Hot Air:
Hell, yes, this amounts to a thought police. To deny students the ability to make a living based on their religious beliefs is as wrong as denying students a degree for not believing in the free market or freedom in health care choice. Good for Ms. Keeton for suing.
CNN has an interesting roundtable on the case of Jennifer Keeton, who has sued Augusta State University to keep from getting expelled for not repudiating her statements about homosexuality. Keeton expressed her biblical perspective on the subject in and out of class while working toward a degree in counseling, and the school mandated a “remediation plan” that appears to have required her to renounce her Christian doctrine in order to gain a diploma from the school. The school has responded that a bias against homosexuality would disqualify Keeton from certification, a position that would put most Christians in Keeton’s position.
Does this amount to a “thought police”?
Hell, yes, this amounts to a thought police. To deny students the ability to make a living based on their religious beliefs is as wrong as denying students a degree for not believing in the free market or freedom in health care choice. Good for Ms. Keeton for suing.
posted by Helen at 5:54 PM
43 Comments:
Would Augusta State deny certification to a Muslim finance student who disagreed with the charging of interest in keeping with his belief in Sharia?
What a great business model.
1. Adopt restrictive personal beliefs.
2. Enroll in an educational program for a career that involves dealing with things that violate my beliefs.
3. Refuse to do the work or follow professional standards.
4. Sue for religious discrimination when they won't give you a degree or job anyway.
5. Profit!
She has the right to believe anything she wants.
She does not have a right to make a living in any career or obtain any degree unless she's willing to do the work.
Interesting. So the professional counselor is ONLY supposed to help people figure out what they feel like doing? They are NEVER to influence what their goals or morals should be? REALLY?
It seems to me that statement by the school is a flat-out lie.
Do professional counselors encourage people to become serial killers, or to rape babies, or to defraud retiree investors, if their clients would find these things to fulfill their deepest desires?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't find homosexuality to be morally repugnant, and certainly it is not like killing innocent people, etc. However, there must be SOME line that a professional counselor would draw, that would be considered a "moral" boundary. There must be some "feeling" that a professional counselor would not consider to be a good thing to turn into an action.
So, the school has decided that homosexuality is not where that line can be drawn. The student disagrees, based on her religious beliefs.
While I don't agree with her views, I don't buy that the school is not applying a religious test. Clearly, it is.
On another subject, they want to order her to attend a Gay Pride parade, in order to open her mind? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard! If someone holds even mild negative stereotypes about homosexuals, most Pride parades would turn them into strong beliefs.
I'm not a big fan of fundamental religious people, but when there is a hot-button topic that is debatable, the school should just work around it and leave both sides to their beliefs. I'm sure they can structure the program so that it doesn't hammer either side.
The problem is that the left is so arrogantly sure that they are right, they have to push their beliefs on everyone else. And universities are getting really left-wing.
The very best psych clinician I ever knew was a devout Hindu. Her practice was in the deep South... as in "the Bible Belt".
Obviously, her own personal beliefs did not jive with the personal beliefs of the majority of her patients. Yet, as a professional, she was able to compartmentalize her personal belief system. She adhered to the DSM, and was able to provide excellent mental health services to many people. I admired and respected her for her ability to make such a huge difference.
It seems that knowing and respecting the DSM would be a basic requirement of someone in the mental health profession. One can hold their own personal biases as much as they want (we all do, right?), but just as my friend left her incense and her mantras at home, so too should the conservative Christian leave their Bible-waving out of the counselor's session.
btw -- as difficult as this may be to believe, there are actually some very good, righteous, believing Christians who are also gay, and/or sympathetic or open to gay people. Some have also reconciled those Bible verses that the gay-bashers love to throw around. If a Christian were to be so open-minded as to consider another possibility, they might start with The Reverend Mike Piazza, and the Cathedral of Hope.
This is Schumerism, alleging that mere opinions and thoughts a priori disqualify someone from fitness for position (Sen. Chuck Schumer led the charge against Catholic court nominees due to "deeply held beliefs" which was code for Schmuer's abortion litmus tests.)
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, so long as they don't manifestly and demonstrably (that is, with evidence, not speculation) compromise one's professionalism.
She does not have a right to make a living in any career or obtain any degree unless she's willing to do the work.
Jason, one stupid analysis on your part. She's willing to do the work. She's just not willing to change her religious beliefs. A clear violation of religious freedom. If her actions were illegal, we'd have another case.
But, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are still protected by The Constitution, like it or not. Of course, we know many lefties want to throw The Constitution out the door.
I have a lesbian sister who is a social work professor at a southern university. I'm sure she would disagree with Augusta State's actions. It's time to learn a little tolerance you dad-burn pinko hippie commies.
Yeah, right.
So when the next Ph.D. wannabe comes in and starts yapping in class about how "Jews are the descendents of apes and pigs," and other antisemitic trash and defends their statements because it's a foundation of their religion (guess which one!), and the school tells them to take their Middle Eastern witchcraft and shove it up their ass, are you going to scream "Fascism!" and defend them too?
Didn't think so.
Kevin,
There's a difference between serious scholarship and rank racism and activism masquerading as "academic freedom."
People have been able to balance religious faith and serious scholarship for centuries.
Rank bigots (feminists come to mind, as a matter of fact, along with the radical islamists you speak of) are unable to do so.
So.... a "bias against homosexuality" is not OK, but a "a bias against Christianity" is.
Got it. Clear as mud.
So.... a "bias against homosexuality" is not OK, but a "a bias against Christianity" is.
Is there someone out there trying to deny someone a degree because of a bias against Christianity? Not that I've heard of. Bias against Christianity has been rampant in academia for decades. Nice straw man argument there big boy.
People are also arguing that doctors should be forced to perform abortions against their will, and religion if they happen to be Catholic, Muslim or a number of other religions. And, if they don't like it, they shouldn't be doctors. Is this what it's coming to, forcing people out of professions because of their religion.
Augusta State University is a state university in Georgia. Does Georgia allow same sex marriage? Hah! Not on your life. But, some Georgia state employees want to deny a degree and education to a girl who holds the traditional Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. Not only are they the thought police, they're hypocrites. If they strongly held these beliefs they'd refuse to work for and accept money from an entity that doesn't grant equal rights to homosexuals.
People in Michigan have a chance to send President Obama a message August 3rd! http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/07/30/we-need-pete-hoekstra-as-michigans-next-governor-vote-august-3rd/
President Obama is trying to knock down Michigan’s best chance at finally having a conservative governor, but we can’t let Obama win! The stakes of this election are simply too high!
August 3rd is the most important day in Michigan politics in years! We need to do what we can to help make sure Michigan sends President Obama a message.
"Is there someone out there trying to deny someone a degree because of a bias against Christianity? Not that I've heard of. Bias against Christianity has been rampant in academia for decades."
It seems the subtleties of sarcasm are lost on some people.
Apparently, TPTB at Augusta are just fine with bias against Christianity. No problem there.
But bias against homosexuality is a Big No-No to them.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Sarcasm is harder to pick up without the voice inflection. Thanks.
So when the next Ph.D. wannabe comes in and starts yapping in class about how "Jews are the descendents of apes and pigs," and other antisemitic trash and defends their statements because it's a foundation of their religion (guess which one!), and the school tells them to take their Middle Eastern witchcraft and shove it up their ass, are you going to scream "Fascism!" and defend them too?
I won't defend their beliefs, but I will defend their right to state them. In fact, through my financial support of The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, I already do
Master - I must have been mentally exhausted from trying to decipher instructions on how to ask, in thousands of different ways, mothers about their diaper buying habits. You're sarcasm is now clear. Oh, well.
A key point here is that people can *choose* their counselors, and find one that is in affinity with their religious and ethical viewpoints. And there are hundreds of dimensions of religious and ethical belief, not just those that are hot-buttons with academics at any given moment.
There other fields in which no such choice is realistically possible. Consider for example an aspiring airline pilot whose religious beliefs keep him from interacting with female air traffic controllers. In this case, no choice of interaction is feasible, and the airline would be justified in denying him employment. Whether a state school would have a right to preempt this decision by not allowing him to graduate (assuming there were any state school with a major leading to the Airline Transport Pilot certificate) seems less obvious.
and the school tells them to take their Middle Eastern witchcraft and shove it up their ass, are you going to scream "Fascism!" and defend them too?
Never. Gonna. Happen.
Not because the school will stick to its guns. But because the school will fall all over themselves to accomodate the followers of the Religion of Peace.
You know this is true.
@Dad: So true. This is why so many of us still prefer face-to-face interactions, even though some people still miss a subtle clue here and there. No worries.
I am unsure of all the stuff being said here as comments, but a discipline that srves the public has set standards and these standards are to be met in order for that discipline, that program, and that school to be accredited. It is as simple as that. Would you go to an emergency roomm with a burst appendix and like to be told that the doctor on duty believes in leeches for curing such problems?
If the program does not meet or agree with her standards, she has the fredom to go elsewhere rather than have the discipline change to suit her. She is not being denied her right to believe but rather the right to work with those in need using a perspective not acceptable to the discipline.
Would you go to an emergency roomm with a burst appendix and like to be told that the doctor on duty believes in leeches for curing such problems?
Apples and oranges. A psychologist/psychiatrist isn't a life or death emergency, therefore, if a homosexual finds that his or her counsellor is hostile to homosexuality, he or she can choose another counsellor.
but a discipline that srves the public has set standards and these standards are to be met in order for that discipline, that program, and that school to be accredited. It is as simple as that.
fred, I'm sure that many in the mental health professions would like it to be as simple as that. Ignore The Constitution and any other laws against religious discrimination. Ignore the moral issues of forcing people to think a certain way.
Present day liberals are very much "my way or the highway." I'm willing to live in a world where some people won't like me for who I am in exchange for freedom for all of us, including freedom of thought.
Hell, people go to doctors and receive the wrong treatment every day. It's happened to all of us to varying degrees. It doesn't have anything to do with their religious beliefs.
As I stated above, there are those who want to force Catholic doctors and Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or not be in the business. Is this what we're moving towards? A society where people are forbidden from professions because they don't agree with the liberal dogma?
Eleonor, you make me laugh!! a mental health professional should NEVER suggest to his/her client that homosexuality is wrong.Her job is to say what psychology/psychiatry says and nothing more, and that for a very simple reason: because that kind of evaluation ("your homosexuality is wrong") could cause very much harm. And you have no right to cause that harm just because you believe something without any evidence at all (I mean, the Bible). Ok, is your right to believe something without evidence (you can believe in elfs, or anything else) but when you talk to your clients or patients you tell them what you have evidence for!
" but when you talk to your clients or patients you tell them what you have evidence for!"
Since the subject is one of judgement, and morality, then the "evidence" is ones own beleifs, and the evidence is fully valid.
Or, are you asserting, that because something is in the DSM, that it is the truth? THe DSM can change at any time, it is simply a consensus of that group. Before it took this position, guess what position it took? The DSM is a POLITCAL document, not a scientific one.
You have no evidence, for your own asertion.
I am also curious...what if it was the school, that was saying that homosexuality was a sin, and the student, saying it was not? If the DSM also agreed with the school, what would be your position then? Are you telling us, that when it was held that homosexuality was wrong, there were no practioners rebelling against that pratice? Were they wrong, as the logic of your argument states?
Of course she should have the right to finish her degree in counseling. All that need happen, should she strike a conflict of interest, is refer the client to another counselor. Duh!
Lol! Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Thought police are scary...
You misunderstood. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN OR THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DISORDER. It never was! Of course, DSM can change, is not a religios book! :D but as long as there is no evidence that X, Y, Z is a disorder or a sin, no mental health professional should express such a belief to his client. What if I would belong to a cult and I would belive something like "eating pancakes is a disfunctional behavior", or "having sex with your husband more than once a month is a sin" or "falling in love with a blonde is a mental disorder". Do you think I should be alowed to express those belives to my patients? Or that I should be allowed to offer therapy for "falling in love with blondes"? Why not? There are my beliefs! The problem here is that as a mental health professional I represent an authority to my clients. I am not allowed to use that authority to offer therapy for whatever I consider "wrong". I see no connection here with expressing some critical thinking. If empirical data will show one day that falling with blondes is highly disffunctional, that's fine, we will seek therapies for it. But is ridiculous and dangerous that a mental health proffesional be allowed to tell that to a patient right now. It is not about "the school" vs "the free thinking here"; it is about protecting your clients. I really believe anyone should be allowed to believe anything he wants. But you cannot say anything you believe if that could harm the ones who trust you!
If the school would have say that homosexuality is a SIN...than...that school would have have no connection with mental health professionals!!!! What has the "sin" to do with psychologycal counselling or therapy????This is a religious concept. I really hope you are not suggesting that we should base DSM on the Bible!!I really hope!!
@zel
I actually disagree with the thought police, too...:) maybe I agree only with a little "practice police"...only as much as necesary to protect the clients; yes, i agree, too, that the counsellor should be allowed to refer the client to another professional if he is unable to handle the situation ethically...
Ok Dr Helen, now you have impressed me. I picked up this story on Thursday and commented on it here:
http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/alter-religious-views-on
That you have picked it up impressed me. Do you know the background meaning to it?
Basically the PTB (Powers That Be) are working on collapsing western society like they did to Russia in 1917. Feminism is part of it. That destroys the family. "Destroy the family and you destroy the society" V I Lenin. Charming. Lenin was a massive 'feminist' and we all know what the russians did with the 'clergy' as well. Shot most of them. Since I have been so tolerated here perhaps I can repay a little with this interview with Lenin. If you understand what he is saying you will understand more about this case and understand better about what is going on in the west today. Because it is what went on in Russia circa 1917 in many ways.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm
I am not sure if the depopulation agenda is something discussed on this forum. I have not seen it but I have not looked. Sexual dysfunction and homosexuality is also part of the ongoing attack and undermining of western society because people who are sexually confused have fewer babies and have MUCH more trouble creating permanent bonds.
If you google the string:
"I am a loyal and conscientious employee of British Airways, but I stand up for the rights of all citizens"
You will find some links like:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/10/16/if-a-muslim-can-wear-her-veil-to-work-why-is-my-cross-forbidden-115875-17937209/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410299/Christian-BA-employee-legal-action-suspension-wearing-cross.html
A woman at BA was refused to be allowed to work because she wore a crucifix. This for a company which is the national carrier for a country that has the anthem 'God Save the Queen'. Anyone else see the hypocrisy here? LOL!
@globalman 1oo
Hey, not quite so...:) I am concerned, too, about the way we can assure the greatest degree of personal freedom for everybody;that's why I am a little worried about the things "authorities" (like counsellors) could say or do; I think I am at least as worried as you are...not all of us are marxist-feminists :D
Of course, what is happening to her is nothing like the crimes being committed against this man.
http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/211794
Onebluebutterfly,
" I am concerned, too, about the way we can assure the greatest degree of personal freedom for everybody"
The greatest degree of freedom attainable for a man is to declare sovereignty and live life as a sovereign. That's what I did. There are no 'authorities' in my life. Why would there be?
TO: All
RE: Jason on 'Professional Standards'
She does not have a right to make a living in any career or obtain any degree unless she's willing to do the work. -- Jason
Obviously Jason thinks he can dictate morality to everyone else in the world. Not withstanding that Christians would seek help from the likes of Keeton. Jason doesn't care to hear that she could find gainful employment working with Christians.
But that's all too true of all Jason's ilk.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Welcome to the Great Apostasy. We were told, long ago, it was coming. Now it's here.]
1. Homosexuality is clearly a sin in the Bible.
2. So is looking at a woman with lust in your heart.
3. The point is that we are all sinful.
And this lady's personal beliefs are irrelevant to her practice. Most of my patients who consider such things assume I am a liberal. My politics have nothing to do with my working with them, so they have no evidence to the contrary.
Trey
TO: TMink
RE: Heh
3. The point is that we are all sinful. -- TMink
Death, n., To stop sinning, suddenly.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When toast is burned;
And all the milk has turned;
And Captain Crunch is wave'n farewell.
When the Big One finds you;
May this song remind you;
That they DON'T serve breakfast in Hell. -- Newsboys, Breakfast Song
@onebluebutterfly
"practice police". Well, for all counselors with a feminist bent, for sure. BEWARE... Them type is dangerous(grin).
Not enough information.
A lot of people believe homosexuality is a sin. Some of them think this gives heterosexuals the right to persecute them. Some of them think, with no scientific evidence to back it up, that they can make gay people straight.
Those people should probably not be practicing psychology. Same goes for anyone who thinks it's OK to persecute Republicans, or convert Christians to atheism over the course of their sessions.
Other people in the gay-is-sinful camp believe it's wrong to treat gays any differently than they would straights. That it's not their place to try to change them. They stand a good chance of helping, not harming, the patients who come to them.
So which is Jennifer Keeton? Has she indicated that she's going to attempt browbeating her gay patients into submission? Or has she simply stated her personal beliefs? If the latter, the university is wrong.
onebluebutterfly said...
"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN OR THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DISORDER."
There is plenty of public health empirical evidence. You reject that said evidence carries any moral implications about the behavior, but there it is.
"The problem here is that as a mental health professional I represent an authority to my clients."
Precisely. Once upon a time that relationship argued for the doctor's special restraint from coercing the patient. Where the patient and doctor share the same faith and beliefs, then the doctor may freely refer to those beliefs without fear of coercion. This is less upsetting to the patient's mental state (and thus more likely to achieve a favorable outcome) than bludgeoning the patient with demands to conform to the zeitgeist. If a patient desires counseling from a Catholic viewpoint, then it does violence to the patient to insist that he abandon his faith.
A well-trained counselor would try to do the least harm necessary to recuperate the patient's mental state. If a homosexual sought counseling for reasons unrelated to distress over his homosexual behavior, it would be wrong for the doctor to seize upon that and attempt to coerce him against it. OTOH, if he sought counseling because his (e.g. risky) behavior distressed him, the doctor would do well to recommend a change of lifestyle; the scope of the change recommended would have to be calibrated to the patient's will (or not) to change.
"I really hope you are not suggesting that we should base DSM on the Bible!!"
The DSM is a joke. I hope you are not suggesting that we should base the Bible on the transient pseudo-knowledge of the DSM.
Craig said: "The DSM is a joke. I hope you are not suggesting that we should base the Bible on the transient pseudo-knowledge of the DSM."
Oh dear. Craig (and anyone else who insists that the Bible is the 'infallible word of god', or other 'unchangeable', etc., etc.)
Before you spew, could you please do your research? You might begin with the Council of Nicene. Check out the history of the Bible. Follow the Christian zeitgeist as the interpretation of the Bible has changed over the years. The Catholic church is one of the easiest to review, since they actually document quite a bit of their "transient pseudo-knowledge", but it's also fairly easy to examine the shifting sands of the Methodists, United Christian Church, Baptists, Mormons, Pentacostals, Lutherans, Episcopalians.
As for the DSM being a "joke" -- tell that to the dedicated professionals who work diligently to research the mind and brain, to understand human behavior, to examine and re-examine their scientific methods, who carefully scrutinize the work of their peers, whose research only gets published in the decent journals after is has passed rigorous review. Until you've received your PhD, done significant research, been published in a respectable peer-reviewed professional journal, and practiced long enough to be truly humbled by what you do not know... please don't show your ignorance by throwing the DSM under the bus. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Craig said: "The DSM is a joke. I hope you are not suggesting that we should base the Bible on the transient pseudo-knowledge of the DSM."
Oh dear. Craig (and anyone else who insists that the Bible is the 'infallible word of god', or other 'unchangeable', etc., etc.)
Before you spew, could you please do your research? You might begin with the Council of Nicene. Check out the history of the Bible. Follow the Christian zeitgeist as the interpretation of the Bible has changed over the years. The Catholic church is one of the easiest to review, since they actually document quite a bit of their "transient pseudo-knowledge", but it's also fairly easy to examine the shifting sands of the Methodists, United Christian Church, Baptists, Mormons, Pentacostals, Lutherans, Episcopalians.
As for the DSM being a "joke" -- tell that to the dedicated professionals who work diligently to research the mind and brain, to understand human behavior, to examine and re-examine their scientific methods, who carefully scrutinize the work of their peers, whose research only gets published in the decent journals after is has passed rigorous review. Until you've received your PhD, done significant research, been published in a respectable peer-reviewed professional journal, and practiced long enough to be truly humbled by what you do not know... please don't show your ignorance by throwing the DSM under the bus. You have no idea what you are talking about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
My reply to "onebluebutterfly" was necessarily sharp because his comment consisted largely of slanders against figments of his imagination. People on the internet who rail at Christians while refusing to capitalize "God" as a proper name tend to have similar ... issues.
JB, you should at least learn enough to know that the city of the famous Council is (or was) called Nicaea. "Nicene" is the adjectival form. Even Wikipedia gets that right.
You'll get no argument from me on the shifting sands of doctrine among the various "Scripture alone" denominations. Look in the writings of first- and second-century Christians (e.g., the "Didache" or the letters of Irenaeus) and you will see the essentials of Catholic doctrine and practice that continue to this day. Since we're digressing onto Catholicism, I'll get back on topic by noting that Catholicism holds as a basic principle that truth is not determined by a majority vote.
But the DSM is. No doubt it has certain useful knowledge in it. It also contains some amount of politically correct Lysenkoism put in there by majority vote. You cannot use the DSM to validate the DSM. Don't sell me on the glories of peer review; the academy has forever been tainted by politics. The recent climate change brouhaha has amply demonstrated how factions can corrupt peer review to drive out inconvenient data and arrive at predetermined conclusions.
If you want to invoke credentialism to settle arguments, that goes both ways. I'll agree to refrain from commenting on the DSM to the same extent that you refrain from commenting on Christianity, given that you have demonstrated that you do not know the subject and evidently have not attempted to practice it, much less to develop the humility of the saints about the limits of one's understanding.
Just want to make sure that no one is confusing me with the Jason above.
Assuming this girl wasn't wearing a hair shirt in the halls and railing for homosexuals to be rounded up and gassed, the school is clearly in the wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home