Osler's Razor

Well the comments over at HuffPo on your gun article certainly are interesting.

You know that I support background checks and a bit more. The problem is the ability to enforce such laws. Are the processes in place or even feasible to enforce. Probably not. it is as difficult as the concept of 'closing' our borders to illegal crossings.

As for a registry - someone need only hack the NRA mailing list as a good starting point or visit their forums to find out what people own or have an interest in. Mere membership in the organization establishes a link with gun ownership.
 

Thought your comments re Griner well considered and expressed. There is certainly no reason, no Christian imperative, to hate gays; rather the imperative is to love them and everyone else in the bargain.

But, not everyone agrees with me that gays present no threat to traditional ways, which after all, I must admit, are based upon specific biblical texts, and traditional turns of mind among many Christians, and, if truth be told, non-Christian religious and a fair number of non-believers as well.

I never saw any instance of 'gay' bashing, humiliation, or overt and threatening antipathy while I was at Baylor. That was 60 years ago, and a Baptist preacher was the president of the school. It was not because there were no "gays" on campus. I knew them in all walks of campus life.

The difference between now and then, or so it seems to me, is that we, and I mean the heterosexuals who were active, and the "gays" as well, understood the university's position, ignored it or parts of it, but respected the authority which sought to structure our teenage lives. None of us felt any pressure except the self-imposed pressure to be discrete, and consider, as Cromwell suggested to one of his opponents,"Think you not that you may be wrong," or words to that effect.

Baylor is not the worse because of its stance on sexual matters. That stance is well known to all who choose to attend, as are similar policies at BYU and any number of other colleges.

When I was at Baylor, there was a "no smoking" policy, much abused in the mens dormitories, a no drinking policy, which was largely ignored off campus, and a no dancing policy on the campus. I think almost all colleges in this country now discourage smoking, many are tightening their alcohol rules, and Baylor has gone from off-campus "functions," to allowing dancing on campus.

Baylor was then, as it is now, a school at which the consideration of every idea and notion-including religion-was fair game. I do not begrudge it policies which limit the overt advocacy and practice of sex of any variety among unmarrieds.

It seeks with some success to practice a primal rule of Judeo-Christian ethics: to love one another, unconditionally. If "gays" or straights, or non-believers, are treated with respect for what they are, not necessarily what they do, then in my opinion, "where's the beef ?

I see no reason why persons who disagree on many levels with the positions of the university should not be happy at Baylor, just as persons who disagree with the speech restrictions at more "liberal" schools should not be happy with the choices they made after applying and gaining entrance to such institutions.

This country is "all 'bout" choices, good and bad, by individuals, but also by institutions.

Was Baylor a bad or disagreeable place when it barred smoking on campus? Is it then a bad or disagreeable place because it has policies against sex out of marriage?

One may think so. I do not.

Class of "55