i can see this turning ugly

[geauxtohell]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2542765-post380.html

Interesting that you believe that.

Now here are the facts on what is in the College's handbook as regards graduation from the College of Education with a Masters

School Counseling Concentration
• 48 semester hours of academic work (39 hours must be completed at ASU)
• 3 semester hours credit in Exceptional Children
• 3 semester hours credit in Educational Technology
• 2 semesters of intensive internship in a school setting
• Completion of a professional portfolio during the capstone course
• Successful completion of the Georgia Certification Exam examination will yield school certification in the state of Georgia. (For candidates without a Bachelor’s degree in Education, the PRAXIS I must also be taken.) The student applies to the ASU Certification Officer for certification after completion of all requirements for the degree.

http://www.aug.edu/registrar_va/catalog/2006/cat0607.pdf page 113

By the way re: Your statement that this isn't about religion:


When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Anderson-Wiley at one point responded, "Christians see this population as sinners." Though Keeton stated that all people are sinners, including herself, Anderson-Wiley told her that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. Keeton chose the Bible

- This was from the original article

Anderson-Wiley is an associate professor who also oversees student education and discipline and is therefor an employee of a public institution expressing religious discrimination.

"B-b-but...it's not ABOUT religion!"

Despite the fact that both sides have stated that it is.

Hello.

The school has never officially stated anything about this and Wiley certainly hasn't chimed in on it.

Everything that has been stated has come from Keeton.

It may be 100% true, 100% bullshit or anywhere in between.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Allie.

As much whining about other people on this thread as she has done, she's done a sufficient job of mucking the subject up with a bunch of penny ante insults and absurd hyperbole.

Like "facist".

That's okay, you don't have to post any actual links or information. I've posted more than the rest of you yahoos combined.

As a matter of fact, there are a couple on here who haven't posted any facts at all. Just a sustained stream of lies and refusal to answer direct questions, or otherwise support any of the stupid claims they've made.

Kindly prove that it's the "consensus" that homosexuals aren't that way by choice.

Done.

Feel free to respond.

Please point to a consensus among scientists, not among people who would not understand science if it slapped them in the face.

 

[logical4u]

Allie, the question of freedom of speech for university professors is not, not, not the same as a question of allowing a homophobe to graduate and become a public school counselor. In the case of professors of other disciplines, something might be wrong. It is a question worth examining. But in the case of this student, she has announced (made an issue of the fact) that she cannot deal with a segment of the student population in a manner that conforms to the requirements of her hoped-for profession.

So, are you saying that homosexual counselors (that support homosexual behavior) should not be allowed to become school counselors, because they could not "deal with a segment of the student population in a manner that conforms to the requirements of her hoped-for profession" (you know, straights)? That they might use their personal beliefs and judgements to influence student behavior, in an unprofessional manner?

 

[geauxtohell]

Do you have a problem being honest? I stated that there is medical evidence that transfusions are not the best option, Not that it makes God angry. I don't believe JWs will tell you it makes him angry either, at least not most of them do not.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't oppose transfusions on medical grounds. They refuse it on religious ones. Your contention that there is medical evidence that supports JW's belief that blood is sacred and can not be transfused is not true.

I am sorry that you apparently don't know why JW adherents object to transfusions.

Here:

Blood--Vital For Life - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Let me ask you, if someone comes in who you think needs blood, and they have a medical bracelet that tells you they do not want blood, do you still try to convince them to accept blood? If you do you are actually foisting your personal opinions on them, even if they argue you down in the end.

I've already answered this. The answer is no. We have to document when a JW comes in so we know not to transfuse them.

It's not limited to JW. It is the right of any patient to refuse treatment.

Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who refuse blood solely on their informed knowledge that transfusions are bad for you, and not because of their religion.

Rare people. But they would have been a much better example than JW.

 

[logical4u]

O c'mon Immie. You seriously believe that her "liberal professors" found out about this student's religion and set out to have her expelled?

This student made an issue of her unwillingness to treat homosexuals in the manner dictated by the code and rules that govern all members of her profession. Seems to me, if anyone set out to create an issue, she did.

The religion thing is a smokescreen. This student wanted, and got, a backdoor way to challenge established protocols that have been in place for decades regarding homosexuals and therapy.

It seems she did not have an opportunity to 'treat' homosexuals at all, because the school disapproved with her 'thoughts on the matter'.

When the lefties are using 'backdoor ways' to undermine the morality and teachings of the students parents, why is it, the left, never has a problem with that? The only time the left has a problem is when someone implies that 'morality' might not be such a bad idea.... things that make me say hmmmm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Other than the fact that Wahibbism is linked to AQ and Sunni extremism and that might not be the kind of person who should be trusted with launch codes?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Seriously though, the government routinely denies things to people based on their beliefs and associations.

So, you want to deny him a clearance based solely on his religion, despite the fact that he was able to get through the massive background investigation that investigated everything he has every done, and all of his friends, and cleared him of any ties to any group that might be a danger to the US. And you want to claim that you are not biased against religion in any way, shape, or form.

Good luck with that.

In principal we agree on this, but you do admit that a Wahhabi isn't likely to pass such a background check don't you?

I do, but that was not the original question. He asked if I had a problem with it, and I do not if they pass the background check. I almost didn't pass mine, so I know it isn't easy, even if it is routine. By the time they get to the point where they have access to really sensitive material it goes way beyond routine.

 

[geauxtohell]

We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.

I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.

The overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and is not a personal choice.

See the DSM IV or the American Psychiatric Association for further clarification on the matter.

That overwhelming consensus is not based on science, it is based on anecdotal evidence. The problem with psychology is that it is far from being scientific, so arguing that a bunch of people who are not scientists have some sort of scientific consensus is ludicrous.

Psychiatry and psychology are not based in the medical sciences? Really? Now you are just pumping gas on Mars. Of course, I knew you guys would simply dismiss any evidence or statement from the professionals that contradicted your personal beliefs. You all are nothing if not predictable.

You can dismiss it if you want. The medical community does not and your opinion is simply that.

As I stated, and proved, the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a choice.

So if Ms. Keeton was claiming something to the contrary, she was in the wrong.

 

[logical4u]

You are correct, Allie. If a public university withheld degrees based upon a student's religious beliefs, they'd have a civil rights problem. But that is not what is happening. The school has asked this student to take diversity training, etc. because of her outspoken views on homosexuals and the manner in which her views will impact her performance as a counselor.

Diversity training = brainwashing and is absolutely un-American.

Immie

Why, Immie? Most diversity training occurs in the workplace, as employers attempt to create a more respectful atmosphere for all employees. This is supposed to happen in a school...so? Seems to me, this student very much needs to have contact with, learn about, and come to respect people who are homosexual.

I see nothing "un-American" about altering behavior that gives unwarranted offense and falls below a profession's standard of care. Would you prefer that the school simply expel her?

Why are all lifestyles and beliefs considered 'diverse' except, conservative, moral, and just minded individuals? Why are those the 'only' people that MUST BE CHANGED (none of the other groups, that by the way never made a country that came near what this country did)?

 

[geauxtohell]

So, you want to deny him a clearance based solely on his religion, despite the fact that he was able to get through the massive background investigation that investigated everything he has every done, and all of his friends, and cleared him of any ties to any group that might be a danger to the US. And you want to claim that you are not biased against religion in any way, shape, or form.

Good luck with that.

In principal we agree on this, but you do admit that a Wahhabi isn't likely to pass such a background check don't you?

I do, but that was not the original question. He asked if I had a problem with it, and I do not if they pass the background check. I almost didn't pass mine, so I know it isn't easy, even if it is routine. By the time they get to the point where they have access to really sensitive material it goes way beyond routine.

The point is that you can be denied something based on your religion if your religion is crazy.

You know as well as I that a Wahibbi would never get a TS clearance based on their beliefs alone.

 

[ConHog]

So, you want to deny him a clearance based solely on his religion, despite the fact that he was able to get through the massive background investigation that investigated everything he has every done, and all of his friends, and cleared him of any ties to any group that might be a danger to the US. And you want to claim that you are not biased against religion in any way, shape, or form.

Good luck with that.

In principal we agree on this, but you do admit that a Wahhabi isn't likely to pass such a background check don't you?

I do, but that was not the original question. He asked if I had a problem with it, and I do not if they pass the background check. I almost didn't pass mine, so I know it isn't easy, even if it is routine. By the time they get to the point where they have access to really sensitive material it goes way beyond routine.

Ok, that's what I wondered about. We are in total agreement here then. My background check wasn't even for that high of a security clearance and took 3 months and they talked to just about every person I had ever met in my life to that point. The danger of a cleared person being a plant largely does not exist outside of the movies.

 

[geauxtohell]

Please point to a consensus among scientists, not among people who would not understand science if it slapped them in the face.

More weakness from you. Perhaps you should formally study some biological sciences before dismissing M.D.s and Ph.D.s as "not scientific enough".

BTW, if psychiatrists and psychologists are "scientific" enough to study behavior, then who is?

 

[ConHog]

Diversity training = brainwashing and is absolutely un-American.

Immie

Why, Immie? Most diversity training occurs in the workplace, as employers attempt to create a more respectful atmosphere for all employees. This is supposed to happen in a school...so? Seems to me, this student very much needs to have contact with, learn about, and come to respect people who are homosexual.

I see nothing "un-American" about altering behavior that gives unwarranted offense and falls below a profession's standard of care. Would you prefer that the school simply expel her?

Why are all lifestyles and beliefs considered 'diverse' except, conservative, moral, and just minded individuals? Why are those the 'only' people that MUST BE CHANGED (none of the other groups, that by the way never made a country that came near what this country did)?

Simple, because we stand in the way of their quest for ultimate power. If Muslims were objecting to Obama's power grab, just for instance, then THEY would be attacked.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, the point is you CAN'T be denied anything in THIS country based on religion alone. Unless there's some reason to think that in following that religion you will break laws.

In THIS case (not some theoretical b.s.) the woman obviously was singled out because of her religion. The people who singled her out SAID it was about her religion. There was no fear of her doing against culture. It's just about denying a person a degree based on religion alone. She's required to perform extra tasks and actually agree to put her religion aside in order to move forward in her career. That's illegal, and unconstitutional.

 

[logical4u]

O c'mon Immie. You seriously believe that her "liberal professors" found out about this student's religion and set out to have her expelled?

This student made an issue of her unwillingness to treat homosexuals in the manner dictated by the code and rules that govern all members of her profession. Seems to me, if anyone set out to create an issue, she did.

The religion thing is a smokescreen. This student wanted, and got, a backdoor way to challenge established protocols that have been in place for decades regarding homosexuals and therapy.

No she did not Madeline. Have you read any of the links? Even one of them?

She stated that she realized that there was a need to keep her personal beliefs separate from her professional beliefs.

Yes, I do believe that her liberal professors do not like her viewpoint and the fact that she will not conform to what they want her to believe. Tolerance is not an attribute of liberalism and definitely not an attribute of university professors. She is strong-willed and that infuriates them.

The fact that she is only 24 and has a long way to go to being qualified to enter the profession... meaning she has a lot to learn... makes this about her faith and her personality. They don't like her. They don't like the fact that she is unwilling to conform. Therefore, they are going to punish her. They do not belong in their own profession. They are not behaving professionally themselves, yet, have the audacity to criticize her?

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

Please point to a consensus among scientists, not among people who would not understand science if it slapped them in the face.

More weakness from you. Perhaps you should formally study some biological sciences before dismissing M.D.s and Ph.D.s as "not scientific enough".

BTW, if psychiatrists and psychologists are "scientific" enough to study behavior, then who is?

Lol.
Talk about ad hominem.

And in response to a direct, on-topic question.

Figures.

 

[logical4u]

Allie, the question of freedom of speech for university professors is not, not, not the same as a question of allowing a homophobe to graduate and become a public school counselor. In the case of professors of other disciplines, something might be wrong. It is a question worth examining. But in the case of this student, she has announced (made an issue of the fact) that she cannot deal with a segment of the student population in a manner that conforms to the requirements of her hoped-for profession.

Since when is the definition of homophobe "A person who believes homosexuality is a choice, rather than an inherited, trait"?

Because last I heard, there was no proof that homosexuality is inherited.

I keep asking you questions and you keep failing to provide answers. You just continue to spew the same fascist, hate-filled message: Christians are homophobes who should be feared and definitely should be ousted from the halls of higher learning and prevented from having contact with people.

She has a bigoted view of Christians.

 

[midcan5]

This person is entering a field that contradicts her personal religious beliefs - was it a deliberate choice or is she so naive that standards do not apply to her? She should have studied to be a Minister if religion is her study guide. Professionals are called professionals because they meet certain criteria, and tolerance, respect, empathy and a real world view of life are required for the field she mistakenly chose. Having a gay brother I know first hand it is no choice nor lifestyle.

Try this if you do, switch hit, walk down the street and instead of admiring her/his rear, admire his/her. Hard, huh. Let us know how you do.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html


>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you have a problem being honest? I stated that there is medical evidence that transfusions are not the best option, Not that it makes God angry. I don't believe JWs will tell you it makes him angry either, at least not most of them do not.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't oppose transfusions on medical grounds. They refuse it on religious ones. Your contention that there is medical evidence that supports JW's belief that blood is sacred and can not be transfused is not true.

I am sorry that you apparently don't know why JW adherents object to transfusions.

Here:

Blood--Vital For Life - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Wow, you keep asking me to defend a position I do not have. Please point to anywhere that I said medical evidence backs up JWs that God will be angry if I get a transfusion, or that it is sacred. I said that studies are backing up JWs regarding transfusions. Since you actually agree with them that there are medical arguments against using blood, why are you insisting that I am wrong? Any honest person would acknowledge that JWs argue against blood transfusions on both religious and medical grounds, are you honest?

Blood Transfusions--How Safe? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Let me ask you, if someone comes in who you think needs blood, and they have a medical bracelet that tells you they do not want blood, do you still try to convince them to accept blood? If you do you are actually foisting your personal opinions on them, even if they argue you down in the end.

I've already answered this. The answer is no. We have to document when a JW comes in so we know not to transfuse them.

It's not limited to JW. It is the right of any patient to refuse treatment.

That did not answer my question.

If someone comes in who you think needs blood, and they have a medical bracelet that tells you they do not want blood, do you still try to convince them to accept blood?

Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who refuse blood solely on their informed knowledge that transfusions are bad for you, and not because of their religion.

Rare people. But they would have been a much better example than JW.

I did not limit it to JWs, you did.

NoBlood - Transfusion alternatives. Blood management.

 

[Madeline]

Quantum Windbag, the POV of a patient is a matter of consent. the conduct of the medical professional is a matter of conforming to the standard of care, etc. The two are not inter-changable.

If you seemed conscious and had a no-blood bracelet, and could take in that your MD felt you needed a transfusion to survive but yet you still refused, it seems to me the SOC requires that the MD respect your wishes.

 

[AllieBaba]

For God's sakes, the FIELD doesn't contradict her beliefs; she doesn't agree with the popular view of homosexuality. People in all fields disagree with certain parts of their training. It did not keep her from passing her classes or completing her program.

She didn't refuse to treat anyone. She didn't violate any code. She voiced an opinion that many people in the profession hold - that homosexuality is not biological.

And based on that, she was taken aside, interrogated, and told she could not receive her degree unless she agreed to de-programming, recanted her belief, and submitted to follow-up action as well.

She isn't going to deny her faith to get a degree. Nobody should have to.