Sexual Assault, College, and its Causes

• The Association of American Universities on Monday released the overall results of a survey that asked students at 27 universities about their experiences with sexual assault and sexual misconduct, drawing responses from more than 150,000 students. 

• More than 20 percent of female undergraduates at an array of prominent universities said this year they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct, echoing findings elsewhere, according to one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence.

• The survey found that 23 percent of undergraduate women and 5 percent of undergraduate men said they were victims of non-consensual sexual contact – ranging from penetration to sexual touching — due to force or incapacitation. Eleven percent of undergraduate women said they were victims of non-consensual penetration or attempted penetration… 20 percent of students said sexual assault and misconduct is very or extremely problematic on their own campus.

What can account for this epidemic? One thoughtful respondent appropriately commented:

• I don't for a minute want to minimize the roll that drunkenness plays in campus sexual assaults, but drunkenness on college campuses is not new… What is new on college campuses across the nation, as a result of the explosive growth of the World Wide Web, is college facilitated access to a "smorgasbord" of hardcore pornography that depicts the abuse, degradation, and exploitation of females. 

However true this might be, there is also another consideration. The normalization of almost any form of sexual acting-act is routinely promoted. In a New York Times Op-Ed, Charles M. Blow glowingly affirmed Miley Cyrus’ statements:

• “I’m very open about it — I’m pansexual.”

• I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. Yo, I’m down with any adult — anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me.”

For Blow, these statements represent what sexuality should be about – “casual,”  “carefree,” and non-judgmental sex.

• There was something about the casual, carefree-ness of the statements that I found both charming and revolutionary. It took a happy-go-lucky sledgehammer to the must-fit-a-box binary that constrains and restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.

Since the NYT doesn’t discuss the down-side of the sexual revolution, we can assume that they too regard uncommitted sex as something that should be fun, playful, “happy-go-lucky,” and perhaps even a bit mischievous – something that our college students can readily applaud.

Blow rejects the traditional approach to sexuality as sacred, as something that “restricts our understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.” How ironic! It is the media and the universities which have silenced and struck down any message counter to the rampant sexual permissiveness and experimentation. Does the university offer any talks on the value of chastity? On traditional marriage? Instead, such discussions are taboo, routinely screamed down, and even penalized. Meanwhile, polyamory and other unsustainable practices are given free range to entice the minds of the susceptible.

However, it is Blow’s and Cyrus’ message, loudly proclaimed on almost every campus, that has helped to unleash sexual experimentation – the exploration of one’s sexuality. One popular form of sexual exploration is, understandably, forceful, bodily, sexual proselytizing. Well, isn’t it natural enough?

Isn’t it true that everyone wants and needs sex? What then is the problem? Sexual taboos, of course! Well then, what’s wrong with penetrating through these taboos in a persuasive, although somewhat aggressive manner? Perhaps these sexual trend-setters have even convinced themselves that they are providing a needful service to their victims? After all, the pedophiles have convinced themselves of this – the children a better-off because of them!

Behavior can no more be separated from belief than life from blood. If our youth are taught the primacy of choice above everything else, they will exercise their choice, albeit harmfully. If they are taught that their nature should govern their behavior, they will act out according to their nature. However, if they are taught that they must govern their natural impulses, and when they do not, they violate heaven’s dictates, they will think twice. (Also, our law-makers and universities will think twice!) However, this has become the forbidden message, the message that must be silenced.  

Lies and Propaganda: Tyson’s “Cosmos”

If you don’t think of our scientific establishment as repressive propagandists, you might think again. Casey Luskin asks the question:

• Are scientists today free to express their views when they feel there are problems with authoritative paradigms, like modern evolutionary biology?

Luskin then allows the evolutionists to answer this question:

• "There's a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden, because the religious right are always looking for any argument between evolutionists as support for their creationist theories. There's a strong school of thought that one should never question Darwin in public." (W. Daniel Hillis, in "Introduction: The Emerging Third Culture," in Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, edited by John Brockman (Touchstone, 1995), p. 26.)

• "It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection ... My skepticism is not based on religious belief or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. This is especially true with regard to the origin of life ... I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science. ... In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. ... [T]he problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair." (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, p. (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 6-7, 10.)

• "Honest critics of the evolutionary way of thinking who have emphasized problems with biologists' dogma and their undefinable terms are often dismissed as if they were Christian fundamentalist zealots or racial bigots. But the part of this book's thesis that insists such terminology interferes with real science requires an open and thoughtful debate about the reality of the claims made by zoocentric evolutionists." (Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, (Basic Books, 2003), p. 29).)

• "It is dangerous to raise attention to the fact that there is no satisfying explanation for macroevolution. One easily becomes a target of orthodox evolutionary biology and a false friend of proponents of non-scientific concepts. According to the former we already know all the relevant principles that explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth; for the latter science and research will never be able to provide a conclusive explanation, simply because complex life does not have a natural origin." (Günter Theißen, "The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology," Theory in Biosciences, 124: 349-369 (2006).)

• "We've been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn't say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute. ... [N]eo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic; it goes literally unquestioned. A view that looks to contradict it, either directly or by implication is ipso facto rejected, however plausible it may otherwise seem. Entire departments, journals and research centres now work on this principle." (Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), pp. xx, xvi.)

Luskin adds:

• A 2008 article in Nature on the Altenberg 16 conference explained that some others willingly self-censor their own criticisms so as to avoid "handing ammunition" to "creationists."

• Says [Jerry] Coyne: "People shouldn't suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists' hands."

• Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen [claims]: "In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

In such a politically correct, hostile, propagandistic, and self-censored climate, it would seem that the average “Joe” needs to be careful about what he absorbs from the scientific elites.

In the Christian Research Journal, Luskin warns about the reboot of Cosmos - Neil Degrasse Tyson’s current series to sell evolution:

• The Cosmos reboot has been sharply criticized – even by evolutionists – for inventing stories and religious persecution of scientists while whitewashing religion’s positive historical influence on science. It promotes “unguided” and “mindless” evolution while omitting scientific evidence that challenges neo-Darwinism or supports intelligent design… It was created by celebrity atheists seeking to advance a materialistic worldview… Public school teachers have already expressed their intent to use Cosmos. (CRI, Vol. 37, number 04, 34-41)

The executive producer admits its propagandistic intentions:

• Seth Macfarlane acknowledges the series’ intent to oppose “a resurgence of creationism and intelligent design… theory”… Macfarlane is concerned about “the rise of schools questioning evolution,” which is “incredibly damaging to the evolution of any society.” (35-36) 

Are these adversarial views a danger to science or just to the religion of naturalism, which requires that only natural explanations are allowable? Instead, many have written that Christianity has largely contributed to the flourishing of science:

• [Ian] Barber answers: “Many historians of science have acknowledged the importance of the Western religious tradition in molding assumptions about nature that were congenial to the scientific enterprise.” Thus Ronald Numbers explains, “The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict.” (37)

However, for many evolutionists, ideology should trump the accurate presentation of scientific findings:

• Historian Joseph Martin proposes granting Cosmos “the artistic license to lie” when done “in the service of a greater truth.” He writes, “Perhaps the greater truth here is that we do need to promote greater public trust in science if we are going to tackle some of the frankly quite terrifying challenges ahead and maybe a touch of taradiddle [lies] in that direction isn’t the worst thing.” (37) 

Since when do lies “promote greater public trust in science?” In the long run, they will not; nor will their repressive and censorious culture:

• Epidemiologist W. Daniel Hillis laments “a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden, which creates “a strong school of thought that one should never question Darwin in public.” Two Rutgers cognitive scientists say essentially the same: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public.” (38) 

Nor even in the media, the public schools, and in the university! They present a monolithic front. We are faced with a conspiracy of silence in the face of the militant enforcement of what the elites now call “science.”  This is well-oiled by a slick and aggressive propagandistic machine. Tyson likens macro-evolution deniers to Hitler supporters:

• Cosmos shows crowds cheering for Hitler while Tyson says, “Human intelligence is imperfect, surely, and newly arisen. The ease with which it can be sweet-talked, overwhelmed, or subverted by other hard-wired tendencies [like religion and ID] sometimes themselves disguised as the light of reason is worrisome.” (40)

Meanwhile, generations have been “sweet-talked, overwhelmed, or subverted” by the notion that humanity arose uncaused out of nothing.

National Socialism in the First Grade

Totalitarianism requires thought control. Consequently, such a society has its gatekeepers controlling the flow of information. Adolph Hitler had a lot to say on the subject:

• In every really great revolutionary movement propaganda will first have to spread the idea of this movement. Thus, it will untiringly try to make clear to the others the new train of thought, to draw them over to its own ground, or at least to make them doubtful of their own previous conviction…The organization receives its members from the followers in general won by propaganda. (Mein Kampf)

Hitler understood that propaganda and mind control had to include the nation’s youngest members. Western mind-controllers understand this principle:

• For a North Carolina first grader who wrote a touching poem about her grandfather's military service in Vietnam, everything was fine until she made a reference to God. At that point, officials at West Marion Elementary School deleted the line before the 6-year-old could read it aloud at a school assembly after a parent complained about the religious reference. The line read, "He prayed to God for peace, he prayed to God for strength."

Although this kind of censorship is justified by the concern to not offend others, this is just a hypocritical ruse. If offending others was truly their concern, they might have expressed some concern about offending this first-grader. However, the secular authorities envision this little child as Hitler had – as the object of indoctrination into the “new train of thought.”

This agenda separates children from their parents and the child from his childhood, making the State into his primary custodian. After all, the State knows what’s best about their children, while their parents are mired by repressive God-myths!

In this case, it’s a matter of raising children for sexual consumerism – children who would have no objection to any form of sexual experimentation. I would guess that if this first-grader had instead reported about his sexual feelings, his paper would have been used as a model for other first-graders.

Censorship, Threat and Intimidation

• A prominent British Christian conservative ‘blogger [going by the pseudonym “Archbishop Cranmer”] is under attack from a government agency, at the behest of a homosexualist activist group, for supporting the defence of traditional marriage…Cranmer came under investigation by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) when he posted an ad for the petition being run by the Coalition for Marriage that recently tipped over half a million signatures, including those of several members of the House of Lords. He has been given until May 21 to answer the accusations against him from an alleged 24 anonymous complainants.

It might be imagined that the petition had advocated sending gays to hell or at least stoning them. However, gays aren’t even mentioned. Instead, the petition is just a reassertion of what Western civilization has always taken for granted:

• I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.

However, such a seemingly innocuous statement has now become the basis for criminal charges. How has this happened? Has science proven that heterosexual marriage undermines social well-being or leads to child abuse or promotes suicide? Not at all! In fact, in The Case for Marriage, Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher are emphatic that:

• A preschooler living with one biological parent and one step-parent was forty times more likely to be sexually abused than one living with two natural parents. (159).

Well then, has it been demonstrated that by disallowing other forms of marriage, society suffers? In Evangelical Ethics, John J. Davis writes of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:

• After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind “does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.” Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (116)

Well then, why the uproar against the definition of marriage as heterosexual? And why should someone be threatened into silence for even expressing such a view? What impels such intimidation and bullying? I think that we can explain it historically, sociologically, and even biologically, but perhaps the most illuminating explanation might be the theological one:

• But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- having a form of godliness but denying its power…always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. (2 Tim 3:1-7)

Nevertheless, we have every reason in this world and the next for confidence, as Paul continues:

• But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone…In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of… (2 Tim. 3:9-14)

Our Lord assures us of bright skies. The weather-man also does this, but he is sometimes wrong. However, our Lord controls the weather!

Therefore, Paul concludes with this counsel:

• In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Tim. 4:1-2)

   

Should Non-Discrimination against Persons become Non-Speech against Behaviors and Ideas?

Does a university’s non-discrimination policy limit free speech? Should it? Some think it should:

• University of Nebraska’s assistant football coach, Ron Brown, who is facing censure and calls for his dismissal for publicly expressing his biblically-based views against the homosexual lifestyle, has stated that he’d rather be fired than retract his comments.

• At a meeting of Omaha City Council in late March, Brown spoke against a proposed ordinance that would give special “protected status” to homosexual students. Brown argued that granting special status to one group would infringe on the rights of other groups. He told the council members that their “discernment” was under scrutiny [of God] and that they would be held to “great accountability for the decision you are making.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nebraska-football-coach-id-rather-be-fired-than-retract-homosexuality-remar

According to an AP report, Brown responded,

• “To be fired for my faith would be a greater honor than to be fired because we didn’t win enough games,” “I haven’t lost any sleep over it. I realize at some point, we live in a politically correct enough culture where that very well could happen.”

• Brown further stated he isn’t “picking on” homosexuals, he is just responding to the homosexual agenda that has appeared in American culture.“I have simply said that based on the Bible, homosexuality, the lifestyle of homosexuality, is a sin,” he said. “That has created a flame within itself. But I’ve decided I’m not going to be afraid of people calling me a bigot or a homophobic or narrow-minded out of a simple, gentle, compassionate expression of the truth of God’s word. I’m not going to be bought off by that.”

Brown is correct that people will call him “a bigot or a homophobic or narrow-minded.” This is part of a strategy of socially-sanctioned intimidation and bullying. The opposition has stacked the deck. They can speak out against the Christian faith, but the Christian is no longer allowed to speak against the gay lifestyle without threats of retaliation. They can speak in favor of this lifestyle, but anyone who takes issue with them becomes a “homophobe.”

Just yesterday, the mayor of Grand Rapids referred to Christians as “the forces of darkness” at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. He stated that

• “The forces of darkness” are behind the drive to cut off taxpayer funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider

However, this was followed by no media outcry to dump the mayor. Meanwhile, CNN is charging Brown with breaking his university’s non-discrimination policy:

• After all, the university's own anti-discrimination policy does just what Brown spoke against: It protects students and staff from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/us/nebraska-coach-anti-gay-comments/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

This policy reads:

• It is the policy of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln not to discriminate based upon age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, gender, sex, pregnancy, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran’s status, marital status, religion or political affiliation.

However, Brown has affirmed this policy, claiming that he wouldn’t discriminate against a homosexual athlete.  “Non-discrimination” does not equate with “non-speech?” Although a coach should not discriminate against a player living with two women, he should have the freedom to counsel the player against this conduct.

We believe that certain behaviors are wrong, but this doesn’t mean that we discriminate against the wrongdoer. Husbands and wives often disagree with what the other does, but this doesn’t necessarily place the relationship in jeopardy. An employer is not going to agree with everything that his employee does, but this shouldn’t become grounds for dismissal.

Meanwhile, CNN claims that,

• UNL chancellor Harvey Perlman acknowledged that Brown's views are in stark contrast to the university's anti-discrimination policy.

Certainly, this policy doesn’t disqualify all speech against the beliefs of the various classes of people protected by the anti-discrimination policy. If this were the case, then speech offensive to married people, religious people and “political affiliation” should also be censored. Of course, it can’t be, lest the university would have to take vows of silence.

In order to be consistent, CNN would also have to inveigh against all political speech and even their insinuations against Brown and his faith! However, CNN seems to think that Brown’s talk is offensive and therefore shouldn’t be allowed, without considering the “offensiveness” of their own speech.

In order to solidify their case, CNN abruptly introduces a gay “Christian,” who is a loyal UNL football fan, to mouth their own sentiments:

• "There's a whole community of LGBT athletes out there that are playing for the teams that we know and love across the country," Major said. "It's about those athletes and creating an environment in NCAA athletics that they feel comfortable in."

Perhaps the LGBT athletes might not feel as comfortable with Brown knowing his beliefs. However, this problem occurs across the board. Whites might not feel comfortable knowing what Blacks believe and visa versa. Republicans might not feel comfortable with what Democrats belief and Christians are not going to feel comfortable what homosexuals believe. The rich might not feel comfortable with the poor or visa-versa.

There will always be these kinds of tensions, and they can’t be solved through silencing one group, or even many. It would be like trying to silence my wife when we disagree. Instead, maturity requires that we learn to accept one-another despite the disagreements. This even goes for me. I don’t like everything about me, but I accept myself because God accepts me in spite of my blemishes. I also accept those living the gay lifestyle, although I shouldn’t be required to approve of their behavior.

In fact, it’s hypocritical to censure someone because we find their opinions or speech offensive. This is because the act of censuring itself is offensive. Thus, we are doing the same thing that we accuse others of doing – being offensive. Perhaps instead, we need to learn how to endure certain “offenses.”

Nancy Pelosi’s commendation of President Obama’s coming-out for gay marriage is essentially logically incoherent for this reason. She rejoiced:

• “My religion has, compels me - and I love it for it - to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that.”

For one thing, Pelosi incoherently discriminates against discrimination. However, we all exercise many forms of discrimination. Every law discriminates against some form of behavior. Speeding laws discriminate against those who speed. Tax laws discriminate against those who would evade paying taxes. In fact, almost everything that we say draws a line and discriminates!

For another thing, she is clearly discriminating against those who don’t agree with her, even though she didn’t explicitly say so. Consequently, her words can be construed as offensive by those she accuses of discrimination. It cuts both ways. Therefore, if you want to censure certain speech, you have to do more than just show that it discriminates, especially in view of our 1^st Amendment rights!

However, she is in a difficult bind, as are all those who want to equate gay rights with civil rights. While civil rights prevent discrimination against certain people, promoters of gay rights endeavor to prevent discrimination against certain behaviors, which have, almost universally, been regarded as sinful. However, discriminating against certain behaviors is what laws are about!

Some feel that these ideas shouldn’t be expressed. CNN insinuates that Brown is culpable for implicating his university by his remarks:

• Adding to the confusion, when addressing the council, Brown gave his address as "One Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska," home turf of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Anything to offensively silence what CNN finds offensive!

Propaganda, Silencing the Opposition and Control

If you can control the university, then you can educate the media. If you can educate the media, then you can educate the masses. Politicians have long understand this:

• The most striking success of the revolution of a view of life will always be won whenever the new view of life is, if possible, taught to all people, and, if necessary, is later forced upon them, while…the movement has to embrace only so many people as absolutely necessary for the occupation of the nerve centers of the state involved.

• In every great revolutionary movement propaganda will first have to spread the idea of this movement. Thus, it will untiringly try to make clear to the others the new train of thought, to draw them over to its own ground, or at least to make them doubtful of their own previous conviction. (Mein Kampf)

When “the occupation of the nerve centers of the state” is secured, so too is control. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) understands this and “is launching a new effort today to target 36commentators who speak out against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people”:

• The Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) "aims to educate the media about the extreme rhetoric of over three dozen activists who are often given a platform to speak in opposition to LGBT people and the issues that affect their lives," the media monitoring organization said in a press release. Among those activists are Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council; Bob Vander Platts, the president of The Family Leader; Candi Cushman, an education analyst at Focus on the Family; and Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic League.

Is GLAAD’s real goal to altruistically educate the public or to control the public by silencing any criticism? One of the 36 commentators on GLAAD’s black-list responded:

• I find it ironic that GLAAD's exclusive goal in all of this seems to be the idea that shutting people's voices down--who oppose them--will somehow make their arguments more sound.

 Sadly, the Mainstream Media has consistently shown itself more than ready to be “educated.” Even now, Facebook has banned me from posting my essays on other groups or sites.

The writer, George Orwell, had proclaimed:

• During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

In this case, please join me in the revolution!