In case you haven't been reading this blog over the last week (what's wrong with you?), the Étudiant's own Glen Maganzini has been publicizing a new group he has created called the Radical Republican Movement. On this very website, this group has been expressing its opinion that homosexuality is immoral. Many readers have been challenging this notion with their comments, and the Radical Republicans are fighting back.
I've talked to Glen and Atulya Prateek, another member of the group. I'm going to tell all you readers what I told them. No, I do NOT agree with their platform. But I love what they're doing. Namely, they're speaking their minds and causing a stir at this website. This blog isn't just a soapbox for the writers. It's EVERYONE'S soapbox. That's what the comment button is for, people!
I wasn't planning on posting about this matter until I read an anonymous comment on the first post about the Radical Republican Movement...
This is ridiculous and needs to be taken down now.This was the second request I've gotten to "take down" Glen's posts. The first was from the Étudiant's Liz Sullivan, who publicly voiced her disagreement with the group on this site. Well, I'm going to tell you what I told her...I'm not taking something down just because I don't agree with it. Again, the Étudiant is a soapbox, and an independent one at that. We're not Spin. Glen, along with all the other writers, doesn't have to submit anything to a higher power before putting it online. Isn't the First Amendment great?
So no, I'm not taking down any of the Radical Republicans' posts, as much as I may disagree with what they have to say. Glen's opinions are his own...not necessarily (and not likely, to be frank) those of the rest of the Étudiant staff. But as Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
While I do respect your decision and applaud you for sticking to your morals, I still have an objection to these posts being kept up. I am as much as a crusader for the First Amendment as the next person, but I do not feel that it gives people the right to publicly attack demean a group of people. It is the remarks such as "Gay parents will eventually ruin the whole structure of religion and society." or "Gay marriage is gross and disgusting;" which cross the line and take away any legitimacy to the rest of the posts.
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I will say it again; This group's only platform is to repress an isolated group of people based on a factor they cannot control. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but this does not constitute a political group. It is merely a hate group, and needs to be ended immediately.
The posts that I make, as Ben stated, do necessarily reflect the Etudiant's thoughts on the subject. I don't see how an opinion piece against gay marriage takes away from the legitimacy of the rest of the posts. The rest of the posts are on topics such as Darfur, Myanmar, Health, and Science, not to mention other staff members contribute to these.
ReplyDeleteOur platform is one that is against gay marriage. Gay marriage is a political issue. Why are supporters going to the state governments to get it legalized?
You refer to us a hate group that needs to be ended immediately. Sounds a lot like 1984 to me. Crimethink: believing in something that violates gay rights. Just because we believe in something you don't agree with justifies our being abolished?
We are non-violently protesting gay marriage via the Internet. I don't see any reason why should we should be stopped?
You're right Glen, there is no legal reason for you to stop posting these offensive statements. However, your classmates have made it clear to you that they are hurt by your statements. While of course we realize that you have every right to say these things, I guess that we were just hoping that you had a shred of decency and would stop making such hurtful comments. Well congratulations Glen, you have proved that you are capable of upsetting your fellow students. I hope it makes you feel a bit better about yourself.
ReplyDeleteThese comments should be offensive to anyone. People need to stop being so sensitive and realize the difference between wrong and right. It is unfortunate that my fellow classmates are hurt by my beliefs, but they have to realize they have to accept them. They are contradictory in the sense that they can be so opposed to what I say (read, offended) but can't accept them? Isn't a principle concept of liberalism accepting others?
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me how I am being hurtful. I haven't criticized any individual people...The only thing I have criticized is gay marriage. I am pretty sure that none of my classmates are in a gay marriage, so I don't see how this can personally offend them. And they have this all before. Being against gay marriage isn't a revolutionary new thought.
"I haven't criticized any individual people...The only thing I have criticized is gay marriage."
ReplyDelete"People need to stop being so sensitive and realize the difference between wrong and right."
The latter is definitely a direct insult to everyone who's reading.
Well, anonymous, state your name. That would be a start.
ReplyDeleteGlen, you asked a question and Mike Salvato has given you an answer. How about instead of trying to get someone who would prefer to remain anonymous (a choice that they are more than entitled to) you instead aknowledge the fact that someone has brought to your attention an instance of your being offensive.
ReplyDelete"The latter is definitely a direct insult to everyone who's reading."
ReplyDeleteIf more people could understand right and wrong we wouldn't be having that problem.
Glen, how can you not see that implying that our beliefs are wrong or evil (without supplying any hard evidence) is blatantly offensive to us?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't your individual beliefs, Ali. I believe in something called Moral Absolutism. This means that you can't individually define what is right and wrong. Natural law among other factors have already determined such.
ReplyDeleteits prateek..
ReplyDeletewell. lets just say this.
i think you guys need to calm down
glen and I...
we just love to have our opinions. and stuff lyke that (yes I know I spelled like wrong)
I'm still against gay marriage
its my opinion, I'm not going around insulting them I'm just saying I don't like it. so lets all tone it down a bit and study for the AP history test.
its prateek
ReplyDeleteAGAIN! <3
P.S for everyone...
thinking that you can sound smart by using extensive vocab isn't gonna get you any rep. so uh lets try to keep sane here.
"It isn't your individual beliefs, Ali. I believe in something called Moral Absolutism. This means that you can't individually define what is right and wrong. Natural law among other factors have already determined such."
ReplyDeleteA. You still called us all immoral and insulted us. So you really didn't defend your cause.
B. This is not a case of Moral Absolutism. Moral Absolutism applies under two cases. The first is religion (what you're trying to use) and this is in no way a religious debate. The other is the very very few cases that... Eh I can't give a good percent, but maybe 99.9%(?) maybe more, dunno, of the population believes in it. As we can see in our sample space... It's about 30% at best.
So, you insulted us, undoubtedly. If you'd like to apologize for the insult, I'm sure we'd all be welcome to hear it.
Wow, I like how mike was replying. Haha.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, how does one define right and wrong? Isn't it relative to each person? There's no definite right, no definite wrong. How can you say one thing is wrong, when it may be right for another. Just because you think its wrong, doesn't mean that everyone thinks its wrong. Yet you state that people need to realize what is right and wrong, but you simply mean that you want to impress your ideas on them.
VERILY!
ReplyDeleteMike, that was exactly what I was going to say. Moral Absolutism can't really be applied unless it is in a "perfect society" where every single member has the same ideals. It's a bit like Communism. It's an awesome idea in theory, but it could never work in reality, so it's actually a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteMike, that was exactly what I was going to say. Moral Absolutism can't really be applied unless it is in a "perfect society" where every single member has the same ideals. It's a bit like Communism. It's an awesome idea in theory, but it could never work in reality, so it's actually a terrible idea.
ReplyDelete"This blog isn't just a soapbox for the writers. It's EVERYONE'S soapbox. That's what the comment button is for, people!"
ReplyDeleteWell, Glen's posts are still standing, but our comment button has been taken away.
Although I do agree you should support the first amendment, but let's think about this for a minute.
ReplyDeleteDo you really want your site to be associated with anti-gay opinions? It is anti-progressive for the student body as a whole. Furthermore, you should hear what Glen gets called at school. Not to his face, because unlike him they aren't outright with their opinions.
im sorry ben but i mean him making posts isnt bad but an anti gay group?
ReplyDeletei mean id expect it from him but i dont think this site should be affiliated with this or our school i dont think the need to be silenced or anything, but maybe they should open up a forum somewhere else for something like that this just isnt the place for hate groups