Tolerance? Not for Christians...

[Coyote]

Bigotry is not a Christian value, but you have not proven that she would behave in an bigoted manner. She doesn't agree with the current thinking on the issue, but you have not proven that she would do anything at all to hurt a client.

Immie

I don't have to prove it, Immie. I'm not in court.

Once again, the ethics say that she needs to affirm the lives of her clients even when their values differ from hers.

She isn't willing to do that.

So you affirm the life of your Christian client even though you never discuss her religion????

I'm amazed she hasn't seen your hatred for Christians, you seem to be dripping with it.

You really shouldn't be so amazed at something that isn't there.

 

[Againsheila]

Yes, I affirm the life of my clients. I don't hate Christians. I hate bigots.

And you don't seem to be able to separate the two.

That's your opinion. I have plenty of Christian friends. Some of them on this very forum even though we disagree passionately.

No, couldn't possibly be, you already said your friends never disagree with you.

 

[Immanuel]

The only "standards" that she is seeking to be exempted from are the ones that the university has added to her requirement to graduate that are not being forced upon all students i.e. diversity training and attendance at a gay pride parade.

Immie

No - the standards required by the program itself are the ones she wishes to be exempt from via lawsuit.

All of this was posted by Sky through out this thread in considerable detail, with links.

The school, in order to maintain it's accredidation for that degree must meet the following:

From just page 5 of the 2009 Standards of The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)…..

I. The Academic Unit
P. The program faculty conducts a systematic developmental assessment of each student’s progress throughout the program, including consideration of the student’s academic performance, professional development, and personal development. Consistent with established institutional due process policy and the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) code of ethics and other relevant codes of ethics and standards of practice, if evaluations indicate that a student is not appropriate for the program, faculty members help facilitate the student’s transition out of the program and, if possible, into a more appropriate area of study.

As Sky already posted, ASU, specifically states:

The ASU Counselor Education program is committed to ensuring that graduates both understand and can fulfill their obligations to set personal values aside and empower clients to solve their own problems. As counselor educators in a CACREP accredited program, faculty have a duty to ensure that those completing our program will affirm and abide by these ethical codes in all counseling situations.

The counseling profession requires its practitioners to recognize that people set and adhere to their own moral compass. The professional counselor's job is to help clients clarify their current feelings and behaviors and to help them reach the goals that they have determine for themselves, not to dictate what those goals should be or what morals they should possess, or what values they should adopt."

Among the guidelines she rejects or wishes exempt from are:

" Each person has the right to be respected, be treated with dignity and have access to a comprehensive school counseling program that advocates for and affirms all students from diverse populations regardless of ethnic/racial status, age, economic status, special needs, English as a second language or other language group, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression[/Bn, family type, religious/spiritual identity and appearance……..

Also, http://www.usmessageboard.com/2560136-post167.html

From the articles themselves, they are attempting to force her out of the program because she maintains the belief that homosexuality is a choice. This belief of hers is religious in nature.

They are not processing her out because of anything except for her religious beliefs.

By affirming, are you indicating that a counselor has to tell the alcoholic that it is okay to be drunk? Must he tell the alcoholic who admits to drinking and driving to do whatever he thinks is right?

That seems to be what you indicate when you place all emphasis upon "affirmation".

Does a counselor have to tell a suicidal client that what he is feeling is okay and that suicide might be the answer?

There is a difference between affirmation and condemnation. No one is suggesting condemnation, but you are suggesting affirmation which is just as wrong.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

And you don't seem to be able to separate the two.

That's your opinion. I have plenty of Christian friends. Some of them on this very forum even though we disagree passionately.

No, couldn't possibly be, you already said your friends never disagree with you.

I didn't say that. I said my friends love and accept me as I am. Most of my friends are Buddhist, but some are Christian and some are atheist.

I have plenty of Christian friends on this board that I disagree with.

I even consider you a friend, sheila. As unpleasant as you are sometimes.

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie--

She is not being asked to take diversity training based her her religion. She is being asked to take because of her anti-gay bigotry.

Bigotry is not a Christian value.

Bigotry is not a Christian value, but you have not proven that she would behave in an bigoted manner. She doesn't agree with the current thinking on the issue, but you have not proven that she would do anything at all to hurt a client.

Immie

I don't have to prove it, Immie. I'm not in court.

Once again, the ethics say that she needs to affirm the lives of her clients even when their values differ from hers.

She isn't willing to do that.

No, the ethics DO NOT SAY THAT.

And the fact that you refuse to attempt to verify it shows you know you're lying.

From the suit:

"44. Miss Keeton asked Dr. Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those a Buddhist or Muslim student may possess. Dr. Anderson-Wiley stated "Christians see this population as sinners."
45. Miss Keeton responded to Dr. Anderson-Wiley that all people are sinners, including herself, and she would be happy to concede that to anyone, in any population.
46. Dr. Anderson-Wiley, holding her hands out to represent the two options, told Miss Keeton that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the ACA Code of Ethics.
47. Miss Keeton stated if there is no middle ground that conforms to both, her fidelity is to the Bible.
48. Dr. Schenck stated to Miss Keeton, "You couldn't be a teacher, let alone a counselor, with those views." Miss Keeton was stung by that comment, which excluded her and those with her convictions from two professions.
49. Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Schenck stated their opinion that Miss Keeton is prejudiced because of her ethical views on GLBT issues.
50. Miss Keeton stated to these professors that their assessment was unfair, and that they had NO BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT SHE HARBORS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AGAINST ANYONE, OR TREATS OR WOULD TREAT ANY PERSON LESS THAN RESPECTFULLY."

She's right. There's no indication that she has prejudice against anyone. This is entirely about her faith. She was interrogated about her faith, and told she had to choose her faith or the program, and that is discrimination.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't have to prove it, Immie. I'm not in court.

Once again, the ethics say that she needs to affirm the lives of her clients even when their values differ from hers.

She isn't willing to do that.

So you affirm the life of your Christian client even though you never discuss her religion????

I'm amazed she hasn't seen your hatred for Christians, you seem to be dripping with it.

Kind of odd for someone who is supposed to be a Buddhist.

 

[Coyote]

I think the core question here is whether a State school can take this action over a difference of religious or political belief. And that includes any State certification process. To me, the school is behaving in a way that is suspect under the Constitution, and the same would be true for any State school taking action against someone for espousing pro-homosexual beliefs.

No. It has nothing to do with religion - but in the student's ability to abide by the guidelines and standards set by the school program, and by the associations that govern counseling that are followed by that program. It's well within the schools right to question her ability to do so based on her own statements and actions - to do otherwise would put the program's accredidation at risk or, worst case - put a client at risk.

 

[Coyote]

Bigotry is not a Christian value, but you have not proven that she would behave in an bigoted manner. She doesn't agree with the current thinking on the issue, but you have not proven that she would do anything at all to hurt a client.

Immie

I don't have to prove it, Immie. I'm not in court.

Once again, the ethics say that she needs to affirm the lives of her clients even when their values differ from hers.

She isn't willing to do that.

No, the ethics DO NOT SAY THAT.

And the fact that you refuse to attempt to verify it shows you know you're lying.

From the suit:

"44. Miss Keeton asked Dr. Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those a Buddhist or Muslim student may possess. Dr. Anderson-Wiley stated "Christians see this population as sinners."
45. Miss Keeton responded to Dr. Anderson-Wiley that all people are sinners, including herself, and she would be happy to concede that to anyone, in any population.
46. Dr. Anderson-Wiley, holding her hands out to represent the two options, told Miss Keeton that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the ACA Code of Ethics.
47. Miss Keeton stated if there is no middle ground that conforms to both, her fidelity is to the Bible.
48. Dr. Schenck stated to Miss Keeton, "You couldn't be a teacher, let alone a counselor, with those views." Miss Keeton was stung by that comment, which excluded her and those with her convictions from two professions.
49. Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Schenck stated their opinion that Miss Keeton is prejudiced because of her ethical views on GLBT issues.
50. Miss Keeton stated to these professors that their assessment was unfair, and that they had NO BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT SHE HARBORS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AGAINST ANYONE, OR TREATS OR WOULD TREAT ANY PERSON LESS THAN RESPECTFULLY."

She's right. There's no indication that she has prejudice against anyone. This is entirely about her faith. She was interrogated about her faith, and told she had to choose her faith or the program, and that is discrimination.

Read the ethics.

 

[AllieBaba]

Coyote, you're lying. It is about religion, in the words of the instructors themselves.

So does this mean gay people cannot counsel or teach Christian children?

 

[Steerpike]

No. It has nothing to do with religion - but in the student's ability to abide by the guidelines and standards set by the school program, and by the associations that govern counseling that are followed by that program. It's well within the schools right to question her ability to do so based on her own statements and actions - to do otherwise would put the program's accredidation at risk or, worst case - put a client at risk.

Of course it does. If the school's basis for questioning her ability stems from her religious view, then it certainly involves religion.

 

[Immanuel]

Is her faith in Christianity so weak that she would lose it going to a gay pride parade or taking diversity training? We don't know how Keeton behaved in class but it must have been mighty extreme for the professors to have gone this route.

Who knows about her faith? It really does not matter whether her faith is weak or not. The point is they want her to under go extra curricular activities that are not required of other students.

I really do not care if the professors agree with her or not. That is immaterial. I don't agree with her, but I respect her right to hold beliefs differing from my own just as I respect both your right and Jillian's to hold different faiths than my own. If she cannot perform in a professional manner then she should not be licensed, however, it is not up to the university to license her. It is up to the state.

No, we don't know that her behavior was all that extreme. It might also be that she was a vocal pain in the ass and her professors simply do not like the attitude she has given them. Maybe she had Straight A's (I doubt it or they would have mentioned it in the article) so far and there is simply no way they can expel her on academic grounds so they have chosen this route instead. That is speculation, but as plausible as your "extreme" example.

Immie

They are trying to get her to complete her studies. You don't get a remediation program without being on academic probation.

What caused her to get in so much trouble? Her own words and actions.

You can't graduate from a progra, if you don't meet the requirements. Keeton attitude is unprofessional.

All that about the academic probation and diversity training, which they appear to have renamed "remediation programs" is speculation on your part.

Sucks when an institute of higher education won't accept differing points of view especially in a field such as psychology, doesn't it? You would think that people that taught psychology would be open to differing points of view, wouldn't you?

How on Earth did ASU ever get accredited in the first place?

Immie

 

[dilloduck]

Coyote, you're lying. It is about religion, in the words of the instructors themselves.

So does this mean gay people cannot counsel or teach Christian children?

of course not---they're Christophobes

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't have to prove it, Immie. I'm not in court.

Once again, the ethics say that she needs to affirm the lives of her clients even when their values differ from hers.

She isn't willing to do that.

No, the ethics DO NOT SAY THAT.

And the fact that you refuse to attempt to verify it shows you know you're lying.

From the suit:

"44. Miss Keeton asked Dr. Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those a Buddhist or Muslim student may possess. Dr. Anderson-Wiley stated "Christians see this population as sinners."
45. Miss Keeton responded to Dr. Anderson-Wiley that all people are sinners, including herself, and she would be happy to concede that to anyone, in any population.
46. Dr. Anderson-Wiley, holding her hands out to represent the two options, told Miss Keeton that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the ACA Code of Ethics.
47. Miss Keeton stated if there is no middle ground that conforms to both, her fidelity is to the Bible.
48. Dr. Schenck stated to Miss Keeton, "You couldn't be a teacher, let alone a counselor, with those views." Miss Keeton was stung by that comment, which excluded her and those with her convictions from two professions.
49. Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Schenck stated their opinion that Miss Keeton is prejudiced because of her ethical views on GLBT issues.
50. Miss Keeton stated to these professors that their assessment was unfair, and that they had NO BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT SHE HARBORS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AGAINST ANYONE, OR TREATS OR WOULD TREAT ANY PERSON LESS THAN RESPECTFULLY."

She's right. There's no indication that she has prejudice against anyone. This is entirely about her faith. She was interrogated about her faith, and told she had to choose her faith or the program, and that is discrimination.

Read the ethics.

I have.
You and Sky are touting a dishonest premise, which is that the ethics require an affirmation of LIFESTYLE. That is a lie. The ethics require affirmation of people regardless of their lifestyles. I have yet to meet a counselor who is required to tell someone "Hey, it's great you're gay! I support your lifestyle!"

It's ridiculous. Besides being dishonest and prejudicial on your part.
But that's not surprising.

 

[Againsheila]

That's your opinion. I have plenty of Christian friends. Some of them on this very forum even though we disagree passionately.

No, couldn't possibly be, you already said your friends never disagree with you.

I didn't say that. I said my friends love and accept me as I am. Most of my friends are Buddhist, but some are Christian and some are atheist.

I have plenty of Christian friends on this board that I disagree with.

I even consider you a friend, sheila. As unpleasant as you are sometimes.

And now you know why I can have gay friends....

I've always considered you a friend Sky, but I don't agree with everything you say. I tend to get rather emotional on certain topics. I remember one time having a discussion <argument> with a friend here in my home and I went to get myself a coke and forgot to offer him one. I have been arguing so vehemently he just looked at me and said in a small voice..."Can I have one too?" I said of course and told him to help himself, just because we're arguing doesn't mean we aren't friends.

Which BTW, also shows why I believe a Christian woman can be a counselor to gays.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Who knows about her faith? It really does not matter whether her faith is weak or not. The point is they want her to under go extra curricular activities that are not required of other students.

I really do not care if the professors agree with her or not. That is immaterial. I don't agree with her, but I respect her right to hold beliefs differing from my own just as I respect both your right and Jillian's to hold different faiths than my own. If she cannot perform in a professional manner then she should not be licensed, however, it is not up to the university to license her. It is up to the state.

No, we don't know that her behavior was all that extreme. It might also be that she was a vocal pain in the ass and her professors simply do not like the attitude she has given them. Maybe she had Straight A's (I doubt it or they would have mentioned it in the article) so far and there is simply no way they can expel her on academic grounds so they have chosen this route instead. That is speculation, but as plausible as your "extreme" example.

Immie

They are trying to get her to complete her studies. You don't get a remediation program without being on academic probation.

What caused her to get in so much trouble? Her own words and actions.

You can't graduate from a progra, if you don't meet the requirements. Keeton attitude is unprofessional.

All that about the academic probation and diversity training, which they appear to have renamed "remediation programs" is speculation on your part.

Sucks when an institute of higher education won't accept differing points of view especially in a field such as psychology, doesn't it? You would think that people that taught psychology would be open to differing points of view, wouldn't you?

How on Earth did ASU ever get accredited in the first place?

Immie

ASU will keep their accreditation if they graduate qualified counselors.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, couldn't possibly be, you already said your friends never disagree with you.

I didn't say that. I said my friends love and accept me as I am. Most of my friends are Buddhist, but some are Christian and some are atheist.

I have plenty of Christian friends on this board that I disagree with.

I even consider you a friend, sheila. As unpleasant as you are sometimes.

And now you know why I can have gay friends....

I've always considered you a friend Sky, but I don't agree with everything you say. I tend to get rather emotional on certain topics. I remember one time having a discussion <argument> with a friend here in my home and I went to get myself a coke and forgot to offer him one. I have been arguing so vehemently he just looked at me and said in a small voice..."Can I have one too?" I said of course and told him to help himself, just because we're arguing doesn't mean we aren't friends.

Which BTW, also shows why I believe a Christian woman can be a counselor to gays.

Thanks sheila.

I think a Christian woman can be a counselor to a gay person. I dont' think Keeton can.

 

[Againsheila]

So you affirm the life of your Christian client even though you never discuss her religion????

I'm amazed she hasn't seen your hatred for Christians, you seem to be dripping with it.

Kind of odd for someone who is supposed to be a Buddhist.

Yeah, I think I went a little over the top with that one.

 

[Immanuel]

they only told her to go for remediation because she refused to complete her coursework.

would it be terrible for her to learn not to discriminate?

you can think what you want about this extremist trying to impose her agenda on the school SHE chose and no one forced her to go to...

i think she's out...

and so will any court hearing the case.

I do not think she is the extremist. I think it is the two professors and the administrator with whom she has butted heads that are the extremists who want to force their own beliefs on others.

There are no indications whatsoever that she refused to complete the coursework. This remediation training appears to have been placed upon her because of her beliefs not because of her coursework.

Do I think learning not to discriminate is a bad thing? No, I do not, but I think forced re-education is a terrible thing.

I think she is out as well. Regardless of how the court rules, she will not pass another course at that university. They will make sure of that.

Immie

I disgree Immie. I think if she took diversity training she would pass her course.

Hell no, those liberal professors are not so tolerant. There is almost no chance that she will pass any courses at ASU in the future.

And regardless, forced re-education is an evil thing regardless of the outcome.

The Catholics tried it on the Jewish people during the Spanish Inquisition. It was wrong then. It is wrong today.

If she can't pass the course work then she should not be in the program. But, if she is not failing her classes and is simply not agreeing to change her mind on whether or not homosexuality is a choice, then the university is 100% wrong in using the denial of the degree as a threat to force her to be politically correct. For one thing, it won't work!

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, the ethics DO NOT SAY THAT.

And the fact that you refuse to attempt to verify it shows you know you're lying.

From the suit:

"44. Miss Keeton asked Dr. Anderson-Wiley how her Christian convictions are any less acceptable than those a Buddhist or Muslim student may possess. Dr. Anderson-Wiley stated "Christians see this population as sinners."
45. Miss Keeton responded to Dr. Anderson-Wiley that all people are sinners, including herself, and she would be happy to concede that to anyone, in any population.
46. Dr. Anderson-Wiley, holding her hands out to represent the two options, told Miss Keeton that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the ACA Code of Ethics.
47. Miss Keeton stated if there is no middle ground that conforms to both, her fidelity is to the Bible.
48. Dr. Schenck stated to Miss Keeton, "You couldn't be a teacher, let alone a counselor, with those views." Miss Keeton was stung by that comment, which excluded her and those with her convictions from two professions.
49. Dr. Anderson-Wiley and Dr. Schenck stated their opinion that Miss Keeton is prejudiced because of her ethical views on GLBT issues.
50. Miss Keeton stated to these professors that their assessment was unfair, and that they had NO BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT SHE HARBORS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AGAINST ANYONE, OR TREATS OR WOULD TREAT ANY PERSON LESS THAN RESPECTFULLY."

She's right. There's no indication that she has prejudice against anyone. This is entirely about her faith. She was interrogated about her faith, and told she had to choose her faith or the program, and that is discrimination.

Read the ethics.

I have.
You and Sky are touting a dishonest premise, which is that the ethics require an affirmation of LIFESTYLE. That is a lie. The ethics require affirmation of people regardless of their lifestyles. I have yet to meet a counselor who is required to tell someone "Hey, it's great you're gay! I support your lifestyle!"

It's ridiculous. Besides being dishonest and prejudicial on your part.
But that's not surprising.

Geesh.

I have posted the ethics so many times and now I can't find them. The ethics read that you're willing to affirm the lives of your clients even though their values may be different from your own.

Keeton thinks her biblical morality is appropriate for ALL people. That's the problem.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Kind of odd for someone who is supposed to be a Buddhist.

Yeah, I think I went a little over the top with that one.

Thanks for admitting that.