Tolerance? Not for Christians...

[Newby]

No. The fascists aren't doing a damn thing.

Tell me, how do you feel about voodoo in the medical field? That question, along with faith healing, remain hanging.

So when did she force her clients to listen to her views on faith?

Oh, that's right. Never.

Nice strawman.

Now read the posts.

It's not a strawman at all, it's the very heart of the issue. You keep acusing her of something she has not done and you are using that as a basis to keep from her something she has earned and paid for. How you can advocate that with a clear conscience is what I can't grasp.

 

[Coyote]

If voo doo had anything to do with the situation at hand, maybe I would tell you, but it doesn't. It's a bullshit argument.

No. The "bullshit" part, is the fact that you guys keep ignoring it.

Sky wrote:

Voodoo is a religious form of faith healing. Should the AMA adopt voodoo in it's medical standards or ask medical students to follow AMA guidelines? Is this oppressive to the voodoo religion?

Keeton's biblical views on homosexuality are as off the ACA standards as voodoo is for the AMA. She can believe whatever she wants to, but if she wants to become a certified school counselor from an accredited institution she has to abide by the ethical guidelines they set forth. She has made it clear that she won't. She has clearly stated she won't affirm homosexuality.

So tell me, should the AMA adopt voodo in it's standards or should medical students follow the AMA guidelines? Why or why not?

It figures that you morons start whining about straw men about the time you start posting them.

Are you saying you can't answer the question? Are you implying that people in a counseling professional program should not be expected to adhere to professional standards but medical students should?

Look up the definition of strawman before throwing it around to avoid a direct answer.

 

[Newby]

No. The fascists aren't doing a damn thing.

Tell me, how do you feel about voodoo in the medical field? That question, along with faith healing, remain hanging.

If voo doo had anything to do with the situation at hand, maybe I would tell you, but it doesn't. It's a bullshit argument.

No. The "bullshit" part, is the fact that you guys keep ignoring it.

Sky wrote:

Voodoo is a religious form of faith healing. Should the AMA adopt voodoo in it's medical standards or ask medical students to follow AMA guidelines? Is this oppressive to the voodoo religion?

Keeton's biblical views on homosexuality are as off the ACA standards as voodoo is for the AMA. She can believe whatever she wants to, but if she wants to become a certified school counselor from an accredited institution she has to abide by the ethical guidelines they set forth. She has made it clear that she won't. She has clearly stated she won't affirm homosexuality.

So tell me, should the AMA adopt voodo in it's standards or should medical students follow the AMA guidelines? Why or why not?

What you quoted is Sky's OPINION, she was the one that brought the voo doo topic into it, which has nothing to do with what the tread is about.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. Suddenly it's a straw man to ask for any sort of support for the ridiculous accusations.

It's just a diversionary tactic. Like the voodoo thing.

 

[Coyote]

So when did she force her clients to listen to her views on faith?

Oh, that's right. Never.

Nice strawman.

Now read the posts.

It's not a strawman at all, it's the very heart of the issue. You keep acusing her of something she has not done and you are using that as a basis to keep from her something she has earned and paid for. How you can advocate that with a clear conscience is what I can't grasp.

NO.

The heart of the issue is not what she may or may not do in her professional life once she attains a degree.

The heart of the issue is the process towards getting the degree which requires that:
- she show she is able to meet stated professional standards required for counseling a diverse group of people, including gays and lesbians.
- as a student she must show she can do this - and the word "affirmation" is a key one - even though as a professional she may opt out of it and refer said client to another therapist.

She has paid for it.

She has not yet earned it - you don't get advanced degrees simply on demand or as a "right" or by passing coursework like an UG degree.

 

[Coyote]

I know. Suddenly it's a straw man to ask for any sort of support for the ridiculous accusations.

It's just a diversionary tactic. Like the voodoo thing.

Still can't answer...I can see you straining and smoke is coming out of a couple of orifices (I suspect the wrong ones given where the brain is supposed to be located) but you just can't do it can ya?

So, why is it that you require the counseling program to make a special dispensation absolving Christian students of the need to adhere to all portions of the program while you won't do the same thing for a Voodoo practitioner?

 

[Newby]

That's a strawman - she is not making that argument. The argument is that Ms. Keeton is unable to seperate her biblical values from her professional ethics and may allow her religious beliefs to over-rule her professional standards.
In her schoolwork and practicum - she has to show she is able to abide by the professional standards she will need to if she graduates. She doesn't have to be actually counseling to be accountable to those standards.

Excuse my language, Coyote, but that is a ******* lie. I'm tired of hearing it. She has not shown that, she has not yet worked in a professional capacity, and she has publically stated (which I've posted in this thread somewhere) that she could indeed separate her beliefs from her profession.

She has publically stated that she would not and could not "affirm" a homosexual's lifestyle. Affirmation is part of the professional standard, and has been quoted numerous times.

If she can not do that, then how can she "indeed separate her beliefs from her profession"? Perhaps it's these contradictions that concern the faculty in her program. Counseling young people involves a high degree of empathy - it is not moralistic and judgemental. If you are unable seperate out your personal feelings in order to empathize with a client, are you truely able to do the job? The remediation program she is supposed to undergo is supposed to help her with that.

She's also publically stated that she would and could separate her personal beliefs from her professional work.

How she can do it is up to her, not to you. You are denying her something and finding her guilty before she has even done anything. You are denying her a career because of something you THINK she may do sometime down the road. You are making a judgment on her and her ability to do her job, and it's not your place to make that judgment. If down the road she does something unethical in her career, then you might have a point. Right now all you have is your OPINION of what she MAY or MAY NOT do during the lifetime of her career. You, nor anyone else, has the right to impeed someone else on the grounds of YOUR SPECULATION of their POTENTIAL future actions.

In Sky's own post she stated that the APA has allowances for referral in a situation where your beliefs will not allow you to work with someone. It wouldn't surprise me if the school purposely went out of their way to place her into this situation so they could do exactly what they're doing.

You totally skip over the fact that she is not yet a professional, and just like a medical student is not yet a professional he must go through rotations showing he has the ability to work in a variety of specialties even though he will eventually only be assuming one. She needs to show she can do the whole caboodle before opting out of part of it.

It wouldn't surprise me if the group that is supporting (and likely paying) for her lawsuit is the one putting her up to this. I highly doubt she is the only Christian in that program, but she is the only one who apparently can't do what is academically required in order to graduate from that program.

I don't skip over the part that she isn't yet a professional, you do. You keep implying that she has done something wrong in a professional capacity, when she HAS NOT.

The other Christians are apparently smart enough to go into hiding and keep their mouths shut about their beliefs for fear of getting the same treatment. Tell me how this differs from how gays were treated 20 to 30 years prior? If it was wrong to treat gays in this manner, how can you support treating anyone in this manner? Unless of course it's okay to be bigoted? So, which is it?

 

[Father Time]

Exactly, you ******* moron. The claims that she has tried to force her clients or intends to force her clients to listen to her proselytize is complete hogwash. She is being persecuted because in a safe environment, in a classroom and out of it, while discussing issues with her classmates and friends, she has openly stated she is Christian. When she did this, ears perked up and they decided to required her, based upon her RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, to participate in additional re-education that nobody else has been asked to participate in, and to promise to "support" clients in their homosexual endeavors. Based upon her faith only.

And your proof of this ludicrous conspiracy theory is...?

Has it happened to most other Christians or is it just her?

Straw man.

You don't even know what a straw man is.

I asked you for proof and then I asked you if it happened to other Christians. I mean if they were really discriminating against Christians, like you said then surely they'd be discriminating against all Christians instead of 1 right?

 

[Newby]

Nice strawman.

Now read the posts.

It's not a strawman at all, it's the very heart of the issue. You keep acusing her of something she has not done and you are using that as a basis to keep from her something she has earned and paid for. How you can advocate that with a clear conscience is what I can't grasp.

NO.

The heart of the issue is not what she may or may not do in her professional life once she attains a degree.

The heart of the issue is the process towards getting the degree which requires that:
- she show she is able to meet stated professional standards required for counseling a diverse group of people, including gays and lesbians.
- as a student she must show she can do this - and the word "affirmation" is a key one - even though as a professional she may opt out of it and refer said client to another therapist.

She has paid for it.

She has not yet earned it - you don't get advanced degrees simply on demand or as a "right" or by passing coursework like an UG degree.

It's not up to you or anyone else to SPECULATE on what she may or may not do in the future, and persecute her by witholding her degree because of something she MAY or MAY NOT do. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? Our entire judicial system is based on it for God's sake.

 

[manifold]

Considering the fact that essentially all Christians are "cafeteria" Christians, to varying degrees, it's kind of funny that ***-bashing is the one thing on the menu they just can't seem to get enough of.

 

[Valerie]

It's not a strawman at all, it's the very heart of the issue. You keep acusing her of something she has not done and you are using that as a basis to keep from her something she has earned and paid for. How you can advocate that with a clear conscience is what I can't grasp.

NO.

The heart of the issue is not what she may or may not do in her professional life once she attains a degree.

The heart of the issue is the process towards getting the degree which requires that:
- she show she is able to meet stated professional standards required for counseling a diverse group of people, including gays and lesbians.
- as a student she must show she can do this - and the word "affirmation" is a key one - even though as a professional she may opt out of it and refer said client to another therapist.

She has paid for it.

She has not yet earned it - you don't get advanced degrees simply on demand or as a "right" or by passing coursework like an UG degree.

It's not up to you or anyone else to SPECULATE on what she may or may not do in the future, and persecute her by witholding her degree because of something she MAY or MAY NOT do. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? Our entire judicial system is based on it for God's sake.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't expelled by some random message board poster. Coyote is NOT withholding her degree!


The professors at the school whose job it is to educate the students toward that counseling degree are the ones who know exactly what happened and in what context it happened and THEY are the ones who expelled her from the program because she failed to demonstrate the maturity and discretion to handle real life situations she would potentially encounter once she obtained a counseling degree from their school.

She simply failed to meet their professional standards.

 

[Coyote]

Excuse my language, Coyote, but that is a ******* lie. I'm tired of hearing it. She has not shown that, she has not yet worked in a professional capacity, and she has publically stated (which I've posted in this thread somewhere) that she could indeed separate her beliefs from her profession.

She has publically stated that she would not and could not "affirm" a homosexual's lifestyle. Affirmation is part of the professional standard, and has been quoted numerous times.

If she can not do that, then how can she "indeed separate her beliefs from her profession"? Perhaps it's these contradictions that concern the faculty in her program. Counseling young people involves a high degree of empathy - it is not moralistic and judgemental. If you are unable seperate out your personal feelings in order to empathize with a client, are you truely able to do the job? The remediation program she is supposed to undergo is supposed to help her with that.

She's also publically stated that she would and could separate her personal beliefs from her professional work.

Stating that she could, and showing that she could are two different things. Since she has also publically stated she could NOT affirm a homosexual choice, she has right there placed herself in a contradiction. I do not think it is at all unfair or discrimminatory for the university to thus require her to learn more about gays and lesbians.

How she can do it is up to her, not to you.

No. It is up to her to show the school she can do this in order to get her degree. Statements of intent are not enough.

You are denying her something and finding her guilty before she has even done anything.

I'm denying her nothing and finding her "guilty" of nothing. It's up to the school to determine if she is able to meet the requirements of the degree in all aspects. Would you like your kid to be counseled by someone who did not meet the necessary academic standards to begin with? I wouldn't. A degree is supposed to mean something. It is not an entitlement.

You are denying her a career because of something you THINK she may do sometime down the road. You are making a judgment on her and her ability to do her job, and it's not your place to make that judgment. If down the road she does something unethical in her career, then you might have a point. Right now all you have is your OPINION of what she MAY or MAY NOT do during the lifetime of her career. You, nor anyone else, has the right to impeed someone else on the grounds of YOUR SPECULATION of their POTENTIAL future actions.

Again, no. It has zip to do with potential future actions. She must be able to show she can meet certain requirements, including professional standards while IN the degree program in order to earn the degree otherwise the degree is meaningless at best and dangerous to a potential client, at worst. A degree is not an entitlement.

Again, would you like to see a person who believed in the medical efficiency of voodoo earning a medical degree and being your child's doctor?

I don't skip over the part that she isn't yet a professional, you do. You keep implying that she has done something wrong in a professional capacity, when she HAS NOT.

I'm not sure if you are deliberately twisting my words or not understanding them. I'm implying nothing whatsoever about what she may or may not do as a professional. In fact, I've said repeatedly that as a professional she can opt out of certain things but as a STUDENT she must show she can be proficient with ALL the requirements - like a medical student must.

All of these requirements are clear and upfront to prospective students AT THE BEGINNING. Why would she choose to pursue a degree if she felt she was going to have significant ethical issues with them?

The other Christians are apparently smart enough to go into hiding and keep their mouths shut about their beliefs for fear of getting the same treatment. Tell me how this differs from how gays were treated 20 to 30 years prior? If it was wrong to treat gays in this manner, how can you support treating anyone in this manner? Unless of course it's okay to be bigoted? So, which is it?

No, it's more likely that the other Christians are able to adhere to the standards of their chosen profession rather than trying to change those standards which is what you are advocating, and why? Simply because you want to be able to treat one distinct group of people as if they are subhuman?

 

[AllieBaba]

I know. Suddenly it's a straw man to ask for any sort of support for the ridiculous accusations.

It's just a diversionary tactic. Like the voodoo thing.

Still can't answer...I can see you straining and smoke is coming out of a couple of orifices (I suspect the wrong ones given where the brain is supposed to be located) but you just can't do it can ya?

So, why is it that you require the counseling program to make a special dispensation absolving Christian students of the need to adhere to all portions of the program while you won't do the same thing for a Voodoo practitioner?

This has got to be one of the saddest and most amateur diversion attempts I've ever seen.

I'm not going to go on a Voodoo stroll with you, loon. We have a perfectly good (and real) situation to discuss. Either discuss the situation or go back to picking your nose, eating cheetos and watching game show reruns.

 

[AllieBaba]

NO.

The heart of the issue is not what she may or may not do in her professional life once she attains a degree.

The heart of the issue is the process towards getting the degree which requires that:
- she show she is able to meet stated professional standards required for counseling a diverse group of people, including gays and lesbians.
- as a student she must show she can do this - and the word "affirmation" is a key one - even though as a professional she may opt out of it and refer said client to another therapist.

She has paid for it.

She has not yet earned it - you don't get advanced degrees simply on demand or as a "right" or by passing coursework like an UG degree.

It's not up to you or anyone else to SPECULATE on what she may or may not do in the future, and persecute her by witholding her degree because of something she MAY or MAY NOT do. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? Our entire judicial system is based on it for God's sake.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't expelled by some random message board poster. Coyote is NOT withholding her degree!


The professors at the school whose job it is to educate the students toward that counseling degree are the ones who know exactly what happened and in what context it happened and THEY are the ones who expelled her from the program because she failed to demonstrate the maturity and discretion to handle real life situations she would potentially encounter once she obtained a counseling degree from their school.

She simply failed to meet their professional standards.

Or they discriminated against her.

There are two choices here. And so far it looks like discrimination.

And you forgot...she knows what happened as well.

 

[manifold]

FYI...

Discrimination against the unqualified isn't illegal.

 

[AllieBaba]

So you have evidence she's unqualified? Because the claim being made is that it's her faith that makes her unqualified.

And that is discrimination.

 

[manifold]

So you have evidence she's unqualified?

I only have one piece of factual evidence, and that is that she was expelled.

And that screams UNQUALIFIED!

Everything else is heresay.

 

[Coyote]

So you have evidence she's unqualified? Because the claim being made is that it's her faith that makes her unqualified.

And that is discrimination.

Um. No.


Again - reading comprehension is your friend.

Try it. You may be surprised at what you find.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Religion gives Ms Keeton, the license to hate anyone or any group of people she chooses. We are not a Christian theocracy in America. There are Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Satan worshippers, Wiccas, Buddhists, and a whole array of religions that Keeton will encounter if she decides to become a counselor in the United States. Keeton must adhere to the ethics of the profession she trains in. If she wants to only cater to those of her beliefs, she should become a counselor for her church. She shouldn't expect to work for an agency or school that follows APA and ACA guildelines.




The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:

"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

a) Homosexual life style is shown to be life shortening, so NO, don't give me that it is healthy. That is a LIE.

b) Gay's and Lesbians are not productive. They cannot have children. If you think they can, you need help.

 

[Coyote]

I know. Suddenly it's a straw man to ask for any sort of support for the ridiculous accusations.

It's just a diversionary tactic. Like the voodoo thing.

Still can't answer...I can see you straining and smoke is coming out of a couple of orifices (I suspect the wrong ones given where the brain is supposed to be located) but you just can't do it can ya?

So, why is it that you require the counseling program to make a special dispensation absolving Christian students of the need to adhere to all portions of the program while you won't do the same thing for a Voodoo practitioner?

This has got to be one of the saddest and most amateur diversion attempts I've ever seen.

I'm not going to go on a Voodoo stroll with you, loon. We have a perfectly good (and real) situation to discuss. Either discuss the situation or go back to picking your nose, eating cheetos and watching game show reruns.

Get your knickers unknotted and just admit you can't answer it without showing yourself for the hypocrite you are. It's simple really.