December 8th, 2010 | Uncategorized

Open-air preacher returns

He’s back… Confrontational open-air preacher Jesse Morrell struck Yale again Wednesday.

Morrell wore a sandwich board with the word “REPENT” writ large, and lashed out against homosexuals, liberals, rappers, and evolutionists in his attempt to spread the Christian message to the Yale campus. Like last year, Morrell was repeatedly heckled by Yale students on Cross Campus.

But Morrell did not appear alone — he invited Jeremy Hiltz, another open-air preacher who frequents college campuses, to join him. Hiltz said this is the first time he preached at Yale.

“After I came last year, no Yale students repented,” Morrell said. “But some students and parents e-mailed me saying they appreciated my coming.”

Morrell said he came to Yale again because he is visiting family in Connecticut for the holidays. He might return to Yale on Thursday or visit other Connecticut universities, he added.

Check back for updates on Morrell’s visit.

  • LogicalComments

    Is this the only way we could have a legitimate conversation about religion? EPIC FAIL.

  • Goldie08

    I don’t care much for homosexuals, liberals or evolutionists, but how dare he attack rappers?

  • Goldie08

    to all the numbskulls out there – previous comment was sarcastic.

  • LogicalComments

    @Goldie08: That’s so sad people don’t have a sense of humor that you have to comment on your comment.

  • silliwin01

    I never understood why ostensibly smart Yale students feel the need to act like immature fifth graders whenever someone publicly extols viewpoints they don’t agree with.

  • Standards

    Satire man, satire.

    It’s not just a viewpoint they disagree with, it’s an offensively misogynistic, homophobic, and ignorant viewpoint.

    You can’t reason with someone like Jesse Morrell.

    So you make out in front of him.

  • tonykez

    Sounds like the man needs a “travel expense tax deduction” ——– doing business while visiting family in Connecticut. That is a sin all by itself! But, the educated, groomed, intelligent Yalies do not need to act like little idiots either!

  • LogicalComments

    @Standards: You can’t reason with Morrell, so let him yell at air.

  • Standards

    But making out in front of him is funnier.

  • silliwin01

    Nah, the immature Yale student who wants to showcase their supposed intelligence makes out in front of him. The mature person ignores him and his offensive arguments completely.

    On that note, homophobic is the most overused and meaningless epithet wielded in a liberal-minded person’s arsenal of asserting intellectual superiority. Disliking gay people or feeling uncomfortable with them has never directly correlated with “fearing” them and never will. Try doing something more productive than spewing cool sounding buzzwords and you won’t resign yourself to being an immature and risible buffoon.

  • Standards

    Pardon? Did you just criticize my vocabulary then call me a buffoon? And I assure you, I wasn’t taking part in the ridicule or making out, but I support those who did. And if you have a better word for someone who says that gays deserve to get AIDS and die, I’d love to hear it.

    And I don’t think the kids making out in front of him were trying to show how smart they were. They were ridiculing him. Deservedly. There are some things that deserve more than simply quiet disdain. Some people deserve outright mockery and public disapproval. I feel safe in saying Mr. Morrell falls in the latter camp.

  • LogicalComments

    @Standards: There are people who feel shame from mockery and public disapproval. Mockery and public disapproval feels like a punishment to them. Then there are certain people, like Jesse Morrell, who enjoy mockery and public disapproval for the attention they get. They do not feel shame from mockery and public disapproval, but instead relish it. Morrell has a “prophet complex” so anything is going to get to him. People are like that…and you just have to render them inane and pointless. Don’t feed the trolls.

  • LogicalComments

    *nothing is going to get to him

  • spiderjerk2

    why is making out in front of him so funny? what is the benefit? all you’re doing is acting hatefully towards this guy, who seems pretty hateful himself. don’t like his ideas? Leave the guy alone, he has every right to preach unsavory things, just as much as people have the right to make out. If you don’t like it, just walk away and he won’t come back anymore.

  • silliwin01

    I call you a buffoon because you try to argue from a position of intellectual superiority and then showcase a lack of reading comprehension or critical thought.

    What if you could possibly use more than one word to describe someone who espouses anti-homosexual views, as opposed to trying to shoehorn a variety of different sentiments into the meaning provided by one simplistic word? could it possible be constructive to describe these viewpoints as hateful, unenlightened, unnecessarily violent, or regrettable, rather than labeling them “homophobic” and assuming every liberal’s favorite Star Wars logic (fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate) is universally applicable. This is why I hate the pervasive liberal culture at Yale. It is grounded most strongly in a sense of intellectual superiority, but when you examine it, you notice the substance supporting such a haughty facade really is not there.

  • Standards

    This is embarrassingly pedantic and basically sophistry. Wow the word homophobic, when used with it’s commonly understood definition which has roots in fear, is like, totally jedi logic liberal perversion haughty facade lol.

    I used the word as it’s commonly used in an appropriate situation. When people use homophobic they don’t mean afraid of homosexuals, despite the -phobic suffix. They mean bigoted towards. If there is a word for specific bigotry targeted at homosexuals then I’d love to hear it, but there isn’t. I’m sorry if I didn’t qualify them with unnecessarily verbose language, when a preexisting word sufficed.

    Seriously, how ironic of you to be criticizing others for intellectual superiority while ranting about irrelevant semantics.

    Oh and please do tell how I’m arguing in a position of intellectual superiority, when you’re tossing epithets like “buffoon” and “haughty facade” to describe “the pervasive liberal subculture at Yale”.

    Seriously. Pot. Kettle.

  • River Tam

    The term “homophobic” shouldn’t be used when the word “bigoted” could do just fine.

    “Homophobic” is a loaded term – it always confuses me that those that ostensibly seek to defend gay rights are quick to label those who oppose gay marriage, homosexuality, or whatever as being (“homophobic” ie: “afraid of gays”). The reasoning (often explicit) behind such a label is that those who oppose gays must either themselves be gay or be insecure about their masculinity. It is a term that I’ve rarely heard applied to women, primarily because it doesn’t carry the same impugnment (what’s the right word here?) of masculinity.

    “Homophobic” is a word that bi-curious liberals throw at straight conservative males.

  • Standards

    Seriously guys, are you actually unable to use words in anything other than their one specific interpretation of etymology? If you look up homophobic you will get a definition that says someone prejudiced against homosexuals.

    The suffix -phobe means more than just afraid of. It also means hate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-phobe

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homophobe

    Seriously, unless you’re going to bitch about how the word homophobe is dishonest because it doesn’t support unity (as in one definition of homo), or because it is anti-man (as in the literal definition of the prefix homo), then there really is no way to be so anal about one specific definition of the suffix -phobe, because it’s what’s mostly associated with phobias. Homophobia is not a literal fear of homosexuals, it never has meant that and it never will.

    As for your laughably unfair point that homophobe is actually an accusation against the target of the label’s sexuality, it is quite clear that a large number of homophobes are in fact homosexuals themselves. Otherwise they wouldn’t care so strongly. But I’ve never heard it used as a blanket “all homophobes are secretly gay” because that’s absurd, some people are just ignorant. But when someone like Andrew Shervell stalks and harasses a gay college student, it’s hard to see it as anything else other than repressed homosexuality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwObjKZg9Jw

    You two are making much to do about nothing. This is seriously about as pretentious and useless an argument as I’ve seen on these boards.

    And River – someone who denies homosexuals rights is homophobic in that they’re literally prejudiced to homosexuals. I’m sorry if that happens to line up with the conservative male position. And you showcase profound ignorance by somehow bringing into the discussion a paranoid and baseless accusation of sexual orientation to your political opponents.

    And lastly, to just say a homophobe is “bigoted,” leaves out the very key detail regarding who they are bigoted towards.

  • bootietime

    Alright alright. We know why this REALLY happened, don’t we? Elliott Eaton has been trying to get some action for a while now, and it just hasn’t been working out. What better way to score a make-out sesh than to tell a bunch of people that they would be doing it for a true purpose? I’m betting money that Eaton hired Morrell just a a part of his whole plan.

    Shame on you, Elliott. Shame on you and your sexual frustration.

  • River Tam

    > And River – someone who denies homosexuals rights is homophobic in that they’re literally prejudiced to homosexuals.

    Except that’s not what homophobic means or connotes.

    > The suffix -phobe means more than just afraid of. It also means hate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-phobe

    Wiktionary isn’t a source, champ. Its usage is a deliberate conflation of moral opposition and irrational fear.

    (I personally am a “murderphobe” and a “slanderphobe”)

  • Standards

    If you yourself have a better source I’d love to hear it, but all online resources I’ve checked maintain that it means both fear and aversion (or in some cases hate). Wiktionary was just the most convenient source.

    So please, if you’re such a stickler for etymology, provide me with something more legitimate, but you do not simply get to shrug off all evidence and, instead of supplying any of your own, just replace it with your assertions. Doesn’t work that way.

    And if you look up homophobe in the dictionary, you will get a definition that states prejudiced to homosexuals.

    If the dictionary definition isn’t a literal use, I don’t know what is.

  • JacksonJackson

    I am very anxious to hear what Paul Keane thinks about this, and how it relates to his two years at Yale several decades ago.

  • gzuckier

    As long as you feed stray animals, they will keep coming around.

  • ConcernedCalvinist

    Jesse Morrell is a heretic by all orthodox standards of Christianity. As an open-theist he denies God’s comprehensive knowledge of the future, he denies God’s sovereignty, and makes God out to be a confused child and man out to be the ultimate authority. He promotes works-righteousness (good deeds make you right with God and maintain that rightness.) Jesus Christ plus anything is a worthless, vain pursuit in philosophy.

    This man thrives on heckling because he has carefully crafted his own reality; where if he acts foolishly and brashly he can claim this as persecution for the cause of Christ. To quote Keith Green, “It [the Bible] doesn’t say blessed are you when you are obnoxious for the Lord.” If you guys at Yale want him to leave you should ignore him, any attention keeps him around. I do believe open-air preaching is a valid means of communicating the Gospel (or any other idea to be publicly engaged,) but the way Mr.Morrell carries himself is arrogant and foolish.

    For an orthodox presentation of what Mr.Morrell claims to be preaching (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) see: http://illbehonest.com/biblical-gospel

    I do urge you all to repent and believe the Gospel, but not from the authority of Jesse’s god, but from the God of the Bible, who will judge all men according to His law. If you want to hear a Christian who actually knows what he is talking about; invite James White on campus (aomin.org) He has debated Dan Barker on multiple occasions. I am certain he would welcome an invitation.

    In Christ, Cody

  • Yale12

    lol @ JacksonJackson.

  • prion

    ‘Phobos’ means hatred simply because that’s what everyday parlance admits? Yale students should appeal to authorities higher than the common rabble. Try ‘misos’, or try an institution where intellectual standards really are set by the uneducated, half-literate masses.

  • Standards

    I’m sure you’re great at parties, prion.

    But as for your shallow, and frankly laughably pretentious, point: I’m sorry that languages evolve. I’m sorry that the half-literate masses don’t adhere strictly to using words as exactly as they were in dead languages. I’m sure you’d advocate the return of the word hysteria to refer strictly to disturbances with the uterus, yes?

    Or you, siliwin, and River can stop being pretentious asses and recognize that words sometimes change meaning, and that literalism is best left to religious fundamentalists.

  • River Tam

    > Or you, siliwin, and River can stop being pretentious asses and recognize that words sometimes change meaning, and that literalism is best left to religious fundamentalists.

    Yes, we wouldn’t want words to have fixed meanings now. That would be so doubleplusungood.

  • Standards

    Cool false dichotomy, River.

    For someone advocating fixed meanings for the sake of pragmatism, why again were you spurning a word’s common usage for a return to it’s archaic definition that no one uses?

    So let’s break this down: words change meanings. Usually subtly and slowly. So tell me, if this is such a problem how can still understand Shakespear? Should we return to speaking how English was originally spoken and adhere strictly to that? Middle or Old English? Maybe we should just go straight back to speaking Latin if you’re so concerned with language purity.

    Or you know, you can just stop caring about subtle changes in word meanings over decades, centuries, and millenia and stop making issues over nothing.

  • silliwin01

    Phobia has a cleanly defined role as a modern suffix denoting fear of something. This isn’t a case of accepted common usage incongruous with the archaic meaning; it’s a case of liberals lacking the ability to properly classify anti-gay rhetoric and lazily resorting to a term that they unilaterally distort the meaning of. No other word ending in -phobia means anything but fear, and so it’s a little questionable to claim this one exception is normal lexical drift.

  • Standards

    Except by any standard definition of lexical drift it fits? Common usage means aversion or prejudice to homosexuals. I have never heard homophobia used to actually describe someone who is afraid of homosexuals. In fact the word was originally coined to mean the fear of being perceived as homosexual, not an actual fear of homosexuals. And if you’re going to properly contrast it to other phobias, I hope you realize that homophobia has never been considered a clinical phobia — you can’t pull open any old psychiatric records and find any mention of a fear of homosexuals.

    So frankly it seems that, again, you’re making a big deal out of nothing. The word is being used as it is commonly used, and the literal use you’re criticizing me for not using isn’t even the literal use of the word.

    But even ignoring all this. Let’s assume you’re actually right with any of your inconsistently pedantic etymology: who cares? Seriously, a word is being used differently, oh no? Literalists or high functioning autistics with no social or cultural awareness might confuse bigots for people afraid of homosexuals? How awful?

    So to your original point, about how I’m a librul-buzzword spouting buffoon: I think you’d probably have to be retarded to take any of the above concerns seriously, let alone think that the innocuous and culturally accepted definition of a word constitutes an assertion of intellectual superiority as a sort of liberal conspiracy.

  • silliwin01

    >Common usage means aversion or prejudice to homosexuals.

    Common usage by liberals and gay rights activists isn’t common usage as congruent with the definition of lexical drift.

    >I have never heard homophobia used to actually describe someone who is afraid of homosexuals.

    See, I have, and it makes much more sense than using it to describe conscious disliking of them.

    >In fact the word was originally coined to mean the fear of being perceived as homosexual, not an actual fear of homosexuals.

    Notice commonality between the original definition and the one I argue is correct?

    >And if you’re going to properly contrast it to other phobias, I hope you realize that homophobia has never been considered a clinical phobia — you can’t pull open any old psychiatric records and find any mention of a fear of homosexuals.

    Clinical phobias? How is that relevant?

    >But even ignoring all this. Let’s assume you’re actually right with any of your inconsistently pedantic etymology: who cares? Seriously, a word is being used differently, oh no? Literalists or high functioning autistics with no social or cultural awareness might confuse bigots for people afraid of homosexuals? How awful?

    I dislike how anything remotely construed against homosexuality is instantly decried as homophobic, since it’s an inaccurate and lazy rhetorical attack.

    >So to your original point, about how I’m a librul-buzzword spouting buffoon: I think you’d probably have to be retarded to take any of the above concerns seriously, let alone think that the innocuous and culturally accepted definition of a word constitutes an assertion of intellectual superiority as a sort of liberal conspiracy.

    Liberal conspiracy? Come on – you’re clearly a Yale student, and by now you should have learned to not insert your own meaning into someone else’s arguments.

    It’s not a culturally accepted definition of the word, as I said above. You’ve done nothing to convince me otherwise.

  • deleteduseracct

    What would Jesus (the world’s biggest Jewish liberal) think about a hate filled clown like Morrell?

  • elizabeth15

    ^He would love the sinner and hate the sin ;)
    “‘It [the Bible] doesn’t say blessed are you when you are obnoxious for the Lord.'”< ----LOVE

    Many good points have been made (and some not so good ones) defending and opposing linguistic purity, but...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Pro Computer Gambler