SAC Funds Controversial Christian Speaker with Anti-Gay Marriage Views
Fall Quarter 2011, the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) decided to fund religious speaker and author, Frank Turek to speak at Ohio University. Since then, Open Doors, OU’s LGBTIQQA union, has protested the matter due to Turek’s open opposition to gay marriage.
SAC is a commission of Student Senate that uses a portion of student general tuition to fund student organizations. Any student organization program that uses university funding is voted on by SAC’s general assembly. Ratio Christi, a religious student organization that focuses on logical reasoning for the belief in Christian values, organized to have Frank Turek speak at OU on Tuesday, Feb. 28. Turek will be speaking about his book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” discussing reasons “why Christianity is the most reasonable worldview,” according to Turek’s seminar website.
Open Doors initially set out to protest Turek’s speech because of his 2008 book “Correct, Not Politically Correct; How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.” Open Doors did not support SAC’s allocating of their tuition money to fund a controversial speaker.
Since then, SAC has apologized to Open Doors, but are sticking to their decision to fund Turek’s seminar.
“We were really confused and kind of pissed off,” said Open Doors co-chair, Michael Pistrui, after learning about SAC’s decision to fund the seminar. “We decided to do our research first.”
Pistrui said when Open Doors brought Turek’s anti-same-sex marriage views to SAC’s attention, “they were really apologetic, which we appreciated. They came to explain it to us.”
Pistrui’s understanding is that Ratio Christi “did not express Frank Turek’s outspoken ways when it comes to LGBT issues.”
“They basically lied to SAC,” said Pistrui. Pistrui added that Open Doors was told SAC may be reformatting the interviewing process, so they are aware of these issues in the future.
“It was interesting because it opened up a much needed dialogue amongst SAC,” Pistrui added.
“We are a free speech campus,” said SAC Commissioner, Tina Kongkeo. “We are not trying to shun any group on campus.” Tongkeo went on to say it was not SAC’s intention to fund a speaker that would try to sway opinion negatively, but that Turek will be here to discuss a religious topic.
‘This is the first time SAC was met with opposition [in this way],” said Kongkeo. “We have funded LGBT speakers to come here, and we don’t have people coming out against that. We’re not [going to] please everyone on campus.”
“It is unfortunate that this problem has arisen,” said SAC Treasurer Chris Wimsatt. “We can’t decide to de-fund it after we already decided to fund it.” Since SAC made the decision to fund Turek’s seminar mid-fall quarter, Wimsatt said the effort to protest the matter was, “too little, too late.”
“Our group hosted a similar presentation by Dr. Turek last year, and the event was very well received,” said Ratio Christi President, Joshua Welch. “If the gay and lesbian groups on campus want to protest his coming, that is up to them. We certainly respect their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and we hope that they respect our rights, as well.”
Welch added that Dr. Turek was not asked to speak about his book regarding anti-gay-marriage sentiments. “ Instead, we have asked him to speak on his book, ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,’ and we hope that many will attend his challenging lecture and discussion,” he said.
Open Doors members have said they will be attending the seminar, “as a form of silent protest,” said Pistrui.
“We believe that many in the university community mischaracterize Christianity as an irrational belief, and our goal in hosting Dr. Turek is to present an alternative view on this issue,” said Welch. “Such a discussion is an essential part of the exchange of ideas that occurs on a college campus and embodies the values of OU as set forth in the five Cs.”
Welch went on, “SAC’s decision to fund our event demonstrates that the SAC funding committee feels that the event will serve to advance the free exchange of ideas at Ohio University.”
Related Posts
About the author
Leave a Comment
Share this article
Tweet this!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
Subscribe by RSS
RSS Feed
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
13 Comments
Your ideas are only valid if they agree with my ideas.
Frank’s seminar is not addressing his view on gay marriage. And as the article states, SAC has funded similar speakers from LGBT as well. We’re who oppose that lifestyle are required to tolerate…why can’t LGBT tolerate ours? Here is another off subject issue…what do you do with the students who don’t agree with the gay lifestyle? Kick them out of school? Where is your tolerance of our position?
Frank Turek is an insightful and powerful speaker! Go, Listen, Judge for yourself. And as to the opposition by some, I ask why is it that you who demand tolerance of your own lifestyle are the most intolerant of others? Let him speak.
I would hope that tolerance prevails. As a Christian, I do not always believe in what another says or believes, but I will defend their right to express that belief. I would hope that others who do not agree with Mr. Turek, give him the same consideration. Having heard Mr. Turek speak on this subject, I can guarantee you will not be sorry you came, no matter what your point of view or beliefs.
How can Open Doors condemn Frank Turek’s seminar, when they have not heard the evidence? Bottom line. One is right and one is wrong. that’s simple logic. Let’s find out. Shall we? Or are we afraid of something here.
So,do I understand from the context of the article statement the SAC in hoping the speaker will not “sway anyone in a negative way” relative to same-sex marriage that the only option considered to be correct is to be in support of same-sex marriage ? Any other opinion is simply wrong ?
I am a gay man in a committed relationship and a Buddhist. I will be completely honest and say that I have no respect for Turek or his views. That said, I’m not entirely opposed to his speaking as I would hope that a Buddhist speaker would be allowed to speak. What concerns me about this dialogue, however, is that the line has been drawn between Christian and homosexual, a religion and a sexual orientation. Does this make sense? Certainly there are many Christian homosexuals and there are plenty of non-Christian heterosexuals. Why are we clashing?
Here I would point out that regardless of belief, the fact remains that a minority of the population is being denied rights entertained by the majority of the population, which I think we can agree is unconstitutional. My faith dictates that humans are spiritual beings, not gendered animals, and so love is love is love. Would it be right for me to impose this on other faiths? I think not, but do I think all citizens should have the freedom to choose who they love? With all my heart, yes.
Some of the comments listed above seem hostile or try to claim oppression, as if the Christian faith is under attack. Christian heterosexuals are free to marry, adopt children, and they certainly can’t be fired for being who they are. This is not true for homosexuals. I respect your right to believe what you will, in fact, I will defend your religious freedoms against anyone who would claim otherwise, but allow me space for my faith and my beliefs in kind. I have a great deal of respect for Christianity, and I would challenge Christians to see the issue of homosexuality as not one of just faith but one also of human dignity and equal protection under the law. If Jesus welcomed the tax collector and the leper, certainly there is room for the homosexual at His table.
Randy…you’ve got to be a bumbling idiot to think that same-sex marriage, from a logic stand point, should be discouraged. Especially if you are in the business of wedding planning. Why would someone not want to promote love/commitment/family values?
Chris Mathews, evidence? that what..LGBTIQQA people should be treated differently than hetero people? evidence that discrimination is acceptable. Sounds fruitful–you sir, should thank your parents for wasting a crap-ton of money on your college education. Or maybe you could do your parents a solid and learn the difference between correlation and causation.
Mary Ann and Rick, people in the margins ask for tolerance because they are of a minority subgroup that is challenging the dominant group/thought within a society. Dominant groups/thoughts cannot ask for tolerance because their beliefs/preferences are the ones that are already accepted–so there is no tolerance to be given when the majority already has their way. Make sense?
Ms Kongkeo is not being honest, in any way, shape, or form. The tragedy in this case, and all of the others like this, is that the roles cannot be switched. What she said is :
“We are a free speech campus,” said SAC Commissioner, Tina Kongkeo. “We are not trying to shun any group on campus.” Tongkeo went on to say it was not SAC’s intention to fund a speaker that would try to sway opinion negatively, but that Turek will be here to discuss a religious topic.”
The nightmare that anyone with a brain is able to see is that Ms Kongkeo wouldn’t be caught dead saying:
“We are a free speech campus,” said SAC Commissioner, Tina Kongkeo. “We are not trying to shun any group on campus.” Tongkeo went on to say it was not SAC’s intention to fund a speaker that would try to sway people of faiths opinions negatively, but that (Moore; Hitchens; et al) will be here to discuss an anti religious viewpoint, that might upset people that believe in any form of a higher power, let alone Christ.”
The next time you hear someone spout off that there is ‘no war’ against Christianity, point this out to them. They will not ‘get it’ because, as the Word says, they want to have their ears tickled.
A real life example. Matthew Shepard’s (sp?) mother spoke in the city I live in last year. Christians would not go and protest this woman, as we know that what happened to Matthew that night was murder, and it was wrong! It wasn’t okay. However, if anyone says anything against gay marriage, my community is up in arms….
Freedom of speech? Not in the America I live in. “Indy” hit the nail right on the head. It’s okay, only as long as we say, or do not say, anything that might upset someone that is gay. Have someone attack Christianity, and no one says boo.
The people in Ohio are in my thoughts and prayers, after more children died from the wounds they received yesterday. Maybe, just maybe, people will pay attention for awhile.
I am in prayer for you, Dr Turek, and for the students at that school. God bless you, my Teacher, my Brother, my Friend!
It’s okay for them to bully, criticize, condemn, hate, threaten, stalk, harass, and demean all things faithful. And they say that they are being bullied.
As Charile Sheen says, this article is “WINNING!”
The intolerance of the “toleration police” is absolutely astounding. Tolerance only extends as far as the “politically correct” will allow. The university is supposed to be a place of free speech and open debate. This is another confirmation that such, in 2012, is a total joke.
Does Open Doors believe that only speakers who agree with homosexuality and gay marriage (regardless of what they’re actually speaking on) should be allowed to be funded and speak at Ohio State?
That sounds very intolerant and totalitarian to me (especially since pro gay marriage and homosexuality speakers have been funded to speak in the past).
Ratio Christi should not have apologized to Open Doors. If pro homosexual speakers were allowed to be funded then there is no reason or ground to deny an anti-homosexual speaker funding from the SAC.
Tolerance is letting all viewpoints be discussed and presented. It seems Open Doors only want their view to be presented.
Richard,
This is at Ohio University, not Ohio State. Also some viewpoints shouldn’t be tolerated, does that mean people aren’t allowed to subscribe to those viewpoints–absolutely not. However some speech, such as hate speech shouldn’t be tolerated or go unchallenged because there is nothing progressive about it, it has no value. In fact, I would offer that it has negative value. It is absurd to defund, or refuse funding to speakers who are supporting or promoting a message of equality–or your “pro-homosexual” speaker. Is this suppose to become part of the questionnaire on the form to approve a speaker: “pro-homosexual?” “sorry ma’am or sir, you want to advance equality? We don’t allow your type to speak on our campus”. However, it is perfectly legitimate to defund or refuse to fund a message that discriminates. and now you’re going to say “but as a christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin, I am being discriminated against because my voice is allowed to be represented on campus by an outside speaker” and my answer to that is: that isn’t discrimination. Subscription to a religious ideology and adopting those beliefs aren’t protected under discrimination because no law can be made that favors one religious ideology over another. Your religious viewpoints will not have the same voice or a louder voice than that of our constitution and laws.