Tolerance? Not for Christians...

[Sky Dancer]

Partisan?

What kind of one-sided, half-witted, partisan objects to exposing the inequities of your said as some sort of defense?

"Oh, no...you're so naughty for exposing the intolerance of the left!!"


Wake up- Sky- you should have posted this OP if you stand for tolerance and/or justice.

Wake up yourself. Your only interest is in stirring up division. Let's get Christians and gays to fight, what fun. NOT. This student is unwilling to comply with the terms of her program.

How is the university not 'stirring up division' by trying to refuse the credentials of an education that they were paid for? Where is their tolerance for her views? I also believe from reading the other thread on this that she stated that she wouldn't force her personal views while working as a councelor?

This student has no business being in the program if she is unwilling to comply with the guidelines.

She ought to be in a christian college if her beliefs are more important than following the rules.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Do we have to beat this again? Ain't there any new "christians are being picked on" "news items" we can chew on?

I have all the sympathy for discriminated-against christians that I do for discriminated-against white men. When you belong to the majority and some of you engage in bullying, you seem unable to distinquish between respecting others and being in a position to dictate to them.

Believe or not, it's possible to be a Christian and not homophobic. It's not the student's Christianity that's the issue. It's her bias against homosexuals she would counsel. She has no business being in the school if she won't follow the guidelines of her academic program.

 

[Newby]

Do we have to beat this again? Ain't there any new "christians are being picked on" "news items" we can chew on?

I have all the sympathy for discriminated-against christians that I do for discriminated-against white men. When you belong to the majority and some of you engage in bullying, you seem unable to distinquish between respecting others and being in a position to dictate to them.

So, in your opinion, being in the minority means you have the right and the rationale to discriminate against the majority or constantly bash and belittle their beliefs?

 

[Newby]

Do we have to beat this again? Ain't there any new "christians are being picked on" "news items" we can chew on?

I have all the sympathy for discriminated-against christians that I do for discriminated-against white men. When you belong to the majority and some of you engage in bullying, you seem unable to distinquish between respecting others and being in a position to dictate to them.

Believe or not, it's possible to be a Christian and not homophobic. It's not the student's Christianity that's the issue. It's her bias against homosexuals she would counsel. She has no business being in the school if she won't follow the guidelines of her academic program.

What exactly is her 'bias' against them?

 

[G.T.]

You stated above that it wasn't a choice either, so how do you see it then?

Please tell me that you don't think it has to either be a choice, or a disorder.

First tell me what you would consider to be other options.

Well, disorder implies that something is wrong, and choice implies that it wasn't actually inborne hormones. I'm going to go with it "just is." Same as hetero-sexuality.

 

[Newby]

Wake up yourself. Your only interest is in stirring up division. Let's get Christians and gays to fight, what fun. NOT. This student is unwilling to comply with the terms of her program.

How is the university not 'stirring up division' by trying to refuse the credentials of an education that they were paid for? Where is their tolerance for her views? I also believe from reading the other thread on this that she stated that she wouldn't force her personal views while working as a councelor?

This student has no business being in the program if she is unwilling to comply with the guidelines.

She ought to be in a christian college if her beliefs are more important than following the rules.

What guidelines and which one has she broken specifically?

 

[G.T.]

Do we have to beat this again? Ain't there any new "christians are being picked on" "news items" we can chew on?

I have all the sympathy for discriminated-against christians that I do for discriminated-against white men. When you belong to the majority and some of you engage in bullying, you seem unable to distinquish between respecting others and being in a position to dictate to them.

Believe or not, it's possible to be a Christian and not homophobic. It's not the student's Christianity that's the issue. It's her bias against homosexuals she would counsel. She has no business being in the school if she won't follow the guidelines of her academic program.

What exactly is her 'bias' against them?

She publicly and openly distinguishes their lifestyle as morally wrong. That's a bias.

 

[Newby]

Please tell me that you don't think it has to either be a choice, or a disorder.

First tell me what you would consider to be other options.

Well, disorder implies that something is wrong, and choice implies that it wasn't actually inborne hormones. I'm going to go with it "just is." Same as hetero-sexuality.

So, you're going with normal? You don't think 'something is wrong' whenever there's an attraction to the same sex, which if it were normal, there wouldn't be any instinctual procreation for survival of the species and it would die out?

I go with genetic disorder, I don't think it's a choice, but I think someday they'll be able to identify why it happens.

 

[Newby]

Believe or not, it's possible to be a Christian and not homophobic. It's not the student's Christianity that's the issue. It's her bias against homosexuals she would counsel. She has no business being in the school if she won't follow the guidelines of her academic program.

What exactly is her 'bias' against them?

She publicly and openly distinguishes their lifestyle as morally wrong. That's a bias.

I see that as her opinion, not bias. She has not demonstrated bias, she has been open about her beliefs and values. I'm not saying that I agree with her regarding it being a chioce and therefore 'curable', but I also don't think she had demonstrated bias at all.

 

[G.T.]

First tell me what you would consider to be other options.

Well, disorder implies that something is wrong, and choice implies that it wasn't actually inborne hormones. I'm going to go with it "just is." Same as hetero-sexuality.

So, you're going with normal? You don't think 'something is wrong' whenever there's an attraction to the same sex, which if it were normal, there wouldn't be any instinctual procreation for survival of the species and it would die out?

I go with genetic disorder, I don't think it's a choice, but I think someday they'll be able to identify why it happens.

Well, normal is a subjective term. It's "normal" for it to occur in-that it's existed for as long as we have, and it exists in other animals. It's "abnormal" in that the Majority of humans are attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think abnormal specifically becomes "disorder" because disorder is more specifically defined, and it also implies something is "wrong."

 

[G.T.]

What exactly is her 'bias' against them?

She publicly and openly distinguishes their lifestyle as morally wrong. That's a bias.

I see that as her opinion, not bias. She has not demonstrated bias, she has been open about her beliefs and values. I'm not saying that I agree with her regarding it being a chioce and therefore 'curable', but I also don't think she had demonstrated bias at all.

Well, to me her opinion is a bias.

 

[Shogun]

Hmmm.. I'm a little conflicted on this one. One one hand, universities should not be able to force ideal conformity as they are in the business of education instead of indoctrination. However, it's their name that would be on her degree and would, by default, give credence to any future batshit crazy tangents that she ensues via validation from said university. Especially since her Master's degree was originally defined as having to comply with the ethical standards of the leading organization of that field. Would a medical school allow a med student a degree from their organization if he was vocal about refusing to treat *******, fags and and muslims? doubtful.


In this case, perhaps she should be refunded all of her money invested in this certification sans time applied, especially if the school has her signature on anything warning about an ethical standard before her studies began, or allowed to transfer her credits to a school more in line with her personal philosophy.

 

[blu]

here are my thoughts on it that I came to after 50 pages of debate in the thread I linked to:

1) she should be awarded the degree since she passed the courses

2) the afadavit stated that she believed in conversion therapy which is against the ACA's
standards. she should be interviewed by ACA reps and if she wanted to use conversion therapy or any other treatment of homosexuals not allowed by the ACA than she should not be accredited by them

3) this is not religious discrimination and her beliefs do not reflect all christians and you don't have to be christian to hold her beliefs

4) there is way more to this story than is presented by her side since the school is keeping quiet due to the lawsuit

I think that covers them

 

[G.T.]

I wonder if PC has ever chastized anyone for a misleading thread title.

 

[blu]

I wonder if PC has ever chastized anyone for a misleading thread title.

I don't think it was misleading, on first look of the story it does seem like anti-christian discrimination and that is also how the girl and her lawyer has played it. deeper thinking on the subject reveals that she wasn't discriminated against solely for her religious beliefs but instead b/c of her views of homosexuals which is held by both chrstians and non-christians alike

 

[konradv]

Partisan?

What kind of one-sided, half-witted, partisan objects to exposing the inequities of your said as some sort of defense?

"Oh, no...you're so naughty for exposing the intolerance of the left!!"


Wake up- Sky- you should have posted this OP if you stand for tolerance and/or justice.

Wake up yourself. Your only interest is in stirring up division. Let's get Christians and gays to fight, what fun. NOT. This student is unwilling to comply with the terms of her program.

How is the university not 'stirring up division' by trying to refuse the credentials of an education that they were paid for? Where is their tolerance for her views? I also believe from reading the other thread on this that she stated that she wouldn't force her personal views while working as a councelor?

Because it's like someone in medical school subscribing to "witch doctor" rituals instead of modern medical techniques. They wouldn't be graduated either. You can't send someone out there that's stating they're going to be doing things that will likely harm the patient.

 

[Newby]

Well, disorder implies that something is wrong, and choice implies that it wasn't actually inborne hormones. I'm going to go with it "just is." Same as hetero-sexuality.

So, you're going with normal? You don't think 'something is wrong' whenever there's an attraction to the same sex, which if it were normal, there wouldn't be any instinctual procreation for survival of the species and it would die out?

I go with genetic disorder, I don't think it's a choice, but I think someday they'll be able to identify why it happens.

Well, normal is a subjective term. It's "normal" for it to occur in-that it's existed for as long as we have, and it exists in other animals. It's "abnormal" in that the Majority of humans are attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think abnormal specifically becomes "disorder" because disorder is more specifically defined, and it also implies something is "wrong."

Something is 'wrong', the species would die out if it were 'normal'.

 

[Newby]

Wake up yourself. Your only interest is in stirring up division. Let's get Christians and gays to fight, what fun. NOT. This student is unwilling to comply with the terms of her program.

How is the university not 'stirring up division' by trying to refuse the credentials of an education that they were paid for? Where is their tolerance for her views? I also believe from reading the other thread on this that she stated that she wouldn't force her personal views while working as a councelor?

Because it's like someone in medical school subscribing to "witch doctor" rituals instead of modern medical techniques. They wouldn't be graduated either. You can't send someone out there that's stating they're going to be doing things that will likely harm the patient.

Your analogy doesn't work.

 

[G.T.]

So, you're going with normal? You don't think 'something is wrong' whenever there's an attraction to the same sex, which if it were normal, there wouldn't be any instinctual procreation for survival of the species and it would die out?

I go with genetic disorder, I don't think it's a choice, but I think someday they'll be able to identify why it happens.

Well, normal is a subjective term. It's "normal" for it to occur in-that it's existed for as long as we have, and it exists in other animals. It's "abnormal" in that the Majority of humans are attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think abnormal specifically becomes "disorder" because disorder is more specifically defined, and it also implies something is "wrong."

Something is 'wrong', the species would die out if it were 'normal'.

Wrong is also a subjective term. That's your opinion, it isn't mine. The species wouldn't even necessarily die out, that would require two additional requirements: #1. We lose being sentient beings. #2. We want to die out.

Otherwise, to very easily save the species, homosexuals can still reproduce for survival purposes. Frozen sperm, opposite sex-sex for survival, etc.

 

[konradv]

How is the university not 'stirring up division' by trying to refuse the credentials of an education that they were paid for? Where is their tolerance for her views? I also believe from reading the other thread on this that she stated that she wouldn't force her personal views while working as a councelor?

Because it's like someone in medical school subscribing to "witch doctor" rituals instead of modern medical techniques. They wouldn't be graduated either. You can't send someone out there that's stating they're going to be doing things that will likely harm the patient.

Your analogy doesn't work.

Why? Simply stating that tells us nothing, unless that's all you have!