This is the flyer that Patrick Henry College officials were handing out to the media on April 12.
As you can see from the bolded text, the administration of PHC was more interested in falsely maligning Equality Loudoun than in explaining why they were refusing hospitality to Soulforce. Fortunately, most of our local media seem capable of navigating the internet in order to do their own research.
Here is our actual commenting policy, which appears below each post:
This space belongs to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and allied community. We welcome all in the larger community who wish to engage in honest, principled discussion of the sometimes controversial matters posted here. We have zero interest, however, in “debating” people who believe that we don’t or shouldn’t exist. That is not what this space is for. It is our home, and Equality Loudoun will administer it accordingly. Abusive or fraudulent posts will simply be removed. Other than that, please be kind to each other and enjoy this forum.
Here is our commenting policy, as edited by the “Office of Communications, Patrick Henry College”:
This space belongs to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and allied community. We have zero interest…in “debating” people who believe that we don’t or shouldn’t exist. That is not what this space is for. It is our home, and Equality Loudoun will administer it accordingly. Abusive or fraudulent posts will simply be removed.
This represents the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. Since our explicit statement that we welcome honest, principled discussion with those who may take different positions doesn’t support PHC’s communication objective for this flyer, they removed it – without ellipses to indicate that they had done this creative editing.
Even if one were to take our policy, as edited by PHC, at face value, the statement that it represents “identical restrictions” to their own hysterical reaction to Soulforce is transparently false.
A cursory review of the comments on this site demonstrates anything but a refusal to engage those with other points of view. The boundaries that we “enforce,” by means of defining our terms in the course of discussion, have to do with foundational assumptions that are not subject to debate. Defining those boundaries in our commenting policy is merely a truth-in-advertising tool, so that anti-gay activists will not make the mistake of thinking that abusive behavior will be tolerated here. We certainly don’t dismiss or reject comments in which people talk about their own experiences.
If Patrick Henry College had taken a similar approach to the Soulforce Equality Ride visit, it would have looked like this: They would have welcomed the visitors to share their stories and point of view, while maintaining that “the convictions that define Patrick Henry College” are not subject to debate. Since the Equality Riders were not interested in engaging them in debate, but rather in dialogue, there would have been no contradiction of either party’s position.
The real problem, I think, is that the administration of PHC honestly doesn’t understand what dialogue means.
They consistently use the terms “dialogue” and “debate” as if they are interchangeble; they offered a “formal debate” as an “alternative” to the dialogue requested by Soulforce; and most tellingly, they describe that dialogue as “a manipulative form of political theater.”
Given the transparency of Soulforce visits to other colleges, it is very clear that the dialogue they are talking about involves exchanging stories and listening to each other. It’s otherwise known as conversation.
It takes a small mind indeed to characterize the honest sharing of personal experience by other human beings as “a manipulative form of political theater.”
If this kind of intellectual dishonesty and callousness is what students at PHC are currently being taught, the chances of the college becoming the “Christian Ivy League” are slim.
Doug,
I think you’re missing the point. PHC is trying to educate students in academics and Christianity, and to train those students to combat what they see as anti-Christian viewpoints. A good trainer does not put one whose training is incomplete up against a fully-trained and experienced opponent.
Why were the Riders unwilling to debate offcampus?
Can someone help me understand which translation of the bible would make their misquoting/misrepresentation of the commenting policy permissable?
No, Doug, it is simply that the student does not yet have the knowledge and experience to counter the arguments of their opponent. That opponent opposes what and how PHC teaches its students, and opposes its very existance as a Christian college.
Doug,
I hate playing the anti-troll roll but I must. Please do not respond to Jack. His behavior demonstrates that he does not read this blog to deepen his understanding of our community and he does not comment to enter dialogue and foster understanding. He comes here to pick fights and waste our time.
I do have to support Jonathan’s claim that “we welcome honest, principled discussion with those who may take different positions.” At least they try to tolerate me. 🙂
Some blogs, such as Virginia “Progressive,” simply delete posts with “inconvenient truths” they do not like, and others ban those whose opinions they do not like.
Dang, our posts crossed. Just when I was saying you tolerate me. Oh, well.
I would expect you to welcome my comments and discussion. It will allow you to hone your arguments before you have to face PHC graduatates who are actually trained for this.
Jack,
I will reply for the purpose of illustration. You ask:
The mission of the ride was reported here on a post that you commented to three times. The “debate” issue was discussed here and here and here and here
We like to say the question was asked and answered. You may also want to check out David’s LTE in last Friday’s Purcellville Gazette which answered the debate question again.
Respectfully sir Jack, may I please be released from your lord’s “Google Bitch” service?
It is behavior like PHC’s that have me using a small c when I call them “christians”. They don’t deserve to be called after Christ, who was kind and tolerent of all beings.
As far as Jack is concerned, I believe I know your bloviating from novatownhall.com and nothing said here will change your mind. Discussion is for those willing to open their mind and receive and consider the other viewpoint. That’s not what you are up to, Jack and we all know it. However, you’ll be tolerated and welcomed here more than any of EL would be welcomed elsewhere.
If Christ had shown up, as an unknown, at PHC’s door, with long hair and sandals, wearing a toga,looking the hippie, would they let Him in? Just think about that.
“what Soulforce is interested in is dialogue and reconciliation, not debate.”
That says WHAT they want. I asked WHY they were unwilling to accept something else.
If you are hungry, and want an apple, and someone says, “I won’t give you my apple, but you can have this pear instead.” Do you refuse the pear and insist on the apple you will never get? What’s wrong with the pear?
Robin:
Jesus was NOT “kind and tolerant” of everyone. Have you ever read of the moneychangers at the Temple? He did not tolerate sin, either. If you read the parable of the wedding feast to which all are invited, you will see that the man who did not dress appropriately was thrown out. All are invited, but it is not a come-as-you-are party.
Jesus dressed as was normal for His day. Why would you expect Him to do otherwise today?
If you know me from NovaTownHall, you will know that we have never told zimzo to go away, nor banned him, nor deleted his posts. And zimzo is far more insulting than I am.
Jonathan:
Please don’t try to police this forum too much. It’s really up to each individual how, if at all, they choose to respond to other commenters. As long as it stays respectful and free of pornographic content, I don’t feel the need to tell anyone else what to do.
What I have chosen to do is to set an example of not obediently responding to any and all questions. I set the terms of debate in which I participate, as per our commenting policy. I do not have the time to be anyone’s Google bitch.
The continued repetition of the “debate at a neutral location” canard does beg the question of why the Patrick Henry College administration did not accept our invitation to dinner and dialogue at The White Palace Restaurant – surely a neutral location. They could have proposed, and we would have accepted, that we co-sponsor the event and allow them co-equal input into the program.
I suspect that the problem was not one of location, but one of not having complete control over the script.
Of course. The Riders want to control the script, too. Neither side was willing to cede control to the other, or to compromise.
Not true, Jack. On many of the campuses the Equality Ride has visited, they have been invited into classroom settings, forums, and other kinds of structured situations in which the format was completely controlled by the college. The only aspect the Riders have control over is their own words.
Meanwhile, Tim has asked a pretty darn good question, given PHC’s claim that all of their actions are biblically based:
I see that no one has attempted to answer this yet. Jack, you seem pretty confident in your biblical literacy; would you like to take a stab at it?
Joe and Concerned,
Thanks for your kind comments. I do hope that this will be a learning experience and that there will be another chance for real dialogue. Through this debacle I have been exposed to more thoughtful, principled Patrick Henry students and alumni than I had thought possible. I’ve certainly learned something.
I’m really not interested in slamming PHC just for the sake of slamming it, and look forward to moving on to other topics our readers may be more interested in. But this misquotation thing couldn’t pass without remark. It’s good to know others agree.
On that note, see this post at Reason and Revelation.
“On many of the campuses the Equality Ride has visited, they have been invited into classroom settings, forums, and other kinds of structured situations in which the format was completely controlled by the college. ”
So why were they not willing to do so with PHC?
“Which translation of the bible would make their misquoting/misrepresentation of the commenting policy permissable?”
I suspect they do not think they were misrepresenting this site. I think they erred in the ignorance of haste. They would have had to go back some to read my old comments, because I had not commented here since sometime around the election, I think. As such, they would indeed have found little dissent on this site.
As I have said before, this is why we ask forgiveness of sins both known and unknown. Many times we sin without knowning it.
(of course, the question arises, “which translation of the Bible makes exceptions for ‘committed relationships’ that makes homosexual sex not a sin?”)
I would also like to point out that “Concerned Alumna” at least knows her Latin. Perhaps she can teach the Riders some the next time they’re here.
Asked and answered.
Jack, you are grasping at straws. It is nearly painful to watch.
Surely you realize that you are not the only dissenting commenter here? This site is being pored over daily by not only PHC, but by Farris’ other organization, the Home School Legal Defense Association. Not being idiots, we do track IP addresses. Some of the comments are even from Patrick Henry students.
Do you have anything to offer this conversation other than this fluff?
Answered where?
I will trust your assertions about IP addresses, although it seems a bit paranoid to me.
I must say you’ve got my curiousity up. Why would the Home School Legal Defense Association care about Equality Loudoun?
I truly appreciate and respect the remarks by Concerned Alumna, as those were the questions that ran through my mind as I read the press release and posted here. What concerns me more that intellectual dishonesty, is the potential of spiritual dishonesty. As for Jack’s comment that “I suspect that they do not think they were misrepresenting this site….”, if the statements made by PHC are indicative of their exegetical analytics on the writings by Equality Loudoun or this web site, it provides me further confidence (in addition to a strengthening of my faith) that they are likely equally in error with respect to the biblical statements regarding homosexuality.
Tim, you would make a lousy poker player, figuring probabilities that way. The Biblical concept that homosexual acts are sinful goes back milennia. It is not unique to PHC, and requires no bizarre interpretation of the Bible.
In never said that loving someone of the same sex was a sin. Having sex with someone of the same sex is.
FYI, the words of both Jesus and Paul have for many hundreds of years been interpreted
as withdrawing the dietary laws. Being the sacrifice for our sins, Jesus made the ritual laws moot. The moral laws still stand. That homosexual acts are widespread does not make them less sinful. Adultery is even more widespread than homosexuality. Is adultery not sinful?
If the prohibition on homosexual acts from Deuteronomy no longer applies, does the restriction on marrying one’s sister still apply? What about the prohibition against marrying a woman and her daughter? What about the one against marrying two sisters? Do they still apply?
How is a command ever allegorical?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Why would the Home School Legal Defense Association care about Equality Loudoun?
Now, that’s quite a good question, isn’t it, especially since EL takes no position on homeschooling. I see no reason that we would be opposed to it. I know a lot of homeschooling families, and some kids are being homeschooled because of anti-gay harassment that the public schools refused to address properly. I personally see it as a matter of what’s in the best interest of each child. Maybe the answer has to do with the activities of HSLDA that go beyond the scope of homeschooling.
If you are planning to debate Tim on biblical interpretation, I hope you have a better argument prepared than that your opinion “goes back millenia,” because there’s considerable evidence that it doesn’t. Beyond that, while I don’t know anything about exegetical analysis, I do know that the God to whom this rather specific and poorly translated proscription is attributed is not the God I know.
Try to become, if only for a moment, like a little child so that your mind can be open to things you don’t already “know.” Do you believe that God created us, and everything else in the universe? Do you believe that God is with us, here and now? So God created us as intelligent beings, with the ability to learn and think critically. Also as beings who need, in order to be whole and healthy, community, emotional closeness, and sexual intimacy with other human beings. That’s just the way we are made.
So, the way you tell it, God decided to made some of us sexually and emotionally oriented toward people of the same sex, but at the same time forbids us to have the kind of closeness and intimacy that human beings need in order to be whole and healthy (in other words, honest intimacy). If what you think is true, God set up a whole category of people to be, by definition, either “sinners” or truncated human beings.
You have described this as a “burden,” but it’s not the same as a burden that an individual might have to carry at some point in life, like a catastrophic loss, or even a debilitating birth defect. It’s the deliberate creation of an entire class of people designed from the get-go to be saddled with an untenable burden. This describes the behavior of a capricious, haughty God who plays silly games with our lives for no apparent reason. That is not the God I know. It sure as hell isn’t the God that Jesus embodies.
The proscriptions against sex between same sex partners are ritual laws (not “moral laws”). What is wrong with you?
“Do you believe that God created us, and everything else in the universe?” YES.
“Do you believe that God is with us, here and now?” YES
“So God created us as intelligent beings, with the ability to learn and think critically. Also as beings who need, in order to be whole and healthy, community, emotional closeness, and sexual intimacy with other human beings. That’s just the way we are made.”
AGREED.
“So, the way you tell it, God decided to made some of us sexually and emotionally oriented toward people of the same sex….”
NO, that’s the way YOU tell it. The way I tell it, there is evil in the world that “corrupts and destroys the creatures of God.” Such evil has taken the above-mentioned desire, which God gave us, and twisted it into a desire for that which is forbidden.
“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” Romans 1:26-27
“The proscriptions against sex between same sex partners are ritual laws (not “moral laws”).”
No, David, the ritual laws told us what to sacrifice when — how we were to atone for our sins. The moral laws are those that tell us what we need to atone for.
Jack,
You did say you are studying to be a scientist did you not? Is there a scientifically understandable explanation for variations in human sexuality, or is this all in the realm of “good” and “evil”?
I know of no “scientifically inderstandable explanation for variations in human sexuality.”
But let us say, for the sake of argument, that there is. What then? If something is scientifically understandable, does it mean that that thing is as God intended it to be?
Perhaps you should philosophize about that over on your blog. At least with respect to physical constants, properties of subatomic particles, atoms, electromagnetic and gravitational fields, strong at weak forces and mathematical equations that describe the behavior of all these things, didn’t God intend it to be that way?
That is why I study these things. It gives me a greater appreciation for the majesty of creation.
How do I translate that? Yes, Jack is going to opine about this issue on your blog?
And certainly you understand that our grasp of biology, of how embryos develop for example, has vastly increased since somebody wrote down the words “male and female he created them,” right? Because according to biology, it’s a little more complicated than that.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you agreed with the Albert Mohler position that it’s becoming impossible to ignore the evidence that sexual orientation is at least in part biologically determined. If that is the case, how could it be that God did not intend it? Mohler tries to justify continued condemnation of gay people by compartmentalizing identity and behavior, just as you do, so I assumed you were in agreement with him.
Does same-sex sexual behavior in the 2500+ other species of animal in which it has been observed also signify evil, or is that part of the natural world?
We both know that it is NEVER impossible for people to ignore what they do not like.
… how could it be that God did not intend it?
By being corrupted.
I do not “justify continued condemnation of gay people.” We are called to condemn sins, not sinners, because we are all sinners.
Does same-sex sexual behavior in the 2500+ other species of animal in which it has been observed also signify evil, or is that part of the natural world?
It is certainly possible. Why not, as another method for Satan to mislead us?
And the eagle, the symbol of our great country, is an abomination – so says the bible.
Can we give the bible chatter a rest? A person believes what a person believes and it is significantly apparent that there will never be agreement on bible interpretation, so what exactly is the point?
You’ll get the answer once you die … right? In the meantime, how can we work at fullfilling the promise of America? (hint – it is quite obvious from the writings and statements of our founding fathers that it is not biblical or any other religious dogmatic tome)
Franklin wanted the Turkey, a much more respectable bird:
haha Jack .. yes, I am aware of Ben’s missives about the turkey. The symbol that was actually first presented to Congress for approval was the woman Liberty holding a shield representing the states – much more fitting I would think for a Nation with a creed of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity. Hmmmm. Unfortunately, we were not France’s first choice in receiving the Statue of Liberty. Originally, it was to be a lighthouse for the Suez Canal, and after the commission didn’t come through with Egypt, well, the rest is history.
Anyway.
He was such a pragmatic character Ben … arguably much more of an American as we have now-a-days in a similar position, and seemingly not prone to misrepresentations due to vanity running amuck to the detriment of integrity … kinda what I think PHC is currently experiencing – vanity amuck causing a loss of integrity. We should feel obligated to help PHC out so that, if their students graduate and hold whatever office of influence they aspire, they don’t take the PHC administration’s example and withhold or alter important information relevant to context, maybe even causing irrepairable damage … maybe even causing death due to a breakdown of integrity. But then again, they have the current President and Administration as a stronger example.
All kidding aside, whatever the context, it is inexcusable for PHC, or anyone else, to misrepresent an organization’s mission statement. Which I believe is the original subject matter for this blog entry. I would still feel this way even if it were an organization that I am not involved in. Even your’s Jack. There is simply no reason for it and serves no purpose other than having the offender seem foolish and immature. Plain and simple.
We seem to go down this “religious rabbit hole” all the time. Are we without the ability to reasonably converse about an issue?
BTW, as I was passing through Spotsylvania last week I waved hello.
RUSS
Pingback: Women's Space/The Margins