Friday, July 01, 2016

Liberals in full hypocrisy mode over #MattBevin appointment to U of L board

Lest anyone thinks liberals are actually serious about tolerance and diversity, here comes a few reporters at the Courier-Journal to clear things up.

In fact, if you want to see a clinic in intolerance and bigotry, just go to the Louisville Courier-Journal''s opinion page and behold liberals, in full hypocrisy mode, as they attack a conservative appointed by the Bevin administration to the University of Louisville's board because, well, he's a conservative.

In several web posts and an opinion piece, the CJ assails Doug Cobb, a businessman from Prospect, who has doubts about two unquestionable liberal dogmas. We go to two scandalized reporters at the CJ (James Bruggers and Phillip Bailey):

One of Gov. Matt Bevin's new University of Louisville trustees regularly takes to Twitter to deny mainstream climate science and say that being gay isn't compatible with Christianity, while also taking aim at U of L sports.

And this disqualifies you from serving on the board of a state university ... how? 

And that he would "take aim" at U of L sports? Seriously? I mean the last thing we need on the board of scandal-plagued university is someone who takes a dim view of scandal.

Then there is the ridiculous Tim Sullivan, a CJ sports reporter. Cobb's positions, he says, "make Cobb a curious choice for an institution that values intellect and inclusiveness while maintaining a prominent sports profile."

Yes. Of course. We all know the terrible athletic consequences when governors appoint conservatives to university boards. 

First let us just behold the irony of someone who is trying to exclude someone from something because he disagrees with him in the name of inclusiveness. And, secondly, let us ponder the additional irony of a sports reporter opining about political issues in the very act of calling someone else unqualified.

His attack on Cobb was titled, "A Headline Waiting to Happen." Waiting to happen? When there are liberal reporters with an ax to grind who can write them? Is there some problem I am not seeing?

In fact, why is this controversial at all? These are commonly held beliefs among conservatives. You can disagree with them all you want. But why is this news? I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a feverish story in the CJ about the astonishing fact that the Pope is Catholic, or breaking news reporting that bears do their business in the woods.

I mean, seriously people. Get a grip. And once you've gotten a grip, go ponder just how absurd you look accusing a conservative of being a conservative and how hypocritical you are when, after delivering sermon after sermon on diversity, you go ballistic when someone you disagree with gets appointed to a university board.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid on man-made Global Warming? A phenomenon that causes just about everything, but is caused by one thing and one thing only? Polar bears are close to extinction? Even cold weather proves your theory? In fact, everything proves your theory? Fine. Cherish it. Go pretend that an utterly unfalsifiable theory is science and that everyone must believe it no matter what (in fact, do this after lecturing someone on the evils of how the Church tried to force its opinions on Galileo, just for further ironic effect).

You think that Christianity and same-sex marriage are perfectly compatible? Despite crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament? Despites Paul's condemnation of it in I Cor. 6:9? Despite of Jesus saying, in the context of his discussion of marriage, "he made them male and female"?

Go right ahead. I mean, if sports reporters can do politics, why not theology?



Anonymous said...

Martin, you are being intellectually dishonest. He did not say that gay marriage and and Christianity were incompatible. He said being gay and being Christian are incompatible. This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which, while it calls homosexuals to celebacy, it most certainly does not exclude them from membership in Christ's Church. Furthermore, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of global climate change (durr, it's a liberal conspiracy to take away our coal and make us subservient to the one world government, durr) he refuses to acknowledge basic science fact. Finally, the man denies evolution, something that St. John Paul II himself recognized as beyond dispute. He is fundamentally unfit to the be on the board of a research university. I am so damn sick of how faithful Catholics have gotten in bed with the gaggle of pridefully ignorant fools that make up the GOP. Yes, the GOP claims to be opposed to infanticide, unlike the Democrats, which is a very good thing. And while I certainly don't advocate voting for Democrats, I am sickened by know-nothing buffoons such as Cobb, as well as the bizarre desire to turn these know/nothing into martyrs that otherwise intelligent men like yourself have displayed.

Martin Cothran said...


Have you seen Cobb's actual Tweets?

Anonymous said...

Yes. He said gay marriage and conservatism are not compatible. However, he called gay Christians an oxymoron. The theological sophistication of the "Elders" at Six Flags Over Jesus is staggering.

Martin Cothran said...


I think you must know very well that the expression "being gay" or just "gay" is used by both sides in this debate as shorthand for a variety of things, including homosexual behavior, homosexual desire, homosexual orientation, etc. When someone of Cobb's worldview uses it, he is almost definitely NOT using it to mean having a particular inborn nature--what liberals mean by "sexual orientation" and what some Catholics mean when they talk about "being gay" not being a sin.

Someone with a traditional view of sexuality doesn't believe in "being gay" strictly speaking--as some sort of innate condition. It's simply a temptation some people are more prone to than others, possibly accentuated by genetic conditions or induced because of various environmental factors.

But I'm curious, are you saying (along with the rest of the lynch mob) that anyone who doesn't believe in the gender ideology that just showed up on the historical scene should be excluded from serving on university boards? And if you do, could you tell me how this is an examples of inclusiveness?

Martin Cothran said...

Also, I have a hard time not concluding from his tweets that he doesn't think that same-sex marriage and Christianity are incompatible.

Martin Cothran said...

I personally don't have a problem with believing that the earth is warming, but I do have a problem with any scientific believe being treated like a dogma. And I have an even bigger problem accepting this even more dogmatic attitude that you seem to share that no reasonable person could possibly dissent from a scientific consensus.

There is a long and noble tradition of dissent from scientific mainstream thinking, some of which has resulted in important scientific advances.

I have met plenty of unreasonable people who believe the earth is warming and plenty of reasonable people who don't. In fact, I see very little correlation at all.

You can see plenty of reasonable people discussing this here:
These are people most of whom have some expertise in this area.

Unlike, I assume, yourself.

Mook said...


I invite you to visit Lubos Motl's blog (The Reference Frame) and his posts on climate change. It is totally possible to be educated and intelligent and still disagree with liberal politics and alarmism.

In case you bring it up, the 97% figure that gets thrown around a lot comes from a study that didn't even ask individual scientists.