College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

[BlackTerrel]

The enemies of Christianity in this country get bolder and bolder. There will be backlash eventually. The scales can only tip so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/?test=faces


A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

The student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University
since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," according to a civil complaint filed last week.

"[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," the 43-page lawsuit reads.

Keeton, according to the lawsuit, was informed by school officials in late May that she would be asked to take part in a remediation plan due to faculty concerns regarding her beliefs pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues.

"The faculty identifies Miss Keeton's views as indicative of her improper professional disposition to persons of such populations," the lawsuit reads.

In a statement to FoxNews.com, Augusta State University officials declined to comment specifically on the litigation, but said the university does not discriminate on the basis of students' moral, religious, political or personal views or beliefs.

"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."

The Code of Ethics prohibits counselors from discriminating based on a number of factors, including gender identity and sexual orientation. "Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons," the code says.

Keeton's lawsuit alleges that the university's remediation plan noted Keeton's "disagreement in several class discussions and in written assignments with the gay and lesbian 'lifestyle,'" as well as Keeton's belief that those "lifestyles" are cases of identity confusion.

[FrankRep]

The War on Religion (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)


Rep. Ron Paul, MD
December 30, 2003


As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[silus]

What does this have to do with religion? The report states that this woman can't deal with gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folk. If that is to be challenged, than so be it. But it has nothing to do with Christianity. :shrug

[WaltM]

posted and discussed heavily in religion subforum.

[BenIsForRon]

The enemies of Christianity in this country get bolder and bolder. There will be backlash eventually. The scales can only tip so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/?test=faces

What the fuck are you blabbering about? Scales? Backlash?

Are we going to have a massive homosexual vs. christian war in the next decade or something?

[Knightskye]

"The Counselor Education Program is grounded in the core principles of the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association, which defines the roles and responsibilities of professional counselors in its code of ethics," the statement read. "The code is included in the curriculum of the counseling education program, which states that counselors in training have the same responsibility as professional counselors to understand and follow the ACA Code of Ethics."

The Code of Ethics prohibits counselors from discriminating based on a number of factors, including gender identity and sexual orientation. "Counselors do not discriminate against clients, students, employees, supervisees, or research participants in a manner that has a negative impact on these persons," the code says.

If she doesn't want to follow the rules, she can counsel somewhere else. No one is saying she can't be Christian.

[YumYum]

In the Christian scripture where Paul condemns "men who lie with men", he also condemns with equal enthusiasm fornicators and adulterers. How come Evangelical Christians are on the anti-gay bandwagon, but not vehemently opposed to adultery or sex out of wed-lock? What is their hang-up about gay people?

[Reason]

/yawn

[Southron]

What does this have to do with religion? The report states that this woman can't deal with gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folk. If that is to be challenged, than so be it. But it has nothing to do with Christianity. :shrug

That article said she had to change her "central religious beliefs on human nature." That view comes from Christianity.

[Southron]

In the Christian scripture where Paul condemns "men who lie with men", he also condemns with equal enthusiasm fornicators and adulterers. How come Evangelical Christians are on the anti-gay bandwagon, but not vehemently opposed to adultery or sex out of wed-lock? What is their hang-up about gay people?

I am vehemently opposed to fornication and adultery.

I believe most of the backlash come from the flaunting of their sins by homosexuals.

I never have seen a fornicators or adulterer's pride day.

That said Christians shouldn't look the other way just because it's a heterosexual sin.

[YumYum]

I am vehemently opposed to fornication and adultery.

I believe most of the backlash come from the flaunting of their sins by homosexuals.

I never have seen a fornicators or adulterer's pride day.

That said Christians shouldn't look the other way just because it's a heterosexual sin.

I have Evangelical friends who are not vehemently opposed to fornication and adultery, and yet despise homosexuals and homosexuality. Many Christians are obsessed with gays.

I have an Evangelical friend who brags to other Evangelicals about the sex he has had with women that he is not married to. He gets very graphic, and yet he is very active in his church. I have another Evangelical friend that is not so open about it, but he has had three girlfriends that he has had sex with and yet he also can't stand gays.

Everyday is a fornicators or adulterer's day with some of the Evangelicals I know.

Christians should not only look the other way with regards to other people's sex lives, they should not judge, and as the apostle Paul said, they "should keep busy with their hands and mind their own business."

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is nobody's business; including married and unmarried heterosexuals who perform unnatural, bizarre sex acts.

And BTW, I am not gay.

[Southron]

I have Evangelical friends who are not vehemently opposed to fornication and adultery, and yet despise homosexuals and homosexuality. Many Christians are obsessed with gays.

I have an Evangelical friend who brags to other Evangelicals about the sex he has had with women that he is not married to. He gets very graphic, and yet he is very active in his church. I have another Evangelical friend that is not so open about it, but he has had three girlfriends that he has had sex with and yet he also can't stand gays.

Everyday is a fornicators or adulterer's day with some of the Evangelicals I know.

Christians should not only look the other way with regards to other people's sex lives, they should not judge, and as the apostle Paul said, they "should keep busy with their hands and mind their own business."

What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is nobody's business; including married and unmarried heterosexuals who perform unnatural, bizarre sex acts.

And BTW, I am not gay.

You should call your friends out on that.

My church would discipline someone who openly acted that like.

[Danke]

Herbert Marcuse heaped malevolent diatribes relentlessly upon the 1960s youth: "The West," he railed, "is guilty of genocidal crimes against every civilization and culture it has encountered. American and Western Civilization are the world's greatest repositories of racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and narcissism. American society is oppressive, evil, and undeserving of loyalty."

George Lukacs announced to gullible minds everywhere: "I see the revolution and destruction of society as the only solution. A world-wide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of the old values and a creation of new ones."

Did all this "critical devastation" come about conspiratorially? In a sense, yes, because it was behind-the-curtain so to speak. It was orchestrated from a small but fervent coterie of revolutionaries that lived in the thinker / writer world, the world of the Ivory Tower. But it was not precisely (or truly) conspiratorial because the term "conspiracy" means something secret and illegal; and the revolutionary goals of the Cultural Marxists were not exactly secret. They openly published books that furthered their goals. Yet their goals of destruction were secret in the sense that they were not divulged in full to the reading audience that flocked to their books. Were their goals illegal? Not in the sense of official law in the courts of mankind, but such goals were certainly illicit in the sense of natural law fashioned by Nature's God and decipherable by reason. So I think it is fair to say that the advocates of Cultural Marxism were engaging conspiratorially, just not the kind of conspiracy that prosecutors challenge in a courtroom.

User Friendly Marxism

The end result of all this is that from 1920 to 1960, the revolution of Karl Marx was thoroughly redesigned and re-launched. As Jaeger's film puts it, the Frankfurt School revolutionaries have given us "user friendly Marxism" instead of the draconian Gulag version of the USSR. This new user friendly version took over the intellectual youth of the 1960s and turned them upside down value-wise. These intellectuals now control and administer our schools, media, courts, and legislatures. The cultural Marxists adopted Nietzsche's "transvaluation of all values," in which the Mad Hatter's world is instituted. Everything that previously was an evil now becomes a virtue while all the old virtues become evils. Individualism, self-reliance, property, profit, family, traditional marriage, fidelity to spouse, strength of will, personal honor, rising through merit -- all these integral pillars of our civilization become distinctive evils that oppress us as humans. They must be rooted out of our existence.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2811522#post2811522

[Sentient Void]

Personally, I am not Christian, religious etc - I am agnostic at 'best' and atheist at 'worst'.

Now, with that being said - I find it sad, pathetic, and hypocritical for a shool to discriminate based onher personal views, which should, IMO be irrelevant - as long as she's willing and able to pay for the school and get good nough grades.

Now, with THAT being said, it's the school's right, if it is a *private* institution, IMO, to expel her for any reason they wish, regardless how stupid or inane it is. Expelling people for retarded reasons, reasons based on discrimination, etc - will probably be really bad for business. In my opinion she should be able to transfer to another school and take her credits with her - and if she can't take her credits with her, or the school purposefully makes it hard for her in some way, etc - then she should file a civil suit for appropriate refunds and hassle.

Now, my view on homosexuality, lesbians, transgendered, transvestite, etc is that I agree with her in that most of the time (not always, there are probably rare cases of biological reasons) it is some sort of identity crisis rooted in some sort of child abuse, and these individuals should seek proper psychological treatment, of their on free will of course. At the same time, I don't believe they should have any less (or more) rights than anyone else - just like anyone with schizophrenia, multiple personality, etc. These individuals can function fine in society as well.

Sadly, There are a lot more people out there who have been sexually abused at some point in their life than people realize. Different people react to such traumatic events differently.

I'll bet some people will probably think I'm an idiot or making a judgement call for this - except I'm not talking out of my ass. I have a few homosexual friends (who I totally accept as they are), who have told me they can trace the way they are to abuse as a child. And they've told me most of their friends who are the same way were abused as well. Not only that - but not too many years ago (couple decades or so?), the DSM did list it as a psychological disorder, by it was removed due to lobbying and political correctness reasons.

Now, I'm not the fire dude from fantastic four, but - flame on! Lol!

[GunnyFreedom]

Personally, I am not Christian, religious etc - I am agnostic at 'best' and atheist at 'worst'.

Now, with that being said - I find it sad, pathetic, and hypocritical for a shool to discriminate based onher personal views, which should, IMO be irrelevant - as long as she's willing and able to pay for the school and get good nough grades.

Now, with THAT being said, it's the school's right, if it is a *private* institution, IMO, to expel her for any reason they wish, regardless how stupid or inane it is. Expelling people for retarded reasons, reasons based on discrimination, etc - will probably be really bad for business. In my opinion she should be able to transfer to another school and take her credits with her - and if she can't take her credits with her, or the school purposefully makes it hard for her in some way, etc - then she should file a civil suit for appropriate refunds and hassle.

Now, my own personal view on homosexuality, lesbians, transgendered, transvestite, etc is that I agree with her in that most of the time (not always, there are probably rare cases of biological reasons) it is some sort of identity crisis rooted in some sort of child abuse, and these individuals should seek psychological treatment, of their on free will of course. At the same time, I don't believe they should have any less (or more) rights than anyone else - just like anyone with schizophrenia, multiple personality, etc. These individuals can function fine in society as well.

I'll bet some people will probably think I'm an idiot or making a judgement call for this - except I'm not talking out of my ass. I have a few homosexual friends (who I totally accept as they are), who have told me they can trace the way they are to abuse as a child. And they've told me most of their friends who are the same way were abused as well. Not only that - but not too many years ago (couple decades or so?), the DSM did list it as a psychological disorder, by it was removed due to lobbying and political correctness reasons.

Now, I'm not the fire dude from fantastic four, but - flame on! Lol!

I pretty much agree with everything you say here, except to add that a school with a name like Augusta State University is probably not a private school, but a state-sponsored university, and being a state sponsored institution means that they should not be able discriminate based on religious beliefs.

I say that while reaffirming that a private institution should be able to remove any students they like for any reason whatsoever, except wherein they have violated the contract agreement between student and university such that they may be required to refund a student's tuition if they break their end of the contract.

Those who cheer the actions of Augusta State University here strike me as authoritarian as all the rest. Forget freedom of religion, forget contract agreements between student and university. Forget a state-sponsored institution being barred from discriminatory practices. Forget all of that, no, we hate authoritarianism unless it's crushing something we hate even more, like Christianity. :mad:

I may be a strong believer, but I recognize every person's right to live out their lives as they please. I even recognize an Atheists's right to attend a public university and study religion if they like, regardless of their personal views or what they plan on doing with it. Do they plan on studying religion just so they can take that knowledge to attack religion? probably, but who am I to say what they are or are not allowed to do?

And yet, even though I advocate for equal treatment for all regardless of their foundational belief structures, and the total freedom to worship or not as you please, the mere act of advocating for a nondiscriminatory policy against Christians at public universities will make some of our members consider me "unlibertarian" or some such nonsense.

There are a few Atheists on RPF's I have met who would not use the jackboots of State authority to crush Christianity, and those I respect as highly as anybody in the Ron Pauler or liberty movements...but a LOT of the militant Atheists we have here who may even be total anarchists or voluntaryists, would not hesitate to use every tool of state tyranny to crush Christians wherever they can be found.

I must say, however, that there is a significantly larger proportion of fair-minded Atheists vs hypocritical Atheists on these forums than out in the rest of the world, and that is no doubt encouraging.

Still, those who literally CHEER state institutions willfully discriminating against Christians by telling them they must change their fundamental beliefs or be dropped without a refund, are disheartening to see as though they were advocates of liberty, and these would be the very same people who would howl the loudest if that same state sponsored university made the same threat to an Atheist lest he convert to Christianity.

Ya, the one thing I hate more than anything else in the world, is hypocrisy. It is probably the biggest pet peeve I have. My father (passed away in 1991) was one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered, and so today whenever I encounter hypocrisy it kinda fills me with outrage...

[Sentient Void]

Agreed on all counts, GunnyFreedom.

Didn't notice they were a public institution - if that's the case, then that's unacceptable.

[TonySutton]

Here is my input as noted in a similar thread in the religion sub-forum.

I found this in several articles on the topic.


The counseling program follows the American School Counselor Association's ethical standards, which specify that counselors in training must "recognize and accept" individual differences, cultural diversity and alternative points of view.

In the ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors it states:


The professional school counselor:
c. Respects the student’s values and beliefs and does not impose the counselor’s personal values.

http://www.schoolcounselor.org/content.asp?contentid=173

This is probably the point of issue. We have only heard one side of this case so far. At some point we will hear from the school which will give us a better understanding of the issue and whether or not they are treating her fairly. I find it hard to believe people here are so quick to pass judgment, either way, without knowing all of the facts.

[silentshout]

I'm not religious at all, and i am very tired of the religious right and their unending crusade against what goes on in other people's bedrooms. That being said, i think a student should be able to have the right to believe whatever he or she wants...especially since this isn't a public school and hence supposed to be inclusive of all beliefs.

[fisharmor]

What is their hang-up about gay people?

Actually, every time they make advances on me after the second time I've stated calmly that I'm not interested, I have very much behaved like a Christian should, and not knocked their fucking teeth out of their head, despite how very much I wanted to.

I'm sure that you've come to expect very little from Christians on this issue: I have certainly come to expect very little from homosexuals.

Some of them do prove me wrong. I doubt any Christian can ever prove you wrong. Hang-ups exist on both sides, sir.

[BlackTerrel]

What does this have to do with religion? The report states that this woman can't deal with gays, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folk. If that is to be challenged, than so be it. But it has nothing to do with Christianity. :shrug

Of course it does. She is being forced to alter her beliefs.


What the fuck are you blabbering about? Scales? Backlash?

Are we going to have a massive homosexual vs. christian war in the next decade or something?

No. However in a country that is 80% Christian you can only silence Christian beliefs for so long. This students views sound pretty close to the majority view.


In the Christian scripture where Paul condemns "men who lie with men", he also condemns with equal enthusiasm fornicators and adulterers. How come Evangelical Christians are on the anti-gay bandwagon, but not vehemently opposed to adultery or sex out of wed-lock? What is their hang-up about gay people?

Because no one forces Christians to accept them.

I've had sex out of wed lock. My views are not the same as all Christians. But I would never tell anyone (Christian or otherwise) they had to accept my views or actions.

[ChaosControl]

As a public institution I don't think this kind of religious discrimination should be tolerated.
It is one thing if it was a private institution since it'd be a property rights issue effectively, but since it is a public university it should be allowed to discriminate in such a manner.

[puppetmaster]

look I know as well as you do organized religion means never ending WARS. Now I think people can be spiritual and peaceful......

[Stary Hickory]

Well lets see a state school discriminates on folks based on religious affiliations yeah that is just great..no big deal right. It would not be a big deal if it was not state sponsored. If it feels the need to discriminate based in religious views then the same should be true with FUNDING of the school. Those with religious views who do not "jive" with this university should not be FORCED to pay for the school.

[Sentient Void]

well lets see a state school discriminates on folks based on religious affiliations yeah that is just great..no big deal right. It would not be a big deal if it was not state sponsored. If it feels the need to discriminate based in religious views then the same should be true with funding of the school. Those with religious views who do not "jive" with this university should not be forced to pay for the school.

+1776.

If the argument is that a state school *could* discriminate against such views because of the agreed upon (between the school and student) about the purpose and positions of the 'school counselor', then your argument, IMO, becomes that much more important. That is - if we want to be consistent. If they can't be consistent, then it should be privatized, then they can discriminate against whoever, however, they want, IMO.

[dannno]

I never have seen a fornicators or adulterer's pride day.



:D Really?? That's too bad..

I once lived in a town called Isla Vista. EVERY DAY was fornicators and adulterer's day :p

Have you ever heard of Mardi Gras? College spring break?? Come on, man, seriously..

Don't make me post pics, I'll scare away all the Christians on this thread :D

[dannno]

As a public institution I don't think this kind of religious discrimination should be tolerated.
It is one thing if it was a private institution since it'd be a property rights issue effectively, but since it is a public university it should be allowed to discriminate in such a manner.

The institution has no problem with her being Christian, what they have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is taking counseling and she can't counsel because she won't be compassionate with gay people like Jesus would have been if he had been a counselor. If she was really Christian I don't think this would be a problem.

[YumYum]

Actually, every time they make advances on me after the second time I've stated calmly that I'm not interested, I have very much behaved like a Christian should, and not knocked their fucking teeth out of their head, despite how very much I wanted to.

I'm sure that you've come to expect very little from Christians on this issue: I have certainly come to expect very little from homosexuals.

Some of them do prove me wrong. I doubt any Christian can ever prove you wrong. Hang-ups exist on both sides, sir.

I don't quite understand what you are saying. If a *** put his hands on you, you have every reason to "knock their fucking teeth out of their head." That is called sexual harassment, and it is against the law.

Maybe in the old days gays were bold and persistent. Today, you tell someone you're not gay and they usually back off.

As far as "advances" go, Christians are notorious for making advances on people to join their religion. I was raised a Jehovah's witness. I'm an expert on shoving religion down people's throats; that's what witnesses do best.

I sense you hate *****s. Why? Do they hurt you?

In what way should a Christian prove me wrong? I'm not gay. If I'm wrong in my beliefs that **** should be left alone by zealot Christians, who are obsessed with homosexuality, then I'll burn in Hell, and there is no way of knowing that until I die.

And if *****s are to burn in Hell, according to the Christian Bible, so will fornicators and adulterers.

Do you hate fornicators and adulterers as much as you hate homosexuals?

If a nice looking woman comes on to you to have sex, do you want to "knock out her fucking teeth"?

[ChaosControl]

The institution has no problem with her being Christian, what they have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is taking counseling and she can't counsel because she won't be compassionate with gay people like Jesus would have been if he had been a counselor. If she was really Christian I don't think this would be a problem.

A counselor should be able to decide what patients they will accept. If she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals or she will counsel them and state she views their lifestyle wrong, that is her choice to make. The school shouldn't be able to force her to go through some kind of brainwashing nonsense or kick her out of the program just because she has different beliefs than them. There job is to educate her, not endorse or reject her personal views.

[dannno]

A counselor should be able to decide what patients they will accept. If she doesn't want to counsel homosexuals or she will counsel them and state she views their lifestyle wrong, that is her choice to make. The school shouldn't be able to force her to go through some kind of brainwashing nonsense or kick her out of the program just because she has different beliefs than them. There job is to educate her, not endorse or reject her personal views.

Most counselors work for state-run institutions and don't get to decide who they see, so no, she wouldn't have a choice. If you're going to pick a statist career that deals in being compassionate with whoever comes into your office, then you probably shouldn't hate any specific group of people. The school is right to fail her as a counselor because she would make a horrible counselor.

Would Jesus have chosen not to counsel gay people? I don't understand why you still think this is a religious issue, Jesus didn't hate gay people, this is about an insane person who hates gay people and falsely identifies their beliefs with a particular religion.

[dannno]

If a nice looking woman comes on to you to have sex, do you want to "knock out her fucking teeth"?

+1

If fisharmor comes on to a nice looking woman, does he want her to "knock out his fucking teeth"? Or would he prefer her to tell him "no"?


I will never understand people who hate teh gays.

[YumYum]

Most counselors work for state-run institutions and don't get to decide who they see, so no, she wouldn't have a choice. If you're going to pick a statist career that deals in being compassionate with whoever comes into your office, then you probably shouldn't hate any specific group of people.

Would Jesus have chosen not to counsel gay people? I don't understand why you still think this is a religious issue, Jesus didn't hate gay people, this is about an insane person who hates gay people and falsely identifies their beliefs with a particular religion.

Very important point you make! Jesus only hated the religious leaders and the rich who were abusive to the poor. He forgave the woman who was going to be stoned by the Jews for committing adultery. That is where he said: "He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone." All this hate stuff and condemnation comes from the man named Paul, not Jesus.

Jesus taught forgiveness. Paul taught dis-fellowshipment and excommunication.

[Krugerrand]

The institution has no problem with her being Christian, what they have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is taking counseling and she can't counsel because she won't be compassionate with gay people like Jesus would have been if he had been a counselor. If she was really Christian I don't think this would be a problem.

I assume this is not based on the passage about the money changers in the temple, or the man who wanted to bury his father or his interactions with the Pharisees. The line about not giving food to the dogs probably may not pass the "counselor test" either.

A person can believe somebody's behavior is immoral and still provide consoling services. If they should be, as you say, like Jesus - consider his advice given to the adulteress about to be stoned - "go and sin no more."

[Krugerrand]

Most counselors work for state-run institutions and don't get to decide who they see, so no, she wouldn't have a choice. If you're going to pick a statist career that deals in being compassionate with whoever comes into your office, then you probably shouldn't hate any specific group of people. The school is right to fail her as a counselor because she would make a horrible counselor.

Would Jesus have chosen not to counsel gay people? I don't understand why you still think this is a religious issue, Jesus didn't hate gay people, this is about an insane person who hates gay people and falsely identifies their beliefs with a particular religion.

I highlighted the part I have a problem with here. As government takes over everything ... everything is a statist career. By your logic, as the government takes over, people lose their freedom of religion.

[Krugerrand]

Very important point you make! Jesus only hated the religious leaders and the rich who were abusive to the poor. He forgave the woman who was going to be stoned by the Jews for committing adultery. That is where he said: "He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone." All this hate stuff and condemnation comes from the man named Paul, not Jesus.

Jesus taught forgiveness. Paul taught dis-fellowshipment and excommunication.

See my post just after yours. The Gospels list lots of "not nice" stuff done/siad by Jesus.

Did Jesus hate the religious leaders?

[MelissaWV]

On the subject of punching someone's teeth in for unwanted advances... if someone can't take a hint, then have them removed. I don't understand why that would start a fight. Is it some attempt to prove "no, I'm not gay! See? I'm macho! Look how awesomely I punched you!"?

That does, in case you are wondering, happen the other way around with a lot of regularity. Hell, you can find guys who will come up to a professed lesbian and say kind things like:

"You're too pretty to be a lesbo."
"I bet you just never had the right kind of dick."
"That's okay; I'll watch you and your friend here, and then I'll join in."
"I can change that."
"As long as you ain't got a dick under there I'm game."
"Why play with plastic when you could have me?"

I could go on. I won't. I left out the particularly vulgar ones, believe it or not.

[Southron]

The word "hate" is being thrown around a lot.

Where do you gather that this woman hates anyone?

She thinks homosexuality is a sin.

Hate doesn't have anything to do with that.

[YumYum]

See my post just after yours. The Gospels list lots of "not nice" stuff done/siad by Jesus.

Did Jesus hate the religious leaders?

Yeah, and given that someone as forgiving as him could hate them, it says a lot about how evil religious leaders are. Religious leaders then are no different than religious leaders today: they exploit people in the name of G-d for their own personal gain. Lines have to be drawn somewhere when evil people are injurious to their fellow man. Its a violation of people's freedoms and liberties.

[Krugerrand]

Yeah, and given that someone as forgiving as him could hate them, it says a lot about how evil religious leaders are. Religious leaders then are no different than religious leaders today: they exploit people in the name of G-d for their own personal gain. Lines have to be drawn somewhere when evil people are injurious to their fellow man. Its a violation of people's freedoms and liberties.

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they are doing" does not sound very hate-filled to me.

EDIT: I would add that my understanding of how this works is that he died for their eternal salvation. That's not a hate-filled action.

[YumYum]

"Forgive them Father for they know not what they are doing" does not sound very hate-filled to me.

That is a spurious scripture. It is not in the earliest manuscripts, so Jesus never said it. Even if he had, it was directed at the Roman soldiers; not the religious leaders.


EDIT: I would add that my understanding of how this works is that he died for their eternal salvation. That's not a hate-filled action.

I agree. Most everything Jesus said and did was about love and forgiveness; except for the religious leaders. He told them :"Most truly I say to you, you are getting your reward now in full." Translation? "Your ass is grass!"

But, in getting back to the point that dannno was making: Jesus didn't condemn horny people or gays. He didn't even talk about gays, did you ever notice? Yet, the unmarried Paul does.

[Krugerrand]

That is a spurious scripture. It is not in the earliest manuscripts, so Jesus never said it. Even if he had, it was directed at the Roman soldiers; not the religious leaders.



I agree. Most everything Jesus said and did was about love and forgiveness; except for the religious leaders. He told them :"Most truly I say to you, you are getting your reward now in full." Translation? "Your ass is grass!"

But, in getting back to the point that dannno was making: Jesus didn't condemn horny people or gays. He didn't even talk about gays, did you ever notice? Yet, the unmarried Paul does.

Staying on Dannno's point ... It's presumptuous for somebody to say what I would do in a given situation ... it's that much more presumptuous for somebody to say what a person who walked on the earth 2000 years ago and who they believe to be divine would do.

Be the person finding homosexuality immoral based on any faith system - it's none of the school's business. To claim that it's a statist job is to let the state take over all the jobs and render freedom of religion to be equivalent to freedom of unemployment. Consoling is not and should not be a statist job.

To your point... you say Jesus was about forgiveness. You mention the woman caught in adultery. What about the fact that line was "and sin no more?" He essentially said "stop committing adultery." That's as much a claim to there being a right and wrong in sexual behavior as saying that homosexuality is immoral.

[erowe1]

Very important point you make! Jesus only hated the religious leaders and the rich who were abusive to the poor. He forgave the woman who was going to be stoned by the Jews for committing adultery. That is where he said: "He that hasn't sinned, cast the first stone." All this hate stuff and condemnation comes from the man named Paul, not Jesus.

Jesus taught forgiveness. Paul taught dis-fellowshipment and excommunication.

Jesus also taught excommunication in Matthew 18.

I don't know anything about Paul being hateful, but as far as condemning sin, Jesus certainly didn't do that less than Paul did, and Jesus said a lot more about sinners burning in Hell than Paul ever did.

Edit: If the point you're driving at is that Jesus said less about sins of a sexual nature than Paul did, I'll grant that, but that's really just an argument from silence, and not even total silence at that (e.g. Mark 7:20-23).

[erowe1]

That is a spurious scripture. It is not in the earliest manuscripts, so Jesus never said it. Even if he had, it was directed at the Roman soldiers; not the religious leaders.


Funny that you would make that point. The passage you mentioned earlier about the adulterous woman is equally spurious on text-critical grounds. I wasn't going to say anything until I saw you make this point here.

[dannno]

Before "counselors" there were Priests. They were the counselors of man. If you want to be a counselor and preach religion, then I recommend going to a religious school.. going to a public school and taking counseling is not the right path because they are going to be focused on a slightly different kind of counseling that generally deals in the public realm.

I'll bet 99.5%+ counselors work with the general public, the vast majority for a public institution, and I can't think of any counseling positions where I would want to have somebody who didn't like teh gays.

[erowe1]

The institution has no problem with her being Christian, what they have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is taking counseling and she can't counsel because she won't be compassionate with gay people like Jesus would have been if he had been a counselor. If she was really Christian I don't think this would be a problem.

I haven't read the whole thing. But from the OP it looks to me like the thing they have a problem with is her beliefs about homosexuality, not her "lack of compassion." Just as a counselor who helps an alcoholic give up booze may not be in the slightest bit lacking in compassion, a counselor who counsels homosexuals toward repentance may well be driven precisely by a very deep compassion toward them if that counselor genuinely believes their behavior is sinful and harmful to them.

I'd say that even if this school were a private institution, they still would be in the wrong to require this student to change her conviction about this issue unless they already had this requirement in writing before her entering the program. That would be similar to Christian schools requiring students to subscribe to statements of faith--they can do it, but they can't just spring the requirement on already enrolled students. But since this is a public school anyway, they shouldn't have any requirement for their students to hold any particular beliefs.

[MelissaWV]

Before "counselors" there were Priests. They were the counselors of man. If you want to be a counselor and preach religion, then I recommend going to a religious school.. going to a public school and taking counseling is not the right path because they are going to be focused on a slightly different kind of counseling that generally deals in the public realm.

I'll bet 99.5%+ counselors work with the general public, the vast majority for a public institution, and I can't think of any counseling positions where I would want to have somebody who didn't like teh gays.

Then don't hire them. Ultimately, this would be something between this student (once she graduates and all that) and her employer/potential employer. You know all the basics of these classes, and you know all your proper terminology and methodology, but the moment you call someone a "***" and freak out because you don't want to work with them, it's unlikely you'll get much more business (if you're independent) or stay on the job much longer (if you work for someone else).

[Liberty_Mike]

/yawn

+1

[ChaosControl]

Most counselors work for state-run institutions and don't get to decide who they see, so no, she wouldn't have a choice. If you're going to pick a statist career that deals in being compassionate with whoever comes into your office, then you probably shouldn't hate any specific group of people. The school is right to fail her as a counselor because she would make a horrible counselor.

Would Jesus have chosen not to counsel gay people? I don't understand why you still think this is a religious issue, Jesus didn't hate gay people, this is about an insane person who hates gay people and falsely identifies their beliefs with a particular religion.

I don't really care what some religious figurehead would done, I also don't care what the religion teaches or how people interpret it.

What I do care about is her belief is a religious belief and should protected from government discrimination.

Her employer is the one who should decide if she should be working. The school is there to educate her, not to decide if she should or shouldn't be a counselor. If she ends up working for the state, yes should shouldn't be able to discriminate, but then it'd be up to her state employer to fire her. If she works in the private sector, then it is up to her employer, or her if she is self employed, as to whether such discrimination should be allowed. But since this is a public institution it should be forbidden from religious discrimination such as this.

[BlackTerrel]

The institution has no problem with her being Christian, what they have a PROBLEM with is the fact that she is taking counseling and she can't counsel because she won't be compassionate with gay people like Jesus would have been if he had been a counselor. If she was really Christian I don't think this would be a problem.

So since I don't like assholes I cannot be a counselor since when an asshole comes in for therapy I will not be compassionate with them. Anyone who doesn't like assholes should not be a counselor.

That is your logic.

[silus]

1. This has nothing to do with Christianity, and nowhere in Christianity would one value the outright judgment of others, whether they are thieves or homosexuals.

2. If you're going to be a counselor, and you cannot accept certain people for who they are or what they believe, then you're going to suck at your job. And again, this has nothing to do with Christianity.

3. We are talking about someone that may not fundamentally accept the inherent freedom and liberty of another. Someone who allegedly believes homosexuals have an identity crisis and should change their ways. And we are on a liberty forum wondering why this is a problem?

The war is not against Christianity. The war is for freedom against the pressure and influence that organized religions try to put upon members of society. People just want to be left alone. But religion (and the government) won't let them. The war is not against religion, OR government, its against any power structure that imposes itself on my freedom.

[silus]

So since I don't like assholes I cannot be a counselor since when an asshole comes in for therapy I will not be compassionate with them. Anyone who doesn't like assholes should not be a counselor.

That is your logic.
That argument is ridiculous. We are not talking about the attitude someone may walk into your door with, we are taking about characteristics fundamental to the person, what is at the heart of their identity. If you cannot get past those things, then you cannot do your job.

And for the record, if you can't deal with bad attitudes ("assholes" as you put it), then you will probably be very limited as a counselor. Did I really need to inform you of that? Who are the types of people you think get counseled??

[BlackTerrel]

That argument is ridiculous. We are not talking about the attitude someone may walk into your door with, we are taking about characteristics fundamental to the person, what is at the heart of their identity. If you cannot get past those things, then you cannot do your job.

And what if a homosexual counselor cannot accept the identify of a Christian.

There is a blatant double standard here. What is most shocking is the people being banned are in the majority. That doesn't go well.

[silus]

And what if a homosexual counselor cannot accept the identify of a Christian.

There is a blatant double standard here.
Double standards do not exist for every "what-if" scenario you dream up.

Anyways, if a homosexual counseler cannot accept a christian they will suck at being a counselor too. You are using this sorry ass political game to justify a wrongdoing simply because the "other side" has engaged in the same behavior. Meanwhile you have sold out on just doing the right thing regardless of interest.

[dannno]

And what if a homosexual counselor cannot accept the identify of a Christian.

There is a blatant double standard here. What is most shocking is the people being banned are in the majority. That doesn't go well.

I think if a homosexual was blatantly anti-Christian and the counseling program picked up on it, they would probably fail them as well. Same as if they were blatantly anti-ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. That is the point I'm trying to make here. There are a lot of Christians who are very hateful towards certain groups, and that seems really anti-Christian to me.

[dannno]

And for the record, if you can't deal with bad attitudes ("assholes" as you put it), then you will probably be very limited as a counselor. Did I really need to inform you of that? Who are the types of people you think get counseled??

Also true.

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the nature of counseling.

[EndDaFed]

Another case.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/

It looks like these women are getting fired for not doing their job.


U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients

[MelissaWV]

Also true.

A lot of people here don't seem to understand the nature of counseling.

I understand it very well. There are a lot of misogynist counselors, for instance, who merely keep their mouths shut when it's convenient, graduate, and practice this way. When it's found out, they're fired/disciplined/sued.

This seems absolutely to not be the college's business unless it's part of their curriculum and graduation standards that the student "be accepting of everyone" in order to graduate with a degree. That's different than punishing intolerant behavior, which most schools will do to some extent or another. This person paid for an education, for better or worse, and should get it... and then face the harsh realities of the world when she gets fired for being an intolerant asshat. Of course, at some practices it might never come up, and she might be incredibly helpful to the people she works with. That's for her future employer to deal with, no?

[Paleo]

I had some similar shit happen to me at CalState... How dare anyone question the orthodoxy?

[jmdrake]

In the Christian scripture where Paul condemns "men who lie with men", he also condemns with equal enthusiasm fornicators and adulterers. How come Evangelical Christians are on the anti-gay bandwagon, but not vehemently opposed to adultery or sex out of wed-lock? What is their hang-up about gay people?

It's not a "hang up about gay people". If a Christian decides to speak out against fornication in general that's enough to trigger charges of "hatred" and "homophobia". Remember the case of the Christian Legal Society? It's bylaws did NOT single out homosexuality. But just because they required voting members to pledge not to engage in a "sexually immoral lifestyle" that was enough to trigger the school's "anti discrimination policy". And what about this case? Why should someone's personal belief ever be at issue? The state has never been allowed to interfere with personal belief. Even NABLA, an organization which openly advocates gay pedophilia, is protected by the ACLU and the constitution. But someone with a personal belief about homosexuality that is not politically correct is not protected?

[jmdrake]

I think if a homosexual was blatantly anti-Christian and the counseling program picked up on it, they would probably fail them as well. Same as if they were blatantly anti-ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. That is the point I'm trying to make here. There are a lot of Christians who are very hateful towards certain groups, and that seems really anti-Christian to me.

So the school itself is allowed to be blatantly anti Christian? :rolleyes: Dannno that's garbage. I can't believe you're buying into this. And considering this is a state run school this is bordering on thought crime. I doubt you'd be defending this garbage if a school was threatening a medical student for expressing a belief that marijuana might be medically beneficial? And what is "blatantly anti homosexual"? I could see if someone was advocating stoning gays, but what if someone simply doesn't by the now discredited view that homosexuality is genetic? Say if someone simply believes it's outside the will of God? Many people (as in everybody) is outside God's will at some point. (And yes I know there are those that don't believe in God). Why should someone be dropped from a state run educational program because they don't have a politically correct belief?

*When they came for the 9/11 truthers I didn't stand up because I wasn't a truther.
*When they came for the Christians who still believe the Bible teachings on sexuality, I didn't stand up because I wasn't a Christian or I don't accept that particular teaching.
*When they came for the stoners I didn't stand up because I don't do drugs.
*When they came for people who don't agree with Keynesian economics.....

[John Taylor]

I think if a homosexual was blatantly anti-Christian and the counseling program picked up on it, they would probably fail them as well. Same as if they were blatantly anti-ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE. That is the point I'm trying to make here. There are a lot of Christians who are very hateful towards certain groups, and that seems really anti-Christian to me.

A massive number of homosexuals are blatantly anti-Christian, as they recognize the fact that Christianity and Christ, condemn homosexuality as a perversion.

[MelissaWV]

A massive number of homosexuals are blatantly anti-Christian, as they recognize the fact that Christianity and Christ, condemn homosexuality as a perversion.

And a number are anti-zealot, recognizing that a large number of Christians can separate their condemnation of an activity from a desire to have it criminalized, but that some fanatics simply can't help themselves and would love nothing more than an ideal society where anyone even "a little" gay or "perverted" would meet a pretty gruesome fate.

None of that, though, should have anything to do with whether or not she's "allowed" to graduate. It should have everything to do with whether or not she's hired, or kept on, depending on when she decides to make her employer aware of her dislike for a small number of potential clients.

[John Taylor]

And a number are anti-zealot, recognizing that a large number of Christians can separate their condemnation of an activity from a desire to have it criminalized.

They're zealously anti-zealot?

As a side note: a large number of "Christians" aren't even Christians, as they deny that the sole mediator between God and man is Christ Jesus.

[jmdrake]

1. This has nothing to do with Christianity, and nowhere in Christianity would one value the outright judgment of others, whether they are thieves or homosexuals.

So if society comes to the conclusion that being a thief is merely a matter of genetics and thieves should just be happy "God" or "nature" made them that way, should a Christian who honestly believes that a thief can change be barred? And don't laugh. The modern genetics movement is headed that way with new genetic "pre crime" research.



2. If you're going to be a counselor, and you cannot accept certain people for who they are or what they believe, then you're going to suck at your job. And again, this has nothing to do with Christianity.


Unless 1) most of the people you counsel aren't gay (which is the vast majority of the population) and 2) the gay people who come to you know your stance and come to you for that reason. Sometime when you get done ranting against Christians, you should take the time to watch The Donnie McClurkin story. He talked about how his gender identity was confused based on being raped as a child. He says he's been healed from that trauma and from its effects. His view is that he isn't trying to make anybody change, but he's there for people who are hurting like he was and want the same healing.



3. We are talking about someone that may not fundamentally accept the inherent freedom and liberty of another. Someone who allegedly believes homosexuals have an identity crisis and should change their ways. And we are on a liberty forum wondering why this is a problem?


The important words are in bold. Why would anyone who supports liberty support the "pre crime" punishment of someone because of what they may or may not do at some undetermined time in the future! The concept of thought crime in an anathema to a freedom movement and belongs with the statists and socialists.



The war is not against Christianity. The war is for freedom against the pressure and influence that organized religions try to put upon members of society. People just want to be left alone. But religion (and the government) won't let them. The war is not against religion, OR government, its against any power structure that imposes itself on my freedom.

You don't have the right to "war" against religion. Religion is voluntary. You claim to be against "government". Well this is the case of government being used to suppress religion! If you want to fund a private university that enforced controlling "thought crime" principles, go right ahead. But you have no right to take tax money from the population in general to fund an institution that discriminates against the politically incorrect.

[John Taylor]

None of that, though, should have anything to do with whether or not she's "allowed" to graduate. It should have everything to do with whether or not she's hired, or kept on, depending on when she decides to make her employer aware of her dislike for a small number of potential clients.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this girl personally dislikes any among the pool of potential clients. Instead, she is being discriminated against because of her moral convictions.

[Paleo]

So can someone explain to me what ACTUALLY changed between the time when they psychobabble community considered the ghey to be an effective disorder and now? Seriously, if she doesn't want to counsel ghey patients, she doesnt have to. What law says that therapists have to be tolerant of every human behavior?

[jmdrake]

And a number are anti-zealot, recognizing that a large number of Christians can separate their condemnation of an activity from a desire to have it criminalized, but that some fanatics simply can't help themselves and would love nothing more than an ideal society where anyone even "a little" gay or "perverted" would meet a pretty gruesome fate.

None of that, though, should have anything to do with whether or not she's "allowed" to graduate. It should have everything to do with whether or not she's hired, or kept on, depending on when she decides to make her employer aware of her dislike for a small number of potential clients.

The most sensible post in the thread. It's sad to see those who would jump on the "thought police" bandwagon in the name of "liberty". :(:(:(:(

The only thing I would add is that I haven't seen anything to suggest this student dislikes anyone. Just because you don't think a particular trait is fixed at birth doesn't mean you dislike the person who has it.

[John Taylor]

So can someone explain to me what ACTUALLY changed between the time when they psychobabble community considered the ghey to be an effective disorder and now? Seriously, if she doesn't want to counsel ghey patients, she doesnt have to. What law says that therapists have to be tolerant of every human behavior?

Don't you know, if you don't accept that bestiality is a perfectly acceptable lifstyle, you can't be a counselor!

I guess that rules out relying on The Great Counselor. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209:6)

[MelissaWV]

There is no evidence whatsoever that this girl personally dislikes any among the pool of potential clients. Instead, she is being discriminated against because of her moral convictions.

Her employer might think that, if she said something along these lines in an interview, she isn't a good fit for a job where she might be called upon to counsel people who are openly homosexual on an unrelated issue. Again, I feel that's up to the employer. The school is making so many assumptions and bending over backwards... all the while discriminating against her to prevent her from discriminating.

As for the zealously anti-zealot thing :p I was using your phrasing about being anti-Christian. Let's think of it along other lines. There are some super-racist people out there. There are absolutely people who would hate to see anyone but the poster-child for the Master Race even set foot on their property or breathe their air. Those people do not bother me by living. I wouldn't like them, and I probably wouldn't invite disaster by trying to go over for Sunday brunch, but I would have no problem with them existing. Of course, if they successfully lobby to have laws put in place that lead to my rights being extinguished, or worse, then we have a problem.

There are Christians who hate all kinds of groups, behaviors, and so on... but as long as they can keep it separate from legislation, it doesn't endanger me. There are some Christians who absolutely lean more towards Christ's message of love, forgiveness, and repentance, and who don't mind homosexuals so long as they aren't vulgar in public (and, frankly, heterosexuals could stand to be a bit less vulgar in public, too). There's a big spectrum, and I'd be surprised to find a lot of homosexuals that "hate all Christians."

[jmdrake]

So can someone explain to me what ACTUALLY changed between the time when they psychobabble community considered the ghey to be an effective disorder and now?

This:

Kinsey's Paedophiles (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970#)

The APA is now all over the map. You can find on their website information claiming that sexuality is genetically determined along with their more recent statement that such has claim is unproven.



Seriously, if she doesn't want to counsel ghey patients, she doesnt have to. What law says that therapists have to be tolerant of every human behavior?

The law of the thought police. This goes beyond who she may or may not choose as a client, to what she happens to believe about that client. Imagine if the 1964 civil rights act not only said that public accommodations had to be open to people of all races, but also that all of the people working there were barred even from disliking someone of another race? :eek:

[jmdrake]

Her employer might think that, if she said something along these lines in an interview, she isn't a good fit for a job where she might be called upon to counsel people who are openly homosexual on an unrelated issue. Again, I feel that's up to the employer. The school is making so many assumptions and bending over backwards... all the while discriminating against her to prevent her from discriminating.

*gasp* You mean actually let the free market work? But....but...but...as a liberty movement we must suppress the liberty of certain groups in order to protect the liberty of those in permanent victimhood. (I'm being sarcastic of course).

Yes. An employer is free to interpret her positions that way. An employer is also free to interpret the fact that someone has a southern accent to mean that person is racist. Employers don't have to tell a candidate why they didn't hire her. That said, there is actually a market for Christian counselors.



As for the zealously anti-zealot thing :p I was using your phrasing about being anti-Christian. Let's think of it along other lines. There are some super-racist people out there. There are absolutely people who would hate to see anyone but the poster-child for the Master Race even set foot on their property or breathe their air. Those people do not bother me by living. I wouldn't like them, and I probably wouldn't invite disaster by trying to go over for Sunday brunch, but I would have no problem with them existing. Of course, if they successfully lobby to have laws put in place that lead to my rights being extinguished, or worse, then we have a problem.

There are Christians who hate all kinds of groups, behaviors, and so on... but as long as they can keep it separate from legislation, it doesn't endanger me. There are some Christians who absolutely lean more towards Christ's message of love, forgiveness, and repentance, and who don't mind homosexuals so long as they aren't vulgar in public (and, frankly, heterosexuals could stand to be a bit less vulgar in public, too). There's a big spectrum, and I'd be surprised to find a lot of homosexuals that "hate all Christians."

Yep. I fit in the "morality shouldn't be legislated" category. But stories like the OP make me wonder sometimes. A lot of people laughed at the "storm is coming" commercial opposing gay marriage. That commercial played on the fears of people that the "gay rights" movement could turn into a "thought crime" movement. Looks like those fears weren't totally unfounded. :( Someone mentioned a "backlash" earlier in the thread. This is where it could come from. If people who otherwise could care less what two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom feel pressured into voting with the "zealots" just to stop the "thought police." The answer is (of course) less government.

[BlackTerrel]

Yep. I fit in the "morality shouldn't be legislated" category. But stories like the OP make me wonder sometimes. A lot of people laughed at the "storm is coming" commercial opposing gay marriage. That commercial played on the fears of people that the "gay rights" movement could turn into a "thought crime" movement. Looks like those fears weren't totally unfounded. :( Someone mentioned a "backlash" earlier in the thread. This is where it could come from. If people who otherwise could care less what two adults do in the privacy of their bedroom feel pressured into voting with the "zealots" just to stop the "thought police." The answer is (of course) less government.

The backlash would come from the fact that this student is being punished simply for having views that are not out of the mainstream but are actually part of the majority. Never has a minority pushed their views on the majority in such a way as the "gay rights movement". And eventually people will start pushing back - it's inevitable.

[AxisMundi]

The enemies of Christianity in this country get bolder and bolder. There will be backlash eventually. The scales can only tip so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/27/georgia-university-tells-student-lose-religion-lawsuit-claims/?test=faces

If it's that important for her to hate gays, there are plenty of parochial colleges for her to attend where they will support her failed, medieval, draconian hatred towards the gay community.

Otherwise she can get up to speed like many others of her religion and understand that homosexuality is a natural, inherent part of a gay person.

BTW, the only backlash we will see, IMHO, is AGAINST your religion as we seek to re-secularize our Nation, a "Civil Rights Backlash" as I have been calling it for many decades now.

Affirmative Action, forced busing, and hiring quotas are preexisting examples of this concept where a fight for basic equality has resulted in more-than-equal rights for the minority.

[AxisMundi]

The backlash would come from the fact that this student is being punished simply for having views that are not out of the mainstream but are actually part of the majority. Never has a minority pushed their views on the majority in such a way as the "gay rights movement". And eventually people will start pushing back - it's inevitable.

Those of us who remember the Civil Rights movement will disagree.

[jmdrake]

Wow. Talk about your zombie thread bump. :rolleyes:


If it's that important for her to hate gays, there are plenty of parochial colleges for her to attend where they will support her failed, medieval, draconian hatred towards the gay community.

Believing that rape victims can overcome the results of being raped is not the same as "hating gays". You should ask the rabid gay rights activists why they hate this man.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/7727877.jpg



BTW, the only backlash we will see, IMHO, is AGAINST your religion as we seek to re-secularize our Nation, a "Civil Rights Backlash" as I have been calling it for many decades now.


Please read Ron Paul The War on Religion (http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)



Affirmative Action, forced busing, and hiring quotas are preexisting examples of this concept where a fight for basic equality has resulted in more-than-equal rights for the minority.

Denying a student an education for a personally held belief is a whole different animal.

[AxisMundi]

Wow. Talk about your zombie thread bump. :rolleyes:

It was linked by another poster in another thread.


Believing that rape victims can overcome the results of being raped is not the same as "hating gays". You should ask the rabid gay rights activists why they hate this man.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/7727877.jpg

Whose that?


Please read Ron Paul The War on Religion (http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

Another of the few areas where Mr. Paul and myself differ apparently, as there is no "war on religion". There is, however, a move to re-secularize our g'ment to ensure religious freedom and equality for all.

Forcing religious doctrines out of g'ment is hardly a "war on religion", when said move would ensure the religious equality of all people of religion, and the equality of those with no religion as well. Not to mention that the concept was set down at our Founding, and has been eroded over the centuries.

I have spent the last few decades fighting for the basic freedom and equality of myself and my fellow non-Abrahamics, as well as the GLBT community. I am very concerned that, as it appears Christians will loose their clear majority within my lifetime, that I will spend the latter parts of my life fighting just as hard for THEIR equality and freedoms.

I have already been part of mailing campaigns in instances where students were disallowed their crosses and bibles in public schools.

I would like to retire from religious activism someday.


Denying a student an education for a personally held belief is a whole different animal.

If the student refuses to meet the criteria for a course, then that is something the student needs to address within themselves.

I cannot see a professional counselor with such a mindset attempting to counsel a gay student effectively, or with anything other than the failed "ex-gay ministry" style of "counseling". Enough gay kids commit suicide.

As noted previously, there are plenty of parochial colleges that would fit more in line with her religious doctrines.

[zade]

I haven't read the thread, but how does she expect to be a school counselor, an occupation in which she will most likely be dealing with at least some number of kids going through sexual crises who need tolerance and acceptance

[jmdrake]

It was linked by another poster in another thread.

Yea. As evidence from me to someone who challenged me because they didn't think the thread existed. Anyway it's fine. I occasionally bump zombie threads too. ;)




Whose that?


Donnie McClurklin. He's a pastor and a famous gospel singer. He was also raped by an uncle when he was a kid. Like many male rape victims he had problems with his sexuality. He says that God delivered him from his curse. And for that he's hated. He's hated so much that some "gay rights" advocates were mad at Obama during the 2007 primary for having Donnie at events. Donnie has never said anything hateful toward gays (or anybody for that matter). He even says he isn't trying to change those who are happy being gay. He just offers hope to those who aren't. And for that he's hated. Go figure?



Another of the few areas where Mr. Paul and myself differ apparently, as there is no "war on religion". There is, however, a move to re-secularize our g'ment to ensure religious freedom and equality for all.


You mean by getting rid of the senate chaplain that's been there since 1787? :rolleyes: When exactly in your mind did the government become "de-secularized"? This should be good.



Forcing religious doctrines out of g'ment is hardly a "war on religion", when said move would ensure the religious equality of all people of religion, and the equality of those with no religion as well. Not to mention that the concept was set down at our Founding, and has been eroded over the centuries.

I have spent the last few decades fighting for the basic freedom and equality of myself and my fellow non-Abrahamics, as well as the GLBT community. I am very concerned that, as it appears Christians will loose their clear majority within my lifetime, that I will spend the latter parts of my life fighting just as hard for THEIR equality and freedoms.

I have already been part of mailing campaigns in instances where students were disallowed their crosses and bibles in public schools.

I would like to retire from religious activism someday.


Ok. You're contradicting yourself. Do you think disallowing students to wear crosses is good or bad? If it's good then what side where you on in the mailing campaign? If it's bad, then isn't that a "war or religion" that you claim doesn't exist? :confused:



If the student refuses to meet the criteria for a course, then that is something the student needs to address within themselves.


If a criteria for a course includes personal belief then that course should NOT be funded by taxpayers AT ALL! This is not George Orwell's dystopia where thought police decide what's right and what's wrong. If someone has a personal belief that the world is really a giant computer simulation, it shouldn't matter for their course as long as they keep their personal belief out of their actual classwork.



I cannot see a professional counselor with such a mindset attempting to counsel a gay student effectively, or with anything other than the failed "ex-gay ministry" style of "counseling". Enough gay kids commit suicide.


Most of them go to the "You were born gay so deal with it" counselors. That should tell you something.



As noted previously, there are plenty of parochial colleges that would fit more in line with her religious doctrines.

As noted secular schools have NO BUSINESS passing judgement on someone's PERSONAL BELIEFS! If someone wants to create a school that discriminates on the basis of personal belief then that person should have to do that with 100% private money. You need to re-read the first amendment and pay close attention to the free exercise clause.

[AxisMundi]

I haven't read the thread, but how does she expect to be a school counselor, an occupation in which she will most likely be dealing with at least some number of kids going through sexual crises who need tolerance and acceptance

My question exactly, though you worded it much more concisely.

One can only imagine this woman developing an "ex-gay ministry for grade schoolers" or some such horror.

[jmdrake]

I haven't read the thread, but how does she expect to be a school counselor, an occupation in which she will most likely be dealing with at least some number of kids going through sexual crises who need tolerance and acceptance

Accepting the American Psychological Association view that there is no consensus on what causes homosexuality (and by inference whether or not it is fixed) is not intolerance. The problem is that the APA went along with the brainwashing for the past several decades from a pedophiles research that people are stuck on the "born gay" theory that's never been proven. Maybe it's right? Maybe it's wrong? Since it's only a theory (again according to the APA) why should anybody be penalized for choosing either side? And what about the gay student who doesn't want to be gay? How is it wrong to say "While you have to make your own decision, there have been people who have changed their lifestyle"?

[PatriotOne]

*When they came for the 9/11 truthers I didn't stand up because I wasn't a truther.
*When they came for the Christians who still believe the Bible teachings on sexuality, I didn't stand up because I wasn't a Christian or I don't accept that particular teaching.
*When they came for the stoners I didn't stand up because I don't do drugs.
*When they came for people who don't agree with Keynesian economics.....

When they came for the gays I didn't stand up because I wasn't gay.

[jmdrake]

My question exactly, though you worded it much more concisely.

One can only imagine this woman developing an "ex-gay ministry for grade schoolers" or some such horror.

Or maybe she might teach the APA position instead of the politically correct crap that militant members of the LBGT community want to force on everyone despite the lack of science to prove the position.

[jmdrake]

When they came for the gays I didn't stand up because I wasn't gay.

Who's attacking gays? :rolleyes: Really, let go of the "If you don't accept a discredited theory on sexuality you must hate gays" nonsense. Even some gays don't buy that theory.

Do you think these gays hate gays?

http://www.*****bychoice.com/

[AxisMundi]

Donnie McClurklin. He's a pastor and a famous gospel singer. He was also raped by an uncle when he was a kid. Like many male rape victims he had problems with his sexuality. He says that God delivered him from his curse. And for that he's hated. He's hated so much that some "gay rights" advocates were mad at Obama during the 2007 primary for having Donnie at events. Donnie has never said anything hateful toward gays (or anybody for that matter). He even says he isn't trying to change those who are happy being gay. He just offers hope to those who aren't. And for that he's hated. Go figure?

Thanks.

I imagine he's hated by the xian fundie crowd for not condemning gays too.

Every segment of society has their embarrassing fundie members, xians, atheists, gays, whomever.

(On a side note, the creep was a pedophile, not gay. Two distinct categories)


You mean by getting rid of the senate chaplain that's been there since 1787? :rolleyes: When exactly in your mind did the government become "de-secularized"? This should be good.

Merely reference the day the BoR was ratified.


Ok. You're contradicting yourself. Do you think disallowing students to wear crosses is good or bad? If it's good then what side where you on in the mailing campaign? If it's bad, then isn't that a "war or religion" that you claim doesn't exist? :confused:

Let me clarify. It is a child's Constitutional Right to wear their crosses and carry bibles in public schools, as well as pray as long as it doesn't disturb the class during class time. It is, of course, against the Constitution for schools to force prayers and/or bible study, or include pure religious doctrines in their curriculum, such as Creationism.

I fought on the side of the child, of course. I also was part of a letter writing campaign when the ACLU went silly and tried having crosses removed from a private cemetery a few years ago. Again, I fought on the side of the private cemetery.

And no, there is no war on religion. This case is an example of the school officials (who were Christians) not understanding the laws and/or DOE guidelines.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

This is often the case when people over-react and do not bother to even try to understand the concept of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.


If a criteria for a course includes personal belief then that course should NOT be funded by taxpayers AT ALL! This is not George Orwell's dystopia where thought police decide what's right and what's wrong. If someone has a personal belief that the world is really a giant computer simulation, it shouldn't matter for their course as long as they keep their personal belief out of their actual classwork.

I would suggest that if a person's beliefs preclude them from completing a course, they find other courses, or schools that will except their beliefs.

Just as a public school, college or otherwise, should not mandate religion in the curriculum, they should not have to cater to people's religious beliefs.


Most of them go to the "You were born gay so deal with it" counselors. That should tell you something.

Indeed, that our school counselors are horribly undereducated.


As noted secular schools have NO BUSINESS passing judgement on someone's PERSONAL BELIEFS! If someone wants to create a school that discriminates on the basis of personal belief then that person should have to do that with 100% private money. You need to re-read the first amendment and pay close attention to the free exercise clause.

See above.

An example, if I may.

A Muslim applies for, and is excepted into, a community college for cooks. Students of this course cannot pass the final without preparing meals with all major meats. Said student refuses to prepare any pork dishes for their final, indeed throughout their course, even though said student was well aware that that would be part of the curriculum.

Should that student then be able to sue, and win? Or should they have chosen a school with a course more in line with their beliefs?

[AxisMundi]

Or maybe she might teach the APA position instead of the politically correct crap that militant members of the LBGT community want to force on everyone despite the lack of science to prove the position.

Have you visited the APA website within the past year?

While they do state the exact mechanics are still a mystery, they do state unequivocally that all three major sexual classifications, bi-, hetero- and homosexual, all share the same origins, and all are inherent and unchangeable.

[PatriotOne]

Who's attacking gays? :rolleyes:

Christians in general come to mind but not in the mood to spar so...........

Many years ago I was reading about ancient Rome and read that homosexuality was encouraged during a period of time as a way to control the Roman population. I didn't know about the population control agendas in place now so I didn't make the current connection until more recently but found it an interesting enough statement that I didn't forget it. Could the encouragement of homosexuality today be just another strategy of the population control program? I tend to think so personally.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How come Evangelical Christians are on the anti-gay bandwagon, but not vehemently opposed to adultery or sex out of wed-lock.

No clue but I see you are in the dark on proper understanding of the word adultery and have substituted your own translated definition.

The original greek phrasing that has been translated to adultery was originally understood to mean breach of contract. Nor do I believe God needs to duplicate himself to make a point with thou shall not commit adultery and thou shall not covet they neighbors wife.

Using your definition, how do you account for a passage like this that refers to the whoredom of God's people using stones and stocks where no sex is involved?


Jeremiah 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Or a passage like this that says adultery has been committed against the previous spouse?


Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Symbols are abstract concepts and there can no absolutes in writing when communicating with abstracts. Yet theocratic people rush to the Bible to find some absolute truth based on written word. Truth is... the ability to discern truth is an innate ability of every human being. Truth is... truth is an evolution of thought and belief.

Some people choose to believe the Bible is a creation of divine providence. Common sense tells me the Bible is a product of human beings recording bservations in symbols. Common sense tells me human observation is unreliable. Common sense tells me the Bible is compiled from several books and human beings decided which books to include or not include. Common sense tells me if the Bible has any credibility it rests on the people discerning the truth of which books to include or omit. Common sense tells me I might be wise to consider whether or not the intentions of the people discerning scriptural truth were honorable because I would be foolish to accept truth discerned with dishonorable intentions.

My opinion might have something to do with one of those famous teachings of Jesus Christ about if something is in your heart you have already committed the act.

[jmdrake]

Have you visited the APA website within the past year?

While they do state the exact mechanics are still a mystery, they do state unequivocally that all three major sexual classifications, bi-, hetero- and homosexual, all share the same origins, and all are inherent and unchangeable.

Right. They have contradictory information on their website. They admit nobody knows how the "classifications" happen, admit that the variables environmental and cognitive factors play and role, and yet stick to a theory that makes no sense in light of that information. At some point sexuality can't be "fixed and unchangeable" if these other factors play a part. Also the view on sexuality being fixed is completely at odds with recent revelations of the "plasticity" of the human mind which asserts the brain can be significantly rewired way into old age.

[jmdrake]

Christians in general come to mind but not in the mood to spar so...........


I was meaning in this thread. Sorry if I was unclear.



Many years ago I was reading about ancient Rome and read that homosexuality was encouraged during a period of time as a way to control the Roman population. I didn't know about the population control agendas in place now so I didn't make the current connection until more recently but found it an interesting enough statement that I didn't forget it. Could the encouragement of homosexuality today be just another strategy of the population control program? I tend to think so personally.

I've heard the population control theory before, but this is the first I heard of it in connection with ancient Rome. I suppose it's possible.

[YumYum]

Live_Free_Or_Die....My reference to adultery was to make a point that some Christians, the Evangelicals in particular, hate homosexuals and are homophobes but condone fornication, which I understand can include adultery. The Apostle Paul condemns "men who lay with men", and in the same breath condemns those who fornicate, and those who have sex outside of marriage. Yet, Evangelicals condemn homosexuals but condone fornication. In some cases they even condone adultery, while hating homosexuality. I feel this is wrong. I don't condemn anybody. I am not homosexual, but what two people do is their business and I know Jesus didn't hate homosexuals. Paul did, Jesus didn't. People who profess to follow Jesus should follow Him and not Paul.

[jmdrake]

Thanks.

I imagine he's hated by the xian fundie crowd for not condemning gays too.

Every segment of society has their embarrassing fundie members, xians, atheists, gays, whomever.

(On a side note, the creep was a pedophile, not gay. Two distinct categories)


Donnie's actually quite loved by Christian fundamentalists. (And I've only seen mason's use the term "xian" and the usually mean it in a derogatory fashion). Everybody loves Donnie except radical gays. He's seriously one of the nicest guys on the planet.

As for the creep, my point wasn't about his sexuality, but the effect he had on Donnie's. That said there are gay pedophiles just like there are straight pedophiles. There is a reason why NAMBLA is openly accepted as part of the gay community and allowed to march in gay pride day parades instead of being relegated to "pedophile pride" days.

http://www.kenpittman.com/content_images/2/nambla.jpg

Some pedophiles prefer boys. Some prefer girls.



Merely reference the day the BoR was ratified.


And the very first senate after the ratification of the constitution had a chaplain. I guess your "secularized" America didn't last long. ;)

Still, I asked you to questions. You didn't ask when did it become "de-secularized"? I would argue that America is far more secular than ever before.



Let me clarify. It is a child's Constitutional Right to wear their crosses and carry bibles in public schools, as well as pray as long as it doesn't disturb the class during class time. It is, of course, against the Constitution for schools to force prayers and/or bible study, or include pure religious doctrines in their curriculum, such as Creationism.


And the constitutional right to personal belief goes away when they go to a publicly funded university?



I fought on the side of the child, of course. I also was part of a letter writing campaign when the ACLU went silly and tried having crosses removed from a private cemetery a few years ago. Again, I fought on the side of the private cemetery.


Trying to force someone to adopt a particular belief system is the silliest idea of all. And yet you support that. Why? All you are doing is forcing people to lie.



And no, there is no war on religion. This case is an example of the school officials (who were Christians) not understanding the laws and/or DOE guidelines.


Conclusory statement with not factual backing.



http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html


Uh-huh. I'm quite aware of that. That doesn't mean there aren't people actively trying to push the secular envelope to the point where people aren't even allowed to believe what they want. This thread itself proves that. Just because one side hasn't been 100% successful doesn't mean they aren't trying.



I would suggest that if a person's beliefs preclude them from completing a course, they find other courses, or schools that will except their beliefs.


I would suggest that a course where teachers evaluate students personal beliefs outside of class should be abolished from all state funded institutions. Such courses themselves violate the first amendment. And not just the establishment clause. They violate free speech. After all speech comes from thought. I doubt you would defend a school of economics that would fail a student simply for saying "I support Ron Paul's goal of abolishing the Fed" on his blog. Then again...you might.



Just as a public school, college or otherwise, should not mandate religion in the curriculum, they should not have to cater to people's religious beliefs.


Allowing someone to keep their beliefs is NOT "catering" to beliefs. That's just silly and you know it. An economics professor has a right to fail a student for not putting down the "right" answer about how the depression ended on a test. He does not have the right to fail a student for putting the "wrong" answer on his blog. The same goes for religious beliefs.




An example, if I may.

A Muslim applies for, and is excepted into, a community college for cooks. Students of this course cannot pass the final without preparing meals with all major meats. Said student refuses to prepare any pork dishes for their final, indeed throughout their course, even though said student was well aware that that would be part of the curriculum.

Should that student then be able to sue, and win? Or should they have chosen a school with a course more in line with their beliefs?

Your example doesn't fit the facts. Let me fix it for you.

An example, if I may.

A Muslim applies for, and is excepted into, a community college for cooks. Students of this course cannot pass the final without preparing meals with all major meats. Said student refuses to prepare any pork dishes prepares the required pork dish for their final, indeed throughout their course, even though said student was well aware that that would be part of the curriculum is personally opposed to this. Said student then writes on her blog that she shouldn't have to do this as you can show the same cooking skills using other meats.

Should that student then be able to sue, and win? Or should they have chosen a school with a course more in line with their beliefs that actually respects the first amendment?

[jmdrake]

Live_Free_Or_Die....My reference to adultery was to make a point that some Christians, the Evangelicals in particular, hate homosexuals and are homophobes but condone fornication, which I understand can include adultery. The Apostle Paul condemns "men who lay with men", and in the same breath condemns those who fornicate, and those who have sex outside of marriage. Yet, Evangelicals condemn homosexuals but condone fornication. In some cases they even condone adultery, while hating homosexuality. I feel this is wrong. I don't condemn anybody. I am not homosexual, but what two people do is their business and I know Jesus didn't hate homosexuals. Paul did, Jesus didn't. People who profess to follow Jesus should follow Him and not Paul.

Well Paul didn't condone fornication, adultery or homosexuality and there's no evidence that Jesus did either. What made Jesus great (and I'm sure Paul would agree) was that He said to the woman caught in adultery "I don't condemn you. Go and sin no more."

http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/upload/donniemcclurkin.jpg = http://ubdavid.org/youthworld/understanding-true-love/graphics/3_jesus-woman.jpg

[AxisMundi]

Accepting the American Psychological Association view that there is no consensus on what causes homosexuality (and by inference whether or not it is fixed) is not intolerance. The problem is that the APA went along with the brainwashing for the past several decades from a pedophiles research that people are stuck on the "born gay" theory that's never been proven. Maybe it's right? Maybe it's wrong? Since it's only a theory (again according to the APA) why should anybody be penalized for choosing either side? And what about the gay student who doesn't want to be gay? How is it wrong to say "While you have to make your own decision, there have been people who have changed their lifestyle"?

The APA was founded in 1898.

In the late 1940's, the organization decided to upgrade their DSM, and sent questionnaires to all members. That form asked them to list what their clients saw them about most. Considering the oppression, discrimination, and even violence gays have faced in this Nation, of course many sought professional mental counseling.

Thus, homosexuality made it into the DSM in 1952.

In the late 1960's, the APA switched to clinical research. Upon applying basic sciences to the matter, it was found that homosexuality is NOT a mental disease, an abnormality, nor even a choice (on a side note religion is).

So, as we can see with a simple history lesson, homosexuality, categorized as a mental disorder solely due to opinion and NOT clinical research, had only been listed as a mental disorder for twenty years out of the one hundred and twelve year history of the APA.

I know that most who cannot understand human sexuality, or refuse to do so, like to blame political pressure, some liberal plot to undermine American values, some "war on religion", or any combination of one or more.

But the simple fact remains. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM due to the scientific principle, as found in the clinical research of a multitude of researchers, research that is ongoing and supports the fact that homosexuality,. like heterosexuality, is a perfectly inherent and unchangeable aspects of human sexuality.

[AxisMundi]

Donnie's actually quite loved by Christian fundamentalists. (And I've only seen mason's use the term "xian" and the usually mean it in a derogatory fashion). Everybody loves Donnie except radical gays. He's seriously one of the nicest guys on the planet.

I don't know him, never heard of him, and to be frank, don't care, even though I'm sure I could find something from some xian fundie group somewhere lambasting the guy.


As for the creep, my point wasn't about his sexuality, but the effect he had on Donnie's. That said there are gay pedophiles just like there are straight pedophiles. There is a reason why NAMBLA is openly accepted as part of the gay community and allowed to march in gay pride day parades instead of being relegated to "pedophile pride" days.

Some pedophiles prefer boys. Some prefer girls.

Wrong again. NAMBLA is not accepted among the gay community. They do have a habit of showing up uninvited, however.

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/nambla.html

Pedos are fixated on the age of the child, not the gender. So to say that a pedo who bothers same sex children is gay is simply intellectually dishonest.

Do you understand the difference between homosexuality, homosexual sex, and pedophilia?


And the very first senate after the ratification of the constitution had a chaplain. I guess your "secularized" America didn't last long. ;)

Still, I asked you to questions. You didn't ask when did it become "de-secularized"? I would argue that America is far more secular than ever before.

Now, answer, for yourself, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Prior to the BoR, and the First Amendment, our g'ment could indeed make an establishment of religion.

And yes, we are much more secular today than, say, fifty years ago, thanks to our efforts to preserve religious rights and liberties.


And the constitutional right to personal belief goes away when they go to a publicly funded university?

Said university cannot make Creationism and/or Bible study a requirement for all students, I think we agree on.

In that same vein, a public institution cannot be expected to cater to an individual's religion within the school's curriculum.


Trying to force someone to adopt a particular belief system is the silliest idea of all. And yet you support that. Why? All you are doing is forcing people to lie.

Are we going to have a serious debate, or will you insist on delving deeply into The Pit of Argument Fallacies?


Conclusory statement with not factual backing.

Indeed. The alleged "war on religion" has yet to materialize. It is a catch phrase invented by the extreme far right-wing, a propaganda rally point to gather the troops about whenever any of the More-Than-Equal-Rights are removed.


Uh-huh. I'm quite aware of that. That doesn't mean there aren't people actively trying to push the secular envelope to the point where people aren't even allowed to believe what they want. This thread itself proves that. Just because one side hasn't been 100% successful doesn't mean they aren't trying.

I believe I already agreed that there are crazy fundies in any segment of society. You are not speaking to one of them, so please stop acting like you are.

I tend to push back at these people as well, as my ACLU example clearly shows.


I would suggest that a course where teachers evaluate students personal beliefs outside of class should be abolished from all state funded institutions. Such courses themselves violate the first amendment. And not just the establishment clause. They violate free speech. After all speech comes from thought. I doubt you would defend a school of economics that would fail a student simply for saying "I support Ron Paul's goal of abolishing the Fed" on his blog. Then again...you might.

Then again, you are applying the ideology of others to me that just does not apply.

But I certainly agree with the rest of the portion above, as long as it is understood that a school should not be made to adjust its policy or curriculum to cater to the political, or religious, beliefs of individual students.


Allowing someone to keep their beliefs is NOT "catering" to beliefs. That's just silly and you know it. An economics professor has a right to fail a student for not putting down the "right" answer about how the depression ended on a test. He does not have the right to fail a student for putting the "wrong" answer on his blog. The same goes for religious beliefs.

Again, absolutely agreed. With the understanding that said professor should not be made to adjust the course so that an individual student can pass. IOW, said professor shouldn't be made to adjust the answer to that economics question for that one student so they can pass.

If a student refuses to meet the criteria for a course, there is simply no reason to pass that student.


Your example doesn't fit the facts. Let me fix it for you.

An example, if I may.

A Muslim applies for, and is excepted into, a community college for cooks. Students of this course cannot pass the final without preparing meals with all major meats. Said student refuses to prepare any pork dishes prepares the required pork dish for their final, indeed throughout their course, even though said student was well aware that that would be part of the curriculum is personally opposed to this. Said student then writes on her blog that she shouldn't have to do this as you can show the same cooking skills using other meats.

Should that student then be able to sue, and win? Or should they have chosen a school with a course more in line with their beliefs that actually respects the first amendment?[/quote]

My example, I'm sorry to inform you, was spot on. And yes, we all noticed you failed to answer the question itself.

The student in the OP expects the school to pander to her as an individual. That is not a free speech or religious question.

[Promontorium]

And the last suicide bomber, and that douche who got trolled by the FBI were both US university students.

When I applied for transfer to the UCs I seriously considered pointing out I wasn't a terrorist, because universities can't seem to shake their case of 'em.


I'm probably the most pro-gay rights (yeah, yeah) person on this site, but if colleges want to start having moral standards they should start by booting out people who flagrantly advocate mass murder.

[JohnEngland]

I don't know all the details of the story, but the beginning seemed worrying:


A graduate student in Georgia is suing her university after she was told she must undergo a remediation program due to her beliefs on homosexuality and transgendered persons.

Sounds like "re-education".

[libertybrewcity]

discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transexuals should not be tolerated. who cares if people make this their lifestyle choice?

[AxisMundi]

I don't know all the details of the story, but the beginning seemed worrying:
Sounds like "re-education".

Sounds more like "education" to me, as the women has obviously indulged in willful ignorance.

[AxisMundi]

discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transexuals should not be tolerated. who cares if people make this their lifestyle choice?

Being gay isn't a choice.

Religion is.

:p