i can see this turning ugly

[geauxtohell]

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.

According to Ms. Keeton this is all about her religion.

If this were simply about discriminating against Christians, then there should be many other Christians who have been dismissed from this program without cause.

I have my doubts that is the case.

Rather, Ms. Keeton's religion doesn't allow her to pass on substandard work.

 

[logical4u]

In Madeline, we have the quintessential picture of a complete bigot. We're lucky to have her so. She's a text book example of how bigotry presents.

She blames door-knocking Christians for the fact that the people in a particular neighborhood are getting robbed, and says they make her "afraid".

She says they reduce wariness and make people more vulnerable because they think whomever is knocking on the door is a JH.

It is a perfect picture of bigotry.

In this thread, she maintains that because a person is a Christian, they are also a homophobe. And she further states that in order to work in human services, one cannot be a Christian because Christianity is anathema to human services.

Another example of perfect bigotry.

Well, you know about all those 'un-Christian' charities, don't you? The hospitals, schools, orphanages, and homes for unwed mothers that are supported by the LBGT, the atheists, the anachists, and the college professors that love this country groups all have their charities to 'help' mankind, don't they? Hmmmm

 

[AllieBaba]

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


C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics

She met the criteria and she never showed any evidence that she wouldn't be willing and able to treat homosexuals according to the standards.

What she refuses to do is say she AGREES with the standards, and will substitute them for her faith.

That's crazy stuff and reminds me of both the communists and the Nazis...both are fascist regimes, and they both hit colleges first and foremost. First they identify who is ready to support the program and those who won't. Then they marginalize, kill and imprison those who refuse to tout the party line.

Sometimes it's a matter of recanting your faith, sometimes it's a matter of swearing fealty to a tyrant. Usually it's both, eventually. First one, then the other. Then horror.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

The root of JW objection to blood transfusion is grounded in religious objection and has been since 1961 before the risks of blood transfusion were well understood. Your original statement was that medical science supported JW objections. My point was that medical science doesn't delve into religion.

If JW object to blood due to safety issues, it's ancillary to their religious objections which come from Leviticus.

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?

How does "no" not answer your question? You inform them of the risks of refusal just as you inform them of the risk of acceptance.

I did not limit it to JWs, you did.

You mean you just now decided not to limit it to JWs.

 

[ConHog]

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.

According to Ms. Keeton this is all about her religion.

If this were simply about discriminating against Christians, then there should be many other Christians who have been dismissed from this program without cause.

I have my doubts that is the case.

Rather, Ms. Keeton's religion doesn't allow her to pass on substandard work.

So, let me get this straight. You won't assume that religion was the basis for the decision because you claim there is no evidence of such; but you are perfectly willing to state that sub standard work was the reason for the decision even though there is no evidence of such?

Nice

 

[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?

Lol.
Talk about ad hominem.

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

Figures.

Ad hominem begets more ad hominem.

If QW wants to dismiss the legitimacy of M.D.'s & D.O.'s in the field of psychiatry and Ph.D.'s in the field of psychology then his credentials are fair game.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

According to Ms. Keeton this is all about her religion.

If this were simply about discriminating against Christians, then there should be many other Christians who have been dismissed from this program without cause.

I have my doubts that is the case.

Rather, Ms. Keeton's religion doesn't allow her to pass on substandard work.

So, let me get this straight. You won't assume that religion was the basis for the decision because you claim there is no evidence of such; but you are perfectly willing to state that sub standard work was the reason for the decision even though there is no evidence of such?

Nice

No, I am just making a counter point. I don't fully know the facts of this matter.

Neither does anyone else.

So it has about as much legitimacy as anyone fully buying Ms. Keeton's viewpoint on the matter as the truth.

 

[txlonghorn]

She can not get a dergee in couseling if she refuses the science associated with the degree.

She should never be allowed to counsel someone if she is going to spout her religion instead of the science backed facts.

It also says she has other problems meeting the criteria to be a grad.

Hmmm...the sad truth is that she IS perfectly capable of counseling. Just because Mary Jane Wiley doesn't agree with Ms. Keeton's beliefs, is no reason at all to keep her from graduating. It is a real shame that a council of teachers can get together and decide to blackball a student based on her beliefs and convictions.

Your defense of this is atrocious and disturbing. You truly are perverse in your liberality.

 

[txlonghorn]

logical4U, it is implied in seeking admission to a graduate degree program that mastering the material is a pre-requisite to graduation.

there is a difference between 'mastering material' and believing along 'school' lines.

and that difference is GIGANTIC

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Psychology is the study of human behavior, and is totally unrelated to medical science. It is based on observation and study of what people do, and attempts to determine why be examining the person's history and belief system. It is based on a lot of things, but medicine is not one of them.

Please show me some sort of scientific evidence that people lack free will before you insist that the sceintific community has a consensus that homosexuality is not a choice. If homosexuality is not a choice, do people have any ability to choose anything? If they do not, do you support punishing people who do things when they do not have a choice?

The only argument anyone really has that homosexuality is not a choice is that no one would choose a life of persecution and second rate citizenship. This argument fails to explain why some people actually do choose to be humiliated in public. Reality TV shows prove that people are willing to do all sorts of things to get attention, even open themselves to humiliation and being publicly mocked. Girls gone Wild capitalizes on this trait in people, and even gets straight girls to make out for fame.

You can stand there and claim that the consensus is that people do not have a choice, and all I have to do is find one person that says he chose to be homosexual to prove that consensus wrong. Believe me, that is not even a challenge, as anyone will admit. That is why I can confidently claim that the consensus that homosexuality is not a choice is not based on science, it ignores people who say that they made that choice.

 

[logical4u]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You went on a tangent about how I couldn't prove that the consensus was that homosexuality was not a choice (which is the opposite of what Ms. Keeton erroneously claims) and now you want to dodge the issue?

I'm not dodging the issue. I'm saying you didn't prove it. This is the same problem Madeline had. You can't prove something with a lie. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. But you guys have no concept of fact or truth, so it's a waste of time to try to explain it to you.

A.) I am not Madeline, so save your hatefest for your interactions with her. I am a separate person.

B.) How is linking to the consensus of the two biggest professional societies in the issues of behavioral health "not proving" what you asked me to do (and by proxy refutes you penchant to excoriate me for what you deemed to be my making up that the professional consensus is that homosexuality is not a personal choice).

Now who is being dishonest?

At any rate, for the rest of the posters on here: the professional consensus of mental health professionals is that homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not something that a person chooses to be, it can't be changed with group therapy, and it is multifactorial.

IF homosexuality is 'a state of being', how can someone choose to go straight and stay straight? Sorry, as long as there are 'reformed' homosexuals, your statements do not ring true. The experts, didn't the experts build the titanic?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You cannot. If they pass the background check they will not be denied a security clearance. If they do not pass, it will be because they have said, or done, something that makes a clearance problematic, or they are associated with people who do the same. It will not be based on their religion. Ever.

Unlike you I do not know anything simply because I cannot imagine it happening.

 

[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.

According to Ms. Keeton this is all about her religion.

If this were simply about discriminating against Christians, then there should be many other Christians who have been dismissed from this program without cause.

I have my doubts that is the case.

Rather, Ms. Keeton's religion doesn't allow her to pass on substandard work.

Yeah. Provide evidence of substandard work.

And why would there be "many other Christians" who were dismissed from the program without cause? What sort of nonsense is that? Now you're just making shit up.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not dodging the issue. I'm saying you didn't prove it. This is the same problem Madeline had. You can't prove something with a lie. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. But you guys have no concept of fact or truth, so it's a waste of time to try to explain it to you.

A.) I am not Madeline, so save your hatefest for your interactions with her. I am a separate person.

B.) How is linking to the consensus of the two biggest professional societies in the issues of behavioral health "not proving" what you asked me to do (and by proxy refutes you penchant to excoriate me for what you deemed to be my making up that the professional consensus is that homosexuality is not a personal choice).

Now who is being dishonest?

At any rate, for the rest of the posters on here: the professional consensus of mental health professionals is that homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not something that a person chooses to be, it can't be changed with group therapy, and it is multifactorial.

IF homosexuality is 'a state of being', how can someone choose to go straight and stay straight? Sorry, as long as there are 'reformed' homosexuals, your statements do not ring true. The experts, didn't the experts build the titanic?

The experts are also the ones who deemed homosexuality was a mental illness in the first place.

 

[Immanuel]

There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?

I don't think so.

There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.

See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.

I believe Ms. Keeton has stated that she understands and agrees with that statement.

Immie

Ms. Keeton has stated a lot. We only have her side of the story. As I said, I suspect there is more to this and refuse to fly off the handle from the word of a plaintiff.

Forgive me, but it seems that many have accepted the accusations against her as fact.

Without evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that she will be the one hurt if they expel her and she has no way to finish her degree. By the time the courts act, it will be too late for her.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Scientist do not ignore data points that disprove their theories. There exist some homosexuals that insist that they made a conscious choice to be homosexual, which is a data point that destroys the consensus you claim holds sway. If they ignore these people they are not scientists.

By the way, I know plenty of people who are PhDs who are not scientific, among them is Glenn Beck. A degree does not make a scientist, something you should know, if you were honest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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


>

How does it contradict her religious views?

 

[Againsheila]

The larger point is, your religious beliefs don't get to trump the standards of a profession you want to enter.

If you can't buy the Christian Scientist scenario, then how about this:

"You are a Jehovah's Witness in medical school who believes blood is sacred and refuses to do a transfusion on a patient."

Or:

"You are a Rastafarian in medical school that believes it's your religious right to walk around and see patients with a doobie hanging out of your mouth."

Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.

There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?

I don't think so.

There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.

See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.

It used to be, if you had a scheduled operation coming up, you could get your family members or friends of the same blood type to donate and that exact blood would be saved for you and no one else, only if it wasn't needed for you would it be given to someone else. Today, you can't do that. Oh you can give blood, they just don't guarantee it goes to your family member.

 

[syrenn]

Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.

There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?

I don't think so.

There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.

See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.

It used to be, if you had a scheduled operation coming up, you could get your family members or friends of the same blood type to donate and that exact blood would be saved for you and no one else, only if it wasn't needed for you would it be given to someone else. Today, you can't do that. Oh you can give blood, they just don't guarantee it goes to your family member.

I believe you still can do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If I am conscious, have a bracelet, and state my wishes, and the doctor argues with me, he is attempting to impose his personal views on me. Trust me on this issue, most doctors try to convince patients to accept blood. Very few of them actually live up to the standard that you claim this girl cannot hold herself to, despite the fact that no evidence exists to support your position.