Doctrinal correctness

Southern Seminary announced Wednesday that it is ending tenure for seminary faculty, and merging the faculty for its graduate and undergraduate schools.

n order to continue to “attract and retain a first-class academic faculty,” said President R. Albert Mohler Jr., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s board of trustees approved updates to faculty employment policies and unified the graduate and undergraduate faculties during its April 14-15 meeting.

[ ... ]

Under new employment policies, all elected faculty will serve under a “simple academic instructional contract” rather than a tenure-based contract. Faculty will be eligible for contract terms of between one and nine years. The new policy is effective immediately and applies to all current faculty.

I’ll be damned if I can see how job insecurity is going to “attract and retain a first-class academic faculty,” but that’s their story and they will doubtless stick with it. Why not? Sticking with the talking snake hoo-hah seems to have worked out allright for them.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Detail of the day

Michael and Barry are marrying this weekend.

Posting will be reduced this weekend. Tomorrow morning Barry and I are headed to Washington, D.C., for our wedding. It’s an event that not too many years ago neither of us would ever have dreamed would be possible.

[ ... ] A wedding commissioner for the District of Columbia will be officiating the ceremony,but Barry’s dad – a retired Southern Baptist pastor – will be participating in the ceremony. The actual ceremony will be conducted on the southeast corner of the top terrace of the John F. Kennedy Center for the performing Arts (pictured above).

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Twilight of the Idols, or,
How to Philosophize With a Hammer

Morality as Anti-nature

§6 Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: “Man ought to be such and such!” Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms — and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: “No! Man ought to be different.” He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, “Ecce homo!” But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, “You ought to be such and such!” he does not cease to make himself ridiculous. The single human being is a piece of fatum from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet to come and to be. To say to him, “Change yourself!” is to demand that everything be changed, even retroactively. And indeed there have been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is, virtuous — they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that end, they negated the world! No small madness! No modest kind of immodesty!

Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity — an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm.

We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priest, rejects — that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Good Friday blues

As everyone knows, today is Good Friday, the day that the Gospel of John says Jesus was crucified though it was probably sooner.

It is also one of the days when beer and liquor sales are illegal throughout Ireland, thanks to their Blue Laws.

The Good Friday drink ban is silly. If Christians or atheists want to remain sober on any day of the year, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But we should be adult enough to be able to separate the issues of religion, alcohol, citizenship and personal liberty.

The Good Friday ban is just one annual note in the constant background noise of religious interference in our public life.

Frankly, I can think of no one thing that better illustrates the self-absorption and general unfitness for governance of the Pious than laws requiring compulsory, de facto observance of their traditions by everyone else. They believe a god-man was killed on this day 2-millennia ago? Fine, they believe it, and they are welcome to commemorate it however they like. There is nothing to prevent them from praying, reading the Bible, wringing their hands and weeping piteously, going to church, dragging a cross through the streets, watching Mel Gibson movies, boring their children and poisoning their minds with tedious nonsense.

But surely their freedom of religion does not entitle them to disrupt, if only for a day, their more sensible neighbors’ lives? Does it occur to the yahoos to even pause and ask themselves that question? It does not — which is why separation of church and state is important, and only a fool trusts the Pious to defend it.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Twilight of the Idols, or,
How to Philosophize With a Hammer

Morality as Anti-nature

§5 Once one has comprehended the outrage of such a revolt against life as has become almost sacrosanct in Christian morality, one has, fortunately, also comprehended something else: the futility, apparentness, absurdity, and mendaciousness of such a revolt. A condemnation of life by the living remains in the end a mere symptom of a certain kind of life: the question whether it is justified or unjustified is not even raised thereby. One would require a position outside of life, and yet have to know it as well as one, as many, as all who have lived it, in order to be permitted even to touch the problem of the value of life: reasons enough to comprehend that this problem is for us an unapproachable problem. When we speak of values, we speak with the inspiration, with the way of looking at things, which is part of life: life itself forces us to posit values; life itself values through us when we posit values. From this it follows that even that anti-natural morality which conceives of God as the counter-concept and condemnation of life is only a value judgment of life — but of what life? of what kind of life? I have already given the answer: of declining, weakened, weary, condemned life. Morality, as it has so far been understood — as it has in the end been formulated once more by Schopenhauer, as “negation of the will to life” — is the very instinct of decadence, which makes an imperative of itself. It says: “Perish!” It is a condemnation pronounced by the condemned.

Posted in General | Leave a comment