so because they can feel the animal's pain empathetically.) Anyone who has a healthy relationship with their natural empathy would be overjoyed that people who are not meant to be with people of the opposite sex can still find fulfillment with people in the same condition.
I think your heart is really, really hardened.
Login or register to post comments
#14NickfromPange wrote 1 day 21 hours ago
Honestly if this isn't hateful then what is?
But you are right, we are human beings, and we have god given rights. So why are you trying to deny the rights of some of god's children to express the sexual orientation they were born with?
Login or register to post comments
#15bgrave1 wrote 2 days 18 min ago
There are many great points to this email. For the class that this email was generated, you are lucky to have a progressive minded instructor. The point was the same but in such a fresh description.... Now on to the point that I have a concern about.... For as long as I can remember, when sexuality discussions reach a fever pitch, one side inevitably goes to the olde "It's because GOD wants it that way" comment. The down side of course to this comment is that the discussion is over. Now it seems that like minded individuals that usually resort to said comment will now feel poised to use the new catchy one, "Because NATURE wants it that way." It nevers fails to amaze and impress me how such a circular issue gets so much attention. My 2 pennies.......
Login or register to post comments
#16Tony wrote 2 days 40 min ago
You have every right to hold your views as Dr. Howell does to hold his. For a professor that welcomes all kinds of viewpoints like him and is forthcoming in his view that he personally believes in certain things but not requiring anyone else to do the same- I think he has every right to let people know about where he stands on the issues
Login or register to post comments
#17freethot wrote 2 days 17 hours ago
"Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."
Sorry, but I disagree. "Natural reality" in this context is religious belief or dogma. Natural moral law is based in religion. True natural reality would state that there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being. If two consenting adults want to have sex, same gender, that is their moral decision, not yours. There is evidence of same sex activity in other animals, so wouldn't that be "natural reality". Catholic thought is just that.
Login or register to post comments
#18kheff wrote 2 days 12 hours ago
"Natural law" is based upon nature. Natural law regards how our bodies are designed to operate. Social realities might not follow natural law, but it is still "natural reality" that our bodies are designed for heterosexual sex and that homosexual sex does not follow natural law. You don't have to agree with the professor's conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong, but you can't argue with natural law. He's right. Whether you view homosexual acts as morally right or wrong depends, just as the professor stated, on whether your views are in line with natural law or utilitarianism. And he doesn't specify that you have to choose one path or the other.
In a course based upon Catholic thought, it sort of makes sense that he would teach the basics of Catholic morality, don't you think?
Login or register to post comments
#19mellamoandres wrote 2 days 9 hours ago
Tell me, what does natural moral law say when nature itself supports homosexuality? Now, I know that this source is from Wikipedia, but bear with me.
The average Wikipedia article contains, on average, one fourth as many errors as the average Encyclopedia Britannica article. -Anyone- can edit it, which means that articles are usually kept current. It also takes the patent of information away from people with Ph.D.s, which is good, because a title does not necessarily indicate actual expertise. To Wikipedia, all users are created equal, so if people with doctorates are worried about losing their status as experts, they should stay on their toes.
Even if you want to discredit Wiki-knowledge, the information in the article came from actual sources. It doesn't take a lot of digging to discover that the scientific community has discovered real homosexual occurrences in the animal kingdom, and not just in a few isolated cases. It has even been suggested that extra-heterosexual behavior is universal in the animal kingdom. Complementary or not, same-sex pairings exist in--no--throughout nature.
So we are left with a small problem:
1. Natural law (according to homophobic people--in this example, Catholic doctrine) claims that sex should only occur between two complementary organisms. The author of this e-mail makes a special point to say that complementary means different-but-compatible, with an emphasis on different. Never mind all of the loopholes that this leaves for the likes of pedophilia, cross-species relations, etc. (none of which should be compared to homosexuality).
2. Nature (according to hundreds, possibly thousands of independent individuals and organizations studying animal behavior) demonstrates homosexual behavior in virtually all observably cognizant, sexually-reproducing species. In other words, homosexual sex is a universal part of nature.
3. Animals, lacking free will, must follow natural law, without exception.
One of these must be wrong. We'll solve this problem with an analysis of the world as it would be if we assume that these three options are wrong, starting with option one.
1. Natural law does not oppose homosexuality. Indeed, since homosexual sex may be seen in every member of the animal kingdom, homosexual sex is just as much in communion with the law of nature as heterosexual sex.
2. Nothing ever happened. It's not true that between 30 and 75 percent of all sexual interactions between giraffes are male-to-male. That's just an optical illusion. ... They're shaking hands! That's it. They must be shaking hands. ... ... ... Of course, it would be very difficult to prove this hypothesis, because in trying to prove it, you might disprove yourself. Virtually everyone in animal husbandry knows that sometimes, your bull is just gay.
3. Natural law says that homosexuality is wrong, and homosexuality in animals is proof that they actually have free will. Animals, like humans, have the ability to choose between right and wrong. Extending this into the metaphysical universe (We're still talking about Catholicism, too.), this means that animals are entitled to an eternity in Heaven, should they choose good, and an eternity in Hell, should they choose evil. In that case, animals should be given full rights of any Christian, including full inclusion in the seven sacraments.
Obviously, options 2 and 3 are ridiculous. Natural law does not say that homosexuality is wrong. Instead of deciding what natural moral law says, perhaps you should ask your resident biologist to make sure that these things don't actually occur in nature, before you make this assumption.
= = =
Disclaimer: I am currently converting to Catholicism, but this particular element I do not agree with. I think that this is another example of human fallibility, such as the arrest of Galileo, the Inquisition, the crusades, or the Holy Wars. The Catholic Church is not perfect, but it is very good. They are horribly misguided when it comes to sexuality, but even the most promiscuous of us only spend a fraction of our lifetimes having sex. I figure that all of the things the Church has done right more than make up for the few things it's doing wrong. I pray for the enlightenment of the clergy every day.
As for biology, it has always been a small passion of mine. It's a shame that people don't really understand it very well, though. See, science is the study of the physical world as it exists. If you believe that God created the world, then God created the world as it exists. Science tells us that that includes the Big Bang Theory*, evolution, and homosexuality among animals. If your religious view of the world is not in communion with the actual world, then you cannot possibly be in communion with the God who made the world as it exists. God made the universe with the Big Bang Theory. He populated the Earth with speciation. (Genesis is not a history lesson.) God made homosexual animals and homosexual humans. Making them deny their sexuality and replace it with another sexuality is morally wrong, and I would even say that it's offensive to God.
= = =
Footnotes:
* Do not confuse the scientific word theory, i.e. an explanation of how something in nature happens using rigid standards and thousands of peers forming a crucible of reason in order to find actual truth, with a semantic theory, i.e. a conjecture or a stab in the dark. Scientific theories are explanations of how things happen. Scientific laws are statements of things that happen. For example, a scientific law would be worded thus: "Evolution occurs." A scientific theory would explain how evolution happens. Scientific theories are not lower than scientific laws. They do not become scientific laws. In many cases, they are more important than scientific laws, because we use scientific theories in our practical application of science.
Login or register to post comments
#20kheff wrote 2 days 9 hours ago
You seem to be confusing "nature" and "natural law." If you are actually interested in the difference, you could do some research and understand it. Natural law is a fascinating topic. An email comment won't do it justice. Or, even better, ask the professor, who has spent much of his life researching it and is, moreso than the rest of us, an expert on the topic.
On a side note, unrelated to the content of this article and specific to the previous post, I wouldn't recommend becoming Catholic if you disagree with the Church, especially on issues so important as sexual ethics. The Catholic Church isn't really a cafeteria style religion. It's more take it or leave it, IMHO. You either believe in the authority of the Church or you don't.
Login or register to post comments
#21kheff wrote 2 days 1 hour ago
Also note, natural law is based upon nature, but is not the same as nature. Finding an example of something in nature does not make it permissible for human beings. Many animals in nature eat their young. Many animals consume what they defecate. Many animals destroy the handicapped among them. Finding it in nature does not make it a correct action for human beings. And human beings are not the same as all other organisms in makeup or in actions. Thus nature is not natural law, but natural law has its roots in nature. Perhaps that will give you a start on the topic.
Login or register to post comments
#22increvable wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
Also note, natural law is based upon nature, but is not the same as nature. Finding an example of something in nature does not make it permissible for human beings.
Now you're introducing another set of unexamined standards to allow you to pick and choose from the examples available in nature. This rhetorical strategy is called "moving the goalposts".
Login or register to post comments
#23kheff wrote 1 day 22 hours ago
Saying natural law is not the same as nature isn't exactly "moving the goalposts." It's stating the fact that they are not the same thing. I never stated examples from nature as evidence, just said that they are not necessarily evidence of natural law. As I stated before, if you are interested in natural law, you research more about it. You aren't going to have a very thorough understanding of it through reading comments on an article, nor can the concept be thoroughly explained here.
Login or register to post comments
#24bgrave1 wrote 1 day 23 hours ago
So is this natural?
http://purinaanimalallstars.yahoo.com/?v=7481621
Lets at least all take a moment to laugh..... Then back to discussion....

E-mail complaint from student about UI religion instructor

Other Related Content

Instructor of Catholicism at UI claims loss of job violates academic freedom
E-mail that prompted complaint over UI religion class instructor
Fri, 07/09/2010 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette
Prof. McKim,

This past semester, a friend of mine took RLST 127: Introduction to Catholicism. Throughout the semester, he would consistently tell me how the teacher, who I believe is a priest at the Newman Center, would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class. Many times, my friend (whom I wish to remain anonymous) said the instructor would say things that were inflammatory and downright insensitive to those who were not of the Catholic faith–it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic. Anyways, my friend informed me that things got especially provocative when discussing homosexuality. He sent me the following e-mail, which I believe you will agree is downright absurd once you read it.

I am in no way a gay rights activist, but allowing this hate speech at a public university is entirely unacceptable. It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution's mission and principles.

I have Cc'd Leslie Morrow, director of the LGBT Resource Center, on this e-mail as well as (name redacted), former features editor at the Daily Illini (I'm sure they'd like to hear about this), and Siobhan Somerville, a former teacher of mine and the founder of the queer studies major.

I didn't go to Notre Dame for a reason,

(name redacted)

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Tags:
News Religion University of Illinois Champaign Champaign County Local Urbana
Login or register to post comments Printer-friendly version Send to friend
#1skiparoo wrote 5 hours 26 min ago
time to start a new search and hire this professor back, asap!
Login or register to post comments
#2SuzyCCC wrote 1 day 16 hours ago
By the time students reach college, they are considered adults in most states. Reading the emails, it is impossible for all but the most myopically sensitive readers to see anything but a statement of Catholic teaching from Howell, and nothing but overstating from the student. I think an adult making an accusation like this should stand up and make himself known. The accusation is 3rd hand, and the evidence does not support it. If I were an attorney, I'd beg Howell to let me have his case.
And the first thing I would prove in court through testimony would be that these two students who were "raised Catholic" and "didn't go to Notre Dame for a reason" knew exactly what they were signing up for, expected an easy A, didn't get it, and are now shooting the messenger.
Login or register to post comments
#3Falcor wrote 2 days 1 hour ago
If you are not a gay rights activist why did you copy the email to the media, the director of the LGBT Resource Center, and the founder of the queer studies major? Furthermore, did you confront the professor that sent the email that offended your friend? It seems like your actions are meant to cause a commotion, but what are your reasons?
Login or register to post comments
#4kheff wrote 2 days 13 hours ago
The student writes, "Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another." How do you figure? It might offend you that the professor does not approve of homosexual acts, but you can't argue that homosexual acts are in line with natural law. Homosexual acts DO violate natural laws. Arguing to the contrary indicates a lack of understanding of what natural law means, not an error on the part of the party you argue against. You don't have to like the fact, and you may argue that homosexuality is not against social laws, but it is a fact that it's against natural law, like it or not. This student comes across sounding ridiculous.
Professor Howell is neither "insensitive" nor being "inflammatory" by stating the facts of the Catholic Church's beliefs, which is the purpose of the class. Having a course in Catholicism does not mean the University advocates that religion any more than having courses in Islam and other religions means it advocates those religions. Does the writer of the email not understand the purpose of religion courses is to educate, not to give everyone warm fuzzies? Apparently not -- and apparently, the Department of Religious Studies doesn't think so anymore either.
The student clearly isn't interested in promoting independent thought if it's offensive to him. Let's try to find him a class that makes him feel better.
Login or register to post comments
#5CrazyIvan wrote 2 days 15 hours ago
The student's email brings to mind the following assessment:
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
The scary thing is that there is nothing even remotely nuanced about this situation.
1. Professor writes email to students encouraging them to think critically about the positions they espouse. In it, he dares to call into question the basis for modern sexual morality, esp. the morality of homosexual behavior.
2. Student gets offended because the Professor would dare to question something he practices.
3. Student's friend, via hearsay from the student, writes an email and accuses the professor of hate speech on said hearsay.
4. Professor is sacked.
What is it that we are missing here?
You know, for someone who is "in no way a gay rights activist", he sure seems to know a lot of people who are. Oh wait, it's his big in! Put a Catholic scalp on that belt, brutha!!!
Way to have a backbone, Professor McKim! And way to avoid a lawsuit, or the loss of funding, UI!
Perhaps a more appropriate name for the Newman Center would be The St. Thomas More Center. A lot of parallels here with his story.
Toodles!
Login or register to post comments
#6Tony wrote 2 days 22 hours ago
This email is absurd and misrepresents the facts. I can't believe the religious studies department would cave into people who obviously don't respect the true 'marketplace of ideas' the university should represent!
Login or register to post comments
#7lhamil948 wrote on July 09, 2010 at 10:07 am
"it should be noted that my friend and I were both brought up Catholic." Call me confused, but if you were raised Catholic, how can the statements made by Prof. Howell be such a shock to you that it prompts you to write this email? If you were raised Catholic, you should be fully aware of what the Church does condone and what it does not. Your friend made the choice to take an Introduction to Catholicism class. No one forced him to enroll and sit through the lectures.
Login or register to post comments
#8mclark486 wrote on July 09, 2010 at 8:07 am
I'm sorry, but geesh! You go to a class about Introduction to Cathoicism and you get offended when you hear something you dont' like? It would be like me, a person of faith, getting offended when I hear something in a class about Introduction to homosexuality. I would EXPECT to hear things I probably didn't like to, but I expect that as part of the class. We are all adults and make our own decisions and I don't always like what I hear. I work at a University as well, and at least once a week, I hear adversisments about LBGA. Do I get out on a soapbox or send e-mails to 10 people that express my irritaion about what I saw/heard? NO, I suck it up and realize I work at a University and will hear ALL TYPES of viewpoints.

University of Illinois is a Disgrace - Anti-Catholic Bigots Top to Bottom!

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same." Ken Howell* -Professor University of Illinois responding to an e-mail ambush question from a student and the student's friend was offended.

Hate speech according to the fine folks at University of Illinois.

A Professor, a practicing Roman Catholic,teaches a course about Catholicism and Modern Culture. A student asks a question via e-mail. The student's friend sees the e-mail, though he was not involved in the exchange. A University of Illinois colleague intercepts the ambush question and gets Ken Howell fired for promoting hate speech.

Hate Speech is a Progressive parlor game. It is bullied into law and is used to drive wedges between neighbors. Hate Speech is only important when Progressives determine for whom the Bell Shall Toll. It tolls for Catholics, it tolls for devout religious Jews, it tolls for any person who finds abortion a Prime Offence and it tolls for anyone who disagrees that marriage should be between "Non-Complementary" Human Beings.

Catholics, bishops down to little girls in First Communion dresses must shut up, or fully agree that gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and redistribution of wealth are just wonderful.

Professor Ken Howell is getting pay back for John "Progressive Educational Icon" Scopes. Monkey Time!

The ACLU will not aid Ken Howell - it will take the cause of the anonymous e-mail punks.

Keep Professor Howell in our prayers folks - he is going to become the Jon Burge of Gay Advocacy politics. They have more money than the Vatican to destroy this poor man.

Robert McKim, the religion department head and the louse who helped ambush Kenneth Howell, is Darwinian Champ - a lower life form pretending to be a bi-ped.

The University of Illinois is a disgrace.


*

Kenneth J. Howell, Ph.D. , Director & Senior Fellow, Institute of Catholic Thought
kenneth.howell@sjcnc.org


In addition to being the Director and a Senior Fellow of the Institute of Catholic Thought, Dr. Howell is also an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Program for the Study of Religion in the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell studied theology at Westminster Theological Seminary where he concentrated in biblical languages and systematic theology.

In 1978, he was ordained a Presbyterian minister and served parishes in Florida and Indiana. After completing his Ph.D. in linguistics at Indiana University, he taught Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. His teaching duties involved theological research which led to his conversion to Catholicism in 1996. During this time, he obtained another Ph.D. in the history of Christianity and Science from the University of Lancaster (U.K).

Dr. Howell is the author of four books and numerous articles. God's Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science (University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), Mary of Nazareth: Sign and Instrument of Christian Unity (Queenship Press, 1998) is a scriptural study of Marian doctrine. Meeting Mary Our Mother in Faith (Catholic Answers Press, 2003), Questions College Students Ask…about God, Faith, and the Church (co-authored with Christine Pinheiro) (Champaign, IL: The St. John Institute of Catholic Thought, St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, 2006), The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2006).