No politics. Just prayers.

Meanwhile, MSNBC cashes in. Right now, I’m wondering whether I should write into the Wildcat to implore people to resist the inevitable politicking about to take place, if not already.

The news is out across the conservative blogosphere that Ann Coulter just called John Edwards a “faggot” at CPAC. Ed Morrissey put it best.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn’t require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as “faggots” or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

[…]

First, criticizing Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” is not a suppression of free speech; it is an exercise of free speech. We’re not advocating her arrest for using the word. We’re just saying it was stupid, unnecessary, and hateful. This is no different than Melissa McEwan calling Christians “Christofascist Godbags” and Amanda Marcotte’s incendiary hate speech about Catholics. We howled about that when John Edwards hired them; why do we defend Coulter’s appearance at CPAC?

Perhaps Ann Coulter should be called the Brother Jed of conservative activism, except that people somehow like Ann Coulter.

I went back yesterday afternoon. Originally I was intending to study over a good amount of coffee before a 6pm class, but the noise outside the southwest SUMC patio became too much.

Rev. Smock was back to his own ways, yelling and namecalling for no justified reason–which is to say that there are good reasons for doing so as Jesus did; Rev. Smock didn’t have one.

The epiphany came when he asked a certain skeptic whether he had been smoking marijuana. I confronted him again asking him to recall what I said to him Tuesday, he retorted back at me, and suddenly things were civil again. Rev. Smock left around 5:15pm with many of the rest of us discussing in a civilized manner.

After a conflict with one particular gentleman who became offended at me, disagreeing that one could still be respectful of a person while disagreeing in belief or principle, I went into the 24/7 prayer tent, talked about the dealings with the individual inside, and praised God for making the civil conversation possible. Throughout my 6-8:30pm class, I paid attention to the lecture but still couldn’t get my mind off what God was doing.

This afternoon, I discovered that Jed has been posting updates (1 | 2 | 3) on his website’s bulletin board. I don’t mean to be egotistic here, but I find it strange that my confrontations with him are not mentioned, despite having noted what I feel are the results of God using them to promote civility over mockery and theater.

Allow me to reemphasize that anger and loud voice in many circumstances is entirely justified. Mall preachers aren’t immediately in the wrong because of raising their voices; they are wrong when they do it for no good biblical reason. The story of the Gospel is offensive enough to man as it is.

Rev. Smock’s theology page contains a few rather questionable theological details (especially conditional love, which I believe is a matter of the specific Greek words used for love in the passages described). As far as intentional offense is concerned (which he undoubtedly utilizes), Rev. Smock cites Luke 6:1-11. Quoted version is NIV.

And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.

But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

I don’t see Jesus intentionally offending people just to be provocative. Rather, He’s trying to make a point. So yes, Jesus knew full well that they would be offended, but offense was not His primary intention. Others like Cliffe Knechtle offend people too, simply for the fact that the Gospel itself is offensive to worldly notions of self-sufficiency, responsibility, moral relativism, etc. Unlike healing a man’s hand in the synagogue in the midst of hostile thoughts, calling a well-intentioned nonbeliever a marijuana smoker doesn’t accomplish anything positive.

I think I’ll go grab lunch right now and see if he’s back.

previous confrontation

Update: I just got back from visiting the Alumni Plaza, and he’s back to his old ‘gay’ song singing ways. I didn’t confront him this time. It’s just a theater. Regardless, God is bigger than Rev. Smock. Behind the theater and exhibitionism is a modicum of real Truth.

(updated)

This post contains sexually explicit descriptions and should not be read by children.

I didn’t get the chance to see Brother Jed Smock in action yesterday, but I did today. Coming out of a class that ended at 12:15 in the Psychology building, I headed west to find him at the Alumni Plaza in his trademark look going through a typical overdramatized routine about how he used to be into “rrrrrrock and roll!”

I observe for about fifteen minutes with some friends. Some campaign staff for presidential candidate Brad Wulff and executive vice presidential candidate Jessica Anderson arrive. I talked to one of them and explained my blog and questionnaire, asking if they could relay to their candidates a request to fill it out. Somewhere in the middle of this, they ask the crowd to vote for Brad Wulff.

I then observed him take out a pair of electrical extension cords and start explaining how homosexuality doesn’t work. The female ends don’t connect together. Neither do the male ones. But connect a male and female and it works, “up and down, up and down.”

Out of the west in the distance comes senatorial candidate Dustin Cox (an acquaintance and classmate of mine in a national security class last semester) campaign, probably unaware of the specific demonstration he was giving. They all start chanting.

We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!
We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!

Even I was laughing here. Smock responded by waving the end of his electrical cord to illustrate a limp penis. As the Cox campaign completed their demonstration, Brother Jed then starting singing his own little song, still illustrating male homosexual activity with the electrical cord.

It’s not okay to be gay…
It’s not okay to be [pause] HO-MO.

I feel like Jed and I are the only people not laughing, and I’m not laughing for a different reason than him. Though I was talking with a friend while this started, it was the last straw. For the first time in my college career despite Brother Jed having visited annually for decades, I verbally confront Brother Jed.

Sir, do you think this glorifies Christ? What is your objective, sir?

Brother Jed continues with his song and explanations ignoring me for a bit. I keep imploring him to speak with me. But once he’s done, I have his attention. My right leg is shaking uncontrollably. I explain that I am a Christian and I don’t think what he’s doing is helping out at all, but is rather engineered to induce mockery. We start debating. He then brings up a new subject and shifts the conversation, talking about how the scientific possibility of being “born gay” is a falsehood.

I haven’t examined this evidence, but what I do know is that we’re born sinful. My inclination to sin does not make sin right; it does not justify my sin. Brother Jed disagrees, noting that Romans 5 says that death is passed on, not sin.

Still yet, we have some common ground. The asking for mockery ends, and suddenly Brother Jed started making sense. The group became quiet. Some left out of boredom. One gave the middle finger, and for a guy like Brother Jed, that’s a small number.

Another man who’s been hanging around the mall for the past two weeks with his dog and his sign notes that Brother Jed spoke to him while he was a student in 1977; that’s what brought him to Christ. After much talking, he asks if I can say Amen to what he had been speaking since our dealing.

I can say Amen to that. Absolutely.

Later on, I explain how I came to Jesus. I also encourage the crowd not to examine Brother Jed, but to examine Christ himself. Is He real? Are the Gospels reliable? Does He want you to come to him? Brother Jed agrees.

Fellow students, it’s not about what we think of this one mall evangelist or anybody for that matter; it’s about the Guy Upstairs.

Despite the mockery of Dustin Cox, and the random imploring of the campaigns of Brad Wulff, Jen Dang, and Michael Slugocki, and the scoffing of yours truly during the past three years, something out of this made sense. Maybe Brother Jed isn’t as bad as we all apparently think. And no matter how the guy really is, something truly good came out of it all. It’s just what I prayed for last night. It’s what so man of us have been praying for during 24/7 Prayer. And God answered. And we’re going to keep praying. And He’s going to keep answering.

As many of you may have noticed already, ASUA presidential candidate Anthony Stuart reports that fifteen people (as of his first reports) have filed complaints against ASUA Senator Steven Gerner for setting up a website containing two frames: one with his candidate endorsement and the other with the official polling website.

Stuart posted a reply through a comment on the previous post as well as mistakenly emailing the entire ASUA listserv when he only wanted to send it to me. After some outcry, I clarified the situation and Stuart subsequently apologized for the mistake. There is a provision of the Elections Code that prohibits campaigning on listservs unless a club which owns a listserv is making an endorsement. Stuart clearly wasn’t intending to campaign on a listserv here; let’s hope the Elections Commission agrees.

In addition to the allegations in the comment and email, Stuart contends that not only is Gerner posting the website after it had been struck down by the Elections Commission, but also that this constitutes an egregious violation of both the Elections Code and his personal integrity. Moreover, the posting of the site endangers the candidates listed to major action from the Elections Commission. I recall that Elections Commissioner David Martinez III did mention during the mandatory candidate meeting following the petition deadline that individual candidates would be held responsible for clubs’ violations of the elections code, e.g. putting more than one candidate’s name on a single flyer. I didn’t talk to Stuart long on the phone (as he has a campaign event tonight), but I think this restriction is what he was talking about. As I’ve mentioned way too many times lately, Gerner is the central figure in the recent “Red” dealings (1 | 2 | 3 | 4) on which only the Growler has been reporting.

Should this particular issue come to the ASUA Supreme Court, it may come to an issue of the definition of “campaign staff” as debated in a case last year. At that time, it was ruled that candidate Rhonda Tubbs could not be punished for a campaign violation that fellow “Orange” ticket candidate Matt Van Horn committed on her behalf. As I understood it, Tubbs could not be disqualified because Van Horn technically wasn’t a member of her campaign staff. (By the way, the violation was for putting “Vote Rhonda Tubbs” on his AOL Instant Messenger profile. This act is no longer a violation under the new elections code.)

It is my belief that the ASUA Supreme Court is quite corrupt, at least after my experience with getting stonewalled either for not being a real journalist or for having criticized their inherent claim to objectivity after Justice Shar Bahrmani wrote a letter to the Wildcat concerning the Cade Bernsen sexual harassment allegations. Bahrmani still sits on the court. That’s right; Rep. Grijalva wasn’t the first guy to ever stonewall me for not being a real journalist in case you were wondering.

Meanwhile, the “Judicial Court” at Texas A&M University recently ruled that their elections rule concerning multiple candidate names was unconstitutional. Should a club make the exact mistake Commissioner Martinez was citing, this could be another constitutional issue for the court to decide.

I’m one to think Steven Gerner is within his constitutional rights regardless of whether Anthony Stuart was correct in calling him a “slimeball” over the phone. Constitutional rights unfortunately do not always entail etiquette, though if I was in his position I would have done what I’m doing now: endorse the candidates and avoid getting them in trouble.

The Elections Commission according to the Elections Code has 24 hours to respond to each of the 15 or more complaints received today. Stuart claims he sent his complaint within one hour of his reading it this morning, so expect something soon. Meanwhile, I’m contacting Gerner for comment and keeping a very watchful eye on everybody.

Coming tomorrow morning is a report concerning the current visit of mall evangelist “Brother” Jed Smock, including my confrontation with him and various candidates mocking him or using his crowd in order to campaign. I’ve actually had a change of heart about the guy, and I’m quite peeved at the candidates who decided to take advantage the way they did. If you haven’t voted yet and you’re considering candidates other than my endorsements, you will want to read this report before casting your ballot.

Full disclosure: I consider Steven a friend and we are registered as friends on Facebook after having taken a class together. I can always pledge to do my best to remain objective in such matters, but disclosure matters as well. Take that as you wish.

Front page.

Booyah.

THIS PODCAST EPISODE IS NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. 

Update (7 Dec): Archive.org, the server where I host the podcasts, appears to be having problems at the moment.

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe using iTunes

WorldNetDaily columnist Jim Rutz declared in a controversial column recently that overconsumption of soy products causes males to become homosexuals, citing soy’s relatively-high estrogen content.

“Soy is feminizing,” Rutz claims “and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical…blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise of soy formula and other soy products.”

WorldNetDaily editor-in-chief Joseph Farah, amidst massive hate mail from leftist websites, immediately defended Rutz, and called for women to be banned from eating beef, pork, poultry, beans, and dairy, for fear that increased testosterone levels might make them homosexuals, too.

Officials at the University of Arizona complimented the study, and are planning to increase the availability of soy in on-campus food in order to facilitate an increase in diversity. In contrast, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University has banned tofu, calling it “The Curd of Tinky Winky.”

This news report is brought to you by the Law Offices of Bob Schmuck. Did your mother feed you soy as a infant? Are you sexually confused? Recent medical research has found that your sexual confusion is not your fault, and you may be able to sue for damages. For a free consultation, call the Law Offices of Bob Schmuck at 1-800-SOY-MILK.

Editorial note: I still affirm that homosexuality is a sin just like any other sexual sin, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking Jim Rutz is stupid.

Music is "Stop Yield Go Merge (Extended Les Thorn Mix)" from Derek K. Miller of Penmachine. 

TUCSON, AZ — Amid the cheer of the season of the holiday we don’t speak of, the annual capitalistic boom of the month of December is allegedly having a negative impact upon the intellectual property rights of America’s universities. The first legal implication is now official, as the University of Arizona today filed suit against Santa Claus for copyright infringement and violation of the Establishment Clause after Mr. Claus allegedly gave an Arizona Wildcats sweatshirt, made in his own factory, as a gift to multiple children without asking permission of the university, paying the appropriate licensing fees, or removing any actual or perceived religious context.

University of Arizona President Robert N. Shelton commented that the religious context of such a gift presented a “clear and present danger to the mission of the university.” “It should be obviously clear why we don’t have regular classes during the Winter Solstice,” Dr. Shelton stated. “The religious context of being in school at such a time is too much for us to handle. We won’t tolerate it.”

The comment puzzled professors in the Astronomy department, who noted that Winter Session classes actually did take place during Winter Solstice, which actually occurred three days before the holiday we don’t speak of.

Arizona State University President Michael Crow tells the Growler that he does not expect to follow suit with Dr. Shelton, noting that inserting mention of the Devil into such a holiday “cancels things out.”

The AP reports that a UAPD officer shot and killed a man brandishing a shotgun during a traffic stop this morning.  We don’t know much more than that, but expect some developments to come out later.

The Arizona Daily Wildcat has no updates on the story, as it is currently on winter hiatus until January 10th.

I guess the story makes this odd to say, but Merry Christmas to everybody, and remember that tomorrow is no less His day than today.  God bless.

Update: The Tucson Citizen reports that the traffic stop was for a stolen license plate.  Deceased is Raul Marquez Jr., 43.  Encounter initiated at 4:50 a.m.; Marquez pronounced dead 45 minutes later.  UA Phonebook indicates no such name being affiliated with the university.

Update (26 Dec): The Arizona Daily Star has more details, including details on the records of the officer and the suspect.  The suspect’s criminal record doesn’t surprise me.

Update 3: Marquez had a felony warrant out for DUI, but was being pulled over specifically for having stolen plates.  Please allow me to echo what the commenters said on the Star article and thank the good Lord this wasn’t the tragedy for the officer’s family that it could have been.

I was going to write something lengthy on it myself, but I couldn’t top this.  Note that one doesn’t have to look like the women in the pictures in order to be modest.

Hello readers of the Arizona Growler.  My name is Jeff Rutledge, and I suppose this post finally fulfills the group blog intent the Growler was founded with.  My search for a more meaningful blogging experience than Xanga has led me here, so for my first post I’d like to submit the following for your consideration:

PurityGirls.com is looking for Christian men between the ages of 18 and 29 to take a survey concerning women’s modesty.  The results certainly won’t absolve us men of our problems in looking, but the responsibility is twofold across both genders.  University of Arizona students may identify well.

Take the survey. 

Cassie Tomlin | Arizona Daily Wildcat

I’m happy to report that mall evangelist/apologetic Cliffe Knechtle will be speaking and answering questions on the UA mall through Thursday.  Not only am I interested in seeing him speak, but I’ll be watchdogging the Wildcat’s coverage of his effort closely.  Biases among individual reporters have been widely separated in the past.

Language is a [expletive], isn’t it?

I learned something about Plan B today.  It apparently does get rid of a fertilized egg.  So much for the term "emergency contraceptive."  Thanks for the misinformation.

Moreover, a medical expert I spoke to notes that taking a week’s worth of birth control pills does the same damn thing. 

As if the University of Wisconsin didn’t have enough on its hands defending its continued employment of 9/11 conspiracist Kevin Barrett, the Alliance Defense Fund is now scrutinizing them for requiring religious clubs to include a non-discrimination statement in their constitutions. As quoted in the ADF letter, the non-discrimination statement for UW-Superior reads:

no person will be restricted because of age, race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin, ancestry, marital status, arrest record, or conviction record

Similarly, officials at UW-Madison de-recognized two organizations because of noncompliance with "an expansive nondiscrimination statement, that…prevents religous organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion.

The University of Arizona in comparison has a similar required non-discrimination statement, but I don’t see any religious organizations, including InterVarsity, raising any furor. InterVarsity chapters in recent history have had this happen twice to my knowledge: this case and another case at the University of North Carolina.

Furor came from the other side earlier when the Arizona Daily Wildcat reported that Priority College Ministry, an arm of First Southern Baptist Church, had received money from ASUA to put on its annual/semiannual "Overflow" event.  InterVarsity also received money early last year to put on "HipHop Night," but nothing came out of the Wildcat then.

The whole issue doesn’t just bring up issues of bias against sexual orientation or religion, it challenges the very concept of club recognition. The College Republicans have the right to discriminate against people wearing "I’m a Smart [donkey]" T-shirts.  Refuse and Resist has the right to ban "Christian Zionists."   Resulting intervention violates freedom of association and freedom of thought.  UW, UNC, and UA are best advised to leave its’ clubs with freedom of viewpoint intact and protected.

Disclosure (added at 5:27 p.m.): I am a former member of both First Southern Baptist Church and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.

Update (6:23 p.m.): I got part of this wrong.  According to that aforementioned club handbook, "Religious organizations may be exempt from mandates against discrimination based on sexual orientation." [emphasis mine]  The language doesn’t give me complete comfort, but it’s good to know in case it does come up in the future.  Anti-kudos to my fact checking.