Comments on: Anne Lamott Censored by Creighton

By: Skye Leslie

Skye Leslie — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:01:23 +0000

What is at stake here, as seems always to be at stake these days, is the refusal to entertain the notion that one may be an adherent, in principle,and yet not line up with everything written in the fine print. I practice my faith as a Catholic. Rather faithfully. However, I’m not sure I believe in the virgin birth or the anulment of marriages. Am I to be barred from the sanctuary because of this? I think not. What is unfortunate is that if a Catholic University is interested in anything I would think it might pertain to the call of the Gospel. Ann Lamott,among many other things, is a gospel kind of woman.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:14:08 +0000

The irony of hypocrisy. If the NAACP cancelled a speaker because they discovered she supported lynchings, it would be and honest and righteous move. If Catholics (I am not one) stand committed to their convictions and cancel this engagement, it is right wing bigotry. The tolerant tolerate only what they consider tolerant worthy. How many left leaning college campuses, which to think of would be most, would embrace conservative speakers without calling them “nazis” or some other intolerantly hateful tolerantly appropriate hate speech. The ultimate irony is that the most grace in the matter probably came from Ms. Lamott herself.

By: Marc

Marc — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:40:44 +0000

It should be noted that the Anne Lamott event was sponsored by the Creighton Unversity Center for Health Policy and Ethics. Her latest book was published after the invitation and was what contained the ideas about ethics that the University President and the Director of the Center found troubling. The question is not one of censorship but sponsorship by the Center for Health Policy and Ethics. Creighton sponsored a speaking engagement by Amiri Baraka last year – a far more left controversial radical than Ms. Lamott.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:11:41 +0000

I love how people love to use legalistic terms like censor as if to start to form some sort of rationale for a law suit.

It sounds like somebody made a mistake booking her and simply rectified the problem. It also sounds like she has a lot of supporters and was able to create another venue for herself to express her beliefs to people who want to hear them. Good for her.

I believe that if the main donors providing the funding for an event should have a say in what content should be allowed in the event. It is unfortunate that it got to such a late date, but looks like all should work out for all parties involved.

I guess Mr. Champion just needed to get a dig in on an apparent conservative organization that he probably has issue with anyway while purporting himself to be an altruistic being defending a poor, censored victim. Would we see an article like this if, say, freedomswatch.org was not allowed to buy advertising time on a premiere network? Wouldn’t that be considered censorship? Will he take up that cause? Do you defend censorship victims in general, or just liberal ones?

By: J

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:44:42 +0000

considering the false teachings that Northside and Nancy Brink promote

http://www.northsideomaha.org/AboutUs.asp

It dont suprise me a deceiving woman like her would support a assisted suicide speaker.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs9nRvP-whk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8WmoKv0O2kc

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:59:09 +0000

Is this PETA of which you speak an accredited university? Where is it located? If it invited an author to speak and the author possessed a couple of views that contradicted its long list of convictions, why would it uninvite her even after she’d indicated she was not likely to adovcate for such views?

By: Mark Andrews

Mark Andrews — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:11:15 +0000

No, Tom B., PETA doesn’t invite them at all – in accordance with PETA’s values. Is that censorship? And is that censorship good or bad, right or wrong?

By: Tom B.

Tom B. — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:20:51 +0000

Does PETA invite hunters and meat-eaters to events it sponsors, then uninvite them?

By: Mark Andrews

Mark Andrews — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:08:36 +0000

PETA censors hunters and meat-eaters. How’s that any different than what Creighton did? Or is Creighton only to be condemned because its Catholic?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:06:18 +0000

Uh. It’s the Catholic Church.
They hate everyone who doesn’t agree.
As do almost every religion.
That’s why religion is “un-American.”
In the positive sense that America has good core ideals it mostly ignores.