Home » Archives by category » News (Page 3644)
Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage

CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.

Continue reading …
Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage

CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.

Continue reading …
Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage

CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.

Continue reading …
Surprise, Surprise: CNN Belief Blog Offers Lazy, Hasty Rebuke of Biblical Condemnation of Gay Marriage

CNN's Belief Blog contributor Jonathan Dudley offered the same tired liberal arguments against a Biblical defense of traditional marriage in a June 21 piece. The same writer who satirically argued that heterosexuals should not be allowed to raise children grilled the Biblical argument as being “riddled with self-serving double-standards.” “I also don't doubt that those who advocate gay marriage are advocating a revision of the Christian tradition,” Dudley boldly asserted. Why is the Biblical position on gay marriage fallacious? Dudley's first argument is that St. Paul condemns homosexual relations as “unnatural,” but later preaches that long hair is naturally degrading for men, but is women's glory. Hence, he condemns both long hair and homosexuality as “unnormal,” but today's Christian church would only condemn homosexuality – therefore today's Evangelical Christians are hypocritical. Do you follow his logic here? The rest of the post follows in a similar pattern. Dudley finds Bible verses or random teachings by Church Fathers to buttress his position, which is that beliefs and practices that were condemned or allowed in the early Christian church are not so today, and so today's Christians are not pro-tradition though they might like to think so. And apparently abortion was a part of the Christian tradition for 1900 years – contrary to popular opinion. Dudley used two isolated philosophical positions by Church Fathers (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) as “proof” that the early and medieval Christian church widely did not believe that life begins at conception. Yes, Dudley uses two opinions that the human soul might not be present at the moment of conception to deduce that today's pro-life Christians are at odds with Christian “tradition” on the matter of abortion.

Continue reading …
Defending Darth: Death Star PR Gripes About TIME’s ‘Top 10 Worst Fictional Fathers’ List

The Galactic Empire is reading TIME! Kind of. The blog Death Star PR penned an open letter to TIME, protesting our June 17th slideshow which named Star Wars’ Darth Vader the third worst fictional father. (PHOTOS: The (Darth) Vader Project) Rather, the Death Star’s “official public relations division” argues that Vader was actually laser-focused on

Continue reading …
Private university BPP launches bid to run 10 publicly funded counterparts

Company also plans to increase its own student intake tenfold by undercutting fees at public universities from next year A private, run-for-profit university has launched an aggressive expansion plan to jointly run at least 10 of its publicly funded counterparts, the Guardian can reveal. BPP, which offers undergraduate and postgraduate business and law degrees at 14 UK study centres, said it was in talks about managing the business side of the universities’ campuses. Talks with three are at a “serious stage”, but commercial negotiations are yet to begin. Under the model, universities would control all academic decisions, while BPP would be responsible for managing the campus estate, IT support, the buying of goods and services and other “back office” roles. BPP would not hold equity in the universities. Chief executive Carl Lygo said his firm stood to make tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds from working with each institution, but that it would be “too radical at the moment” to bid to take over a university. “The partnership model is more palatable in the UK … we have a long tradition of higher education being publicly funded, rather than run for profit.” BPP also plans to increase the number of its own undergraduates tenfold by undercutting publicly funded universities next year, when they will be able to charge up to £9,000 a year. At the moment, BPP has just over 1,000 undergraduates. “We want to offer a radical, high-quality alternative, with classroom-hours contact which is in small groups,” Lygo said. BPP’s disclosure comes ahead of an imminent white paper expected to signal the government’s intention to encourage the expansion of private institutions in higher education in England. Ministers believe they will encourage competition and improve the quality of degree courses. In an interview with the Guardian last year, David Willetts , the universities minister, said there would be “greater diversity” in the higher education sector in future and that “the crucial thing is for the existing providers to rise to the competitive challenge they will face”. The government hopes private firms will drive down tuition fees, which could save the Treasury millions of pounds. Many more universities than the government expected intend to charge the maximum of £9,000 a year from autumn 2012. The government pays students’ tuition fees in the first instance, and graduates pay them back when they are earning more than £21,000. Higher fees mean the government will have to pay more up front, which may not be sustainable. BPP would not disclose the names of the universities it is in talks with. Lygo said, however, that they were a “mixed bag” and “not necessarily those who were in financial difficulty”. Universities could save a quarter of their costs if they agreed to BPP running the commercial side of their operation, money they could invest in the academic side, he said. “We have got a lot of universities in the UK and not all are in a strong financial position … There is an opportunity for the private sector to help the higher education sector to achieve its goals. By working in partnership, the private provider would add expertise in the back office functions. “Most universities are running at high costs and don’t properly utilise their buildings. The private sector is better at procurement because they are keener at negotiating better prices.” Barclays Corporate, which lends money or provides banking services to 60% of the country’s universities, said other large private providers were looking at the UK. “I think what BPP is doing is very indicative of what is happening in the market and indicates the changing environment that universities are operating in,” said head of education Chris Hearn. He added, however, that private firms may be put off by “relatively thin” margins and “heavy regulation”. Others may be dissuaded if, unlike BPP, they do not have a base and reputation in the UK. Roger Brown, professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University, said BPP’s plans could make universities more efficient, but ultimately the company’s shareholders would be its top priority. “The problem with partnerships is that they blur accountability,” he said. “It is unclear who will benefit and who will pay for these partnerships and to whom they are accountable.” Earlier this month, it was announced that the philosopher AC Grayling had set up a private college, staffed by celebrity professors, which would offer degrees in the humanities, economics and law from 2012 at the cost of £18,000 a year. Other private companies already provide services to universities. The University Partnerships Programme manages student accommodation, while INTO runs courses at UK universities for overseas students who need extra preparation to get onto degree programmes. Last July, BPP was given degree-awarding powers , which meant it was allowed to call itself a university college. It was the first new private university in the UK for more than 30 years. Willetts said it was “healthy to have a vibrant private sector working alongside our more traditional universities”. This would create a “dynamic and flexible” degree system and could encourage online degrees, he said. BPP is part of the Apollo Group, a market-listed US company that owns the University of Phoenix, a private institution offering degrees through distance learning. In 2004, Phoenix was fined $9.8m (£6m) for unethical practices in recruiting students. Higher education University administration Tuition fees Students Education policy Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

There are so many kind of creepy things about the marriage of Doug Hutchison and Courtney Alexis Stodden, it’s difficult to know where to begin. There’s the fact that Hutchison, a character actor with roles in The Green Mile and Lost , is 51 while Stodden is 16. There’s the fact…

Continue reading …
Roger Ebert Says ‘too Quick’ to Tweet About Dunn

Roger Ebert says he was “probably too quick to tweet” when he posted on Twitter about “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn, who died in a fiery car crash. (June 21)

Continue reading …
Roger Ebert Sparks War of Words After Tweeting About Ryan Dunn’s Death

Has the much-loved and admired film critic become one of the bad guys he usually writes about? Roger Ebert has weighed in on the death of Jackass star Ryan Dunn, after the allegations that the 34-year old drank beer and shots hours before his fatal accident. Ebert tweeted, “Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

Continue reading …
Cable Magazine Columnist Jokes About ‘Redneck Channel’ for Fox Fans With ‘No Interest in Fair or Balanced’

In Broadcasting & Cable magazine's latest issue, columnist Ben Grossman joked that he'd just returned from a fishing trip in Sitka, Alaska, and is almost a redneck. But his contempt for rednecks came through loud in clear. The column was titled: “Steal This Idea, The Redneck Channel.” (It's not online.) Grossman suggested the redneck Fox fans he met demonstrated “This demo largely has no interest in fair and balanced.” As if brie-and-Chablis PBS liberals don't want their news delicately slanted all to one side? The Minnesota-based columnist really mocked this “type of people” and their strange habits: Believe me, when you are sitting at a lodge full of people full of a certain type of people – ones that come from all over the country, by the way – you can see some trends. For instance, doctors who treat lip and gum cancer are going to be driving nice cars for a while, because chewing tobacco is still the breakfast of choice for many. But I also watched the TV viewing habits of these folks, and bundled together, it confirmed for me one beautiful concept: The Redneck Channel. A large text box unveiling “This Saturday on the Redneck Channel” included snarky liberal listings like this: 9-11 a.m. HUNTING PROGRAMMING: Two hours of men (and the occasional woman) in camouflage going into the woods and shooting large animals with a rifle or bow and arrow, then hugging each other a little more tightly than you’d expect… 11 a.m-1 p.m. FISHING PROGRAMMING: Two hours of shows about men sitting on boats catching big fish, then hugging a little more tightly that you’d expect…. 4 p.m. THE BEST OF THE O’REILLY FACTOR: This demo largely has no interest in fair and balanced , and they love the Fox News star. Grossman clearly doesn't watch enough O'Reilly to know he's likely to put on more liberals each week on his one-hour show than the MSNBC lineup will put on conservatives in all of prime time. And the proposed evening lineup is even dumber: 9-11 p.m. NIGHTLY MOVIE: In which a minimum of 25 people must die, and there can be no stupid B-story focusing on a love angle of any kind. 11 p.m. THE TV ASSAULT HOUR BROUGHT TO YOU BY SONY: A highlight show featuring clips from Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and MSNBC prime-time shows. Intended to get true rednecks pissed off enough that they smash their TV, and when they go to replace it, all the Sony ads persuade them to buy one of their new sets. Rednecks are apparently, to this amateur anthropologist, a set of rage-filled Incredible Hulks with a large credit line at Best Buy. We could create an Elitist Snob Channel for intolerant people who hate rednecks — but PBS already exists.

Continue reading …