Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[shiloh26]

Such a common and erroneous misconception.  Show me where the separation of church and state is found in the Constitution.  It's not, but feel free to look for it.  The First Amendment only says that the US would not make an official state church\religion.....would not endorse or approve such an entity. 

Dr. Christopher Wolfe....where are you, I need you right now.   

But you, too, have not addressed the rights of Polygamists or others that want changes to marriage.  Why are they getting denied these same rights you wish to bestow on others?  Why is it wrong for the Pope and society to decide but it's not wrong for another group to do the same thing for which they are blaming others?  It seems to me to be a totally hypocritical argument you make without addressing the bigger picture.


The tyranny of the majority is all well and good.  We hear that debate all the time.  For this Catholic kid, I'm going with what the Church has taught me on this issue.  I'm also going with that tyrannical majority, biology, anthropology, etc, etc..  If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong along with most of the world.  Wouldn't be the first time or the last.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor  the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'

- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488

It means a little more than that... Dr. Wolfe is a phenomenal teacher and outstanding Constitutional scholar, (I know first hand) but he's been the be-all-end-all of most MU students' Constitutional knowledge, and he delivers it all through his very particular scholarly lens (which is fine, but it is what it is).  99% of the Constitution is derived from general clauses, from the whole notion of judicial review on up to Citizen's United.  

I didn't mean to hijack the thread on Constitutional Law issues... just had to respond to the invocation of Wolfe.  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You may be right, but that's where I am deeply troubled.  What you're essentially saying is the church and others should give in on this issue because more people want it.  Not because it's right (maybe it is or maybe it isn't), but because the demand is there.

The example I gave, was not of a man marrying a dog or a chair, it was having multiple spouses.  That is something that exists today in parts of the world and has existed in our country at times.  It's a REAL situation, not an absurd one.  There is some demand.  Why are we not making that legal also?

I'll tell you why, it's simple because I've had these conversations with folks pushing gay marriage who absolutely DO NOT want that to happen.  They think it's too radical and if it's lumped together with their movement, they think it will kill it.

So in the irony of ironies, it's not really about fairness in that case or relieving discrimination, at least not in full.  It's about doing whatever possible to get it passed and approved in the court of public opinion and if that means additional groups that want to marry are not included...TOO BAD.  I find that more than ironic and plenty hypocritical.

I'm not talking about the church at all. I'm talking about the US Government.

The catholic church has it's own views, and I'm not challenging those.

But, I have several gay friends/couples, and it would be very tough for me to look them in the eye and say "you can have a civil union, but the US government should never use the term "marriage" for what you have."

I know that you're scared of the polygamists... but I don't think I can withhold rights from gay people because I'm scared of the polygamists.

Also, I don't think this is that big of a deal. Marriage can legally be for 2 people. Doesn't matter the race or sex. Seems shockingly simple, no?

[WellsstreetWanderer]

No

[ChicosBailBonds]

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor  the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'

- Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488

It means a little more than that... Dr. Wolfe is a phenomenal teacher and outstanding Constitutional scholar, (I know first hand) but he's been the be-all-end-all of most MU students' Constitutional knowledge, and he delivers it all through his very particular scholarly lens (which is fine, but it is what it is).  99% of the Constitution is derived from general clauses, from the whole notion of judicial review on up to Citizen's United.  

I didn't mean to hijack the thread on Constitutional Law issues... just had to respond to the invocation of Wolfe.  

Dr. Wolfe, my advisor and professor, was most certainly not my only exposure on this topic.

I thought Rhenquist did a wonderful job of destroying this a few years ago.


http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm

A great book to read is "The Myth of Separation Between Church and State" and also "Church and State: What the founders meant"

I have yet to read "Jefferson and Madison on the Separation of Church and State", but it's on my list.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not talking about the church at all. I'm talking about the US Government.

The catholic church has it's own views, and I'm not challenging those.

But, I have several gay friends/couples, and it would be very tough for me to look them in the eye and say "you can have a civil union, but the US government should never use the term "marriage" for what you have."

I know that you're scared of the polygamists... but I don't think I can withhold rights from gay people because I'm scared of the polygamists.

Also, I don't think this is that big of a deal. Marriage can legally be for 2 people. Doesn't matter the race or sex. Seems shockingly simple, no?

I'm scared of the polygamists?  LOL.  Not at all.  I'm simply asking why the hypocrisy of extending marriage to one group that wants the institution changed and not another group who also wants it changed.

And no, it's not shockingly simple to change an institution that has deep societal and religious roots and simply change it because 30% of the population thinks it would be grand.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm scared of the polygamists?  LOL.  Not at all.  I'm simply asking why the hypocrisy of extending marriage to one group that wants the institution changed and not another group who also wants it changed.

And no, it's not shockingly simple to change an institution that has deep societal and religious roots and simply change it because 30% of the population thinks it would be grand.

The hypocrisy is what you are scared of? Changing the institution?

I bet people used that same argument to try and keep interracial marriage illegal.

"If you let blacks and whites get married, where does it stop???" (again, in my best ignorant redneck impression).

Progress is scary, and I definitely understand what you are saying, I just don't think the risk is that great (thus our disagreement).

Also, just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about state. Each church is going to have their own views on homosexuality. I'm cool with that.

I'm just not sure I want my government telling gay people that "You can't be married. You can have a "civil union", but "marriage" is only for straight people"

Just seems crazy to me.

[PBRme]

The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all.  It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild.  In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University.  This was a no win choice.  By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents.  And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this. 

IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.

[Hards Alumni]

The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all.  It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild.  In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University.  This was a no win choice.  By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents.  And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this. 

IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.

Why, because she is gay and writes gay articles, but is otherwise qualified?

[reinko]

The saddest fact is that this candidate made it to the final list at all.  It is an almost unfathomable absence of common sense to think that no one eliminated this candidate before it got to the Provost or Father Wild.  In my opinion the Provost needs to go if only because of a colossal failure in his responsibility to the University.  This was a no win choice.  By even recommending Dr. O to Fr Wild he showed no respect for the the institutional trust given him by two major stakeholder groups - Alumni and Parents.  And NO I am not saying all of the members of these groups feel gored by the decision, but a large enough percentage does and any person even "reasonably" in touch with these groups would know this. 

IN MY OPINION this utter lack of understanding two significant pillars of support for the University in terms of financial, spiritual, and personal commitment and involvement is really the saddest outcome of this fiasco.

Source?

[mu-rara]

I hope this doesn't get the thread locked.  This thread has strayed, but the discussion has followed a logical progression.  

I have been proud to represent the Catholic Church as a Parish Council Chair and Catechist.  As a  parent,  I've sent kids through Catholic elementary school and high school.  Here is what I don't understand.    The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?  

The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue.  They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet.  They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else:  To live in peace with the rest of the world.  

If the Church does not address this issue (and they probably won't), The Ecumenical Catholic Communion may just take the place of the Roman Catholic Church in America.  

[Hards Alumni]

I hope this doesn't get the thread locked.  This thread has strayed, but the discussion has followed a logical progression.  

I have been proud to represent the Catholic Church as a Parish Council Chair and Catechist.  As a  parent,  I've sent kids through Catholic elementary school and high school.  Here is what I don't understand.    The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?  

The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue.  They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet.  They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else:  To live in peace with the rest of the world.  

If the Church does not address this issue (and they probably won't), The Ecumenical Catholic Communion may just take the place of the Roman Catholic Church in America.  

Well said.  I know it is hard, but the church needs to move towards acceptance. Saying that homosexuality is a sin won't stop people from being homosexual. 

[PBRme]

Why, because she is gay and writes gay articles, but is otherwise qualified?

No because you do not choose a lightning rod when there are alternatives (and there were).  I am not commenting on the appropriateness of the subject matter of her research, who she is as a person, or what she does in her bedroom.  Most Catholics have experience with how slow the Church (and its constituent followers) and realize that a portion of the Church is not ready for this high profile position to be filled with a person who will be controversial.  Like it or not Marquette is a Catholic University and most of the constituency is Catholic.

My comment was more about the decision-making process.  Why alienate a portion of your constituency when it was not necessary. 

[PBRme]

Source?

Are you being intentionally obtuse or did you mean to use teal?

[MUeagle05]

The Church has protected pedophiles for decades (centuries?), but gay and lesbian people are not welcome?  

The next generation of Catholic leadership ( high school and college kids ) have no tolerance for the Church's teaching on this issue.  They have observed aunts, uncles and friends of their family who have come out of the closet.  They have determined through that observation that these folks want nothing more than everybody else:  To live in peace with the rest of the world.   

First of all, two wrongs don't make a right.  Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church.  Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.

I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching.  I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.

And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?

[Hards Alumni]

First of all, two wrongs don't make a right.  Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church.  Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.

I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching.  I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.

And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?

I'm not sure what planet you live on, man.  Gay and lesbian people have not always been welcome in the church... not even close.

Honestly, what sort of information do you have that says a significant percentage of the 'next generation' is completely in step with the Church teaching?  I have read tings that by the mid 21st century there will be hundreds of Catholic priests...  Let that sink in for a moment.  While there will always be people from the next generation who will be in step with the Church teaching; to call it a significant percentage is misleading.

I believe living in peace with the rest of the world is implying that they want to be treated equally, not judged for their actions.

[MUeagle05]

I'm not sure what planet you live on, man.  Gay and lesbian people have not always been welcome in the church... not even close.

Honestly, what sort of information do you have that says a significant percentage of the 'next generation' is completely in step with the Church teaching?  I have read tings that by the mid 21st century there will be hundreds of Catholic priests...  Let that sink in for a moment.  While there will always be people from the next generation who will be in step with the Church teaching; to call it a significant percentage is misleading.

I believe living in peace with the rest of the world is implying that they want to be treated equally, not judged for their actions.

What sort of information do you have that says the next generation isn't in step?  I can say that I know many younger people that don't have a problem with the Church's teaching.

And the planet I live on is one where people actually know what they are talking about.  If you care to actually look it up, gay and lesbian people are accepted in the Church.  Gay and lesbian sex, just like pre-marital sex, is not accepted.  It's the actions and behavior that is not accepted, not the individual.

[mu-rara]

First of all, two wrongs don't make a right.  Also, gay and lesbian people are now and always have been welcome in the Church.  Certain behavior, as with people of all sexual orientations, is not welcome.

I would also say that you are overgeneralizing by implying that the entire next generation has no tolerance for the Church's teaching.  I can say first hand that there is a significant percentage of the "next generation" that is completely in step with the Church teaching.

And what about the Church teaching prevents gay people from living in peace with the rest of the world?

My high school years were the "if you wear yellow on Thursday, you're gay" days.  Real enlightened stuff, and close to 100% of us believed that.   Even if 50% of today's high school and college kids do not believe in the Church's current teaching, that is a huge amount of fallen away Catholics for the future.   

There are many gay people who grew up loving the Catholic faith who feel they have no home.  Jesus had not one thing to say against gay people.  You would think if this was such a grievous sin, Jesus might have mentioned it. 

Jesus welcomed all.  He didn't say  "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Jesus welcomed all.  He didn't say  "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".

You and I disagree about a lot of stuff... but on this we agree 100%.

[mu-rara]

What sort of information do you have that says the next generation isn't in step?  I can say that I know many younger people that don't have a problem with the Church's teaching.

And the planet I live on is one where people actually know what they are talking about.  If you care to actually look it up, gay and lesbian people are accepted in the Church.  Gay and lesbian sex, just like pre-marital sex, is not accepted.  It's the actions and behavior that is not accepted, not the individual.

If homosexuality were a choice, then the stricture against homosexual sex would be valid. Homosexuality is not a choice.  Who would choose a life of condemnation by most of the populous?  Homosexual people are God's creatures and even if the Church doesn't accept them, God does.

To think that the Catholic Church is welcoming to homosexual people is a joke.  

[mu-rara]

You and I disagree about a lot of stuff... but on this we agree 100%.

I knew we would come together on some topic.  I'm not sure we disagree about a lot of stuff, just our former coach.  Thankfully, this is a more substantive topic to agree on.

[MUeagle05]

There are many gay people who grew up loving the Catholic faith who feel they have no home.  Jesus had not one thing to say against gay people.  You would think if this was such a grievous sin, Jesus might have mentioned it. 

Jesus welcomed all.  He didn't say  "Hey, you tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, come follow me, but you homos, get lost".

Homosexuality is addressed in the bible.  Being explicitly addressed in the bible doesn't mean it isn't important, though.  I don't believe abortion is mentioned in the bible but it's hard to find people that would argue that abortion is not a sin.

I think people are having trouble understanding the distinction between accepting the person and accepting the person's actions.  Jesus welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes but he didn't condone the tax collectors or the prostitutes behavior.  Jesus welcomes homosexuals but doesn't condone homosexual sex.

[MUeagle05]

If homosexuality were a choice, then the stricture against homosexual sex would be valid. Homosexuality is not a choice.  Who would choose a life of condemnation by most of the populous?  Homosexual people are God's creatures and even if the Church doesn't accept them, God does.

To think that the Catholic Church is welcoming to homosexual people is a joke.  

No one saying homosexuality is a choice.  Engaging in homosexual sex (like any kind of sex) is a choice.

Homosexuality is not a sin.  Having homosexual sex is a sin.  It's not a difficult distinction.

According to your logic, unmarried heterosexual people are not welcome in the Church because the Church doesn't condone heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

Once more, the official teaching of the Church is that homosexual people always have been and always will be welcome into the Church.

[mu-rara]

Homosexuality is addressed in the bible.  Being explicitly addressed in the bible doesn't mean it isn't important, though.  I don't believe abortion is mentioned in the bible but it's hard to find people that would argue that abortion is not a sin.

I think people are having trouble understanding the distinction between accepting the person and accepting the person's actions.  Jesus welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes but he didn't condone the tax collectors or the prostitutes behavior.  Jesus welcomes homosexuals but doesn't condone homosexual sex.

Prostitution and extorting tax payments were (and are) a choice. 
Where does Jesus mention that he does not condone Homosexual sex?

[MUeagle05]

Prostitution and extorting tax payments were (and are) a choice. 
Where does Jesus mention that he does not condone Homosexual sex?

Are you saying that if Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn something it isn't wrong?

[mu-rara]

Are you saying that if Jesus doesn't explicitly condemn something it isn't wrong?

I am saying that if it was as greivous a sin as the Church claims, he might have mentioned it.