More Notes ...

A Bit of Cliopatriarchal Triumphalism: Occasionally the vagaries of the academic marketplace work as they should and merit prevails. All of us at Cliopatria join in congratulating our colleague, Rob MacDougall, who has accepted an offer to become Assistant Professor of History at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario, Canada. Congratulations both to Rob and to the University.

In Defense of Heresy: I'm not defending heresy here. I'm defending the idea that there are some claims that are just so wrong that they ought not be tolerated in the community of faith. I long ago gave up on my own particular sect, the United Methodists, who have grown so mushy in matters of doctrine that we have no principle of exclusion. You believe in re-incarnation? Welcome to the fellowship of the United Methodist Church. You think Jesus was one of many little pixies who periodically come from outer space to sprinkle fairy dust on human history? Fine. Welcome to our fellowship.

But there are some things that are just so wrong that they ought not be uttered or tolerated in the community of faith. The latest blasphemy heard in my community came from Representative Sam Johnson (R, Texas) who spoke at a veterans' celebration at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas. According to the Carpetbagger, Brother Johnson was bragging about a recent conversation he'd had with George Bush on the porch at the White House.

Johnson said he told the president that night,"Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."
The crowd roared with applause.

Brother Carpetbagger asks:

Which of these is the most outrageous part of this story?
* That a sitting member of Congress is bragging about his desire to drop nuclear weapons?
* That Johnson has shared this idea with the president?
* That Johnson's favored approach to non-proliferation is an unprovoked nuclear attack?
* That this speech was delivered in a church?
* That Johnson's audience"roared with applause"?

All those questions bother me. Why am I not re-assured that he was speaking to another United Methodist when Johnson delivered this wisdom to President Bush? If we Methodists had a principle of rejection, neither Brother Bush nor Brother Johnson would be among us. The cross would have fallen on poor Brother Johnson right there on the spot at Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, and delivered him unto his eternal reward. As it is, my Methodist face turns red with embarrassment when I read Atrios, Crooked Timber, Dark Bilious Vapors, Kevin Drum at Political Animal, Matt Yglesias, or Fontana Labs at Unfogged. And it's a damned good thing that Adam Kotsko and Anthony Smith at The Weblog are so down on the Nazarenes or they'd be raggin' my sorry Methodist ass about it.

Sic et Non: While I'm waxing theological, I want to go all Peter Abelard on David Beito and CharlesNuckolls at Liberty & Power. They have been railing at the University of Alabama's Faculty Senate for passing a speech code that they claim smacks of the kinds of speech restrictions favored in deep South states during the early years of the civil rights movement. They have been celebrating the fact that the Student Senate at the University of Alabama has unanimously adopted a resolution in opposition to the Faculty sponsored speech code. In doing so, they've gotten widespread support from: Robert Shibley at FIRE, Mike Adams at Townhall, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, QD at Southern Appeal and Randy Barnett and Todd Zywicki at the Volokh Conspiracy. That's a mighty sic and I agree with them. Speech codes are offensive to the free exchange of ideas in academic communities.

But there is also a non, as well. As Kevin Drum at Political Animal points out, it is deceptive to claim that the speech code controversy at the University of Alabama had its origin in the administration's objections to students hanging American flags in their dormitory windows. It is even a little deceptive to claim that the speech code promoted by the Faculty Senate is like the restrictions on speech promoted in the deep South in the early civil rights movement. The controversy arose when some students insisted on displaying Confederate flags in their dormitory windows. And, lest we forget, the Confederate flag flew in defense of some very severe restrictions on human freedom. It defended the bondage of most of the South's people of color, but as Clement Eaton taught us two generations ago it defended severe restrictions on the freedom of everyone in the South. Simply put, the Confederate flag is not just deeply offensive to a large part of the University's student and faculty community. It represents an offense to the idea of a university. We have a teaching function here and education may necessarily entail the possibility of offense at some point or another. But this is Alabama, where slavery and segregation once, in the not too distant past, reigned supreme. Faculty members have an obligation to teach what that means for civil behavior.

Update My friend, David Beito, objects in comments to my characterization of the situation at the University of Alabama. For the record, he has paid his dues and is correct on the facts. The errors, which I believe to be minor, appear in posts that simply support his position.

Finally, your senior Cliopatriarch has a birthday today and it is one of those proverbially big ones. If I'm not here for discussions, it may be because I'm off in my cups somewhere celebrating.