i can see this turning ugly

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

My original statement was that studies support JWs about transfusions. For some reason you assumed that I meant that I meant about blood being sacred, or something equally off the wall. You are the one that made the assumption, not me.

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.

You did not say no, you just pontificated about their right to refuse treatment.

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

No, I mean you assumed I was talking about JWs, just like you assumed I was talking about JWs religion when I mentioned that studies back them up.

 

[Madeline]

I don't think it's completely fair to characterize the MD's views as "personal". Yes, your instructions as a patient should be respected, and no, the MDs values should not override them. But I'm sure that to many MDs, a no-blood bracelet in certain circumstances reads like a do not rescusitate order on a healthy, middle aged person. Hard to abide by.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you have proof that she did so? No, you don't because this school is in fact preventing her from even entering the profession. How can you defend that?

And yes, this is based on her RELIGIOUS beliefs, no amount how much you want to claim it isn't.

For the 15th time: no one on here has proof of anything. What we have is the claim of one plaintiff. As I have said before, I want to hear both sides of the story.

I fully defend a school from not awarding a degree to someone who fails to meet the standards. It appears Ms. Keeton has a penchant to editorialize in her academic writing. That is sub-par and anyone that has made it out of English 101 knows that.

And again, I don't take umbrage with Ms. Keeton's religious beliefs. I take umbrage with her belief that she can introduce it into her academic career when it is not germane to the issue.

Her beliefs about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice are at odds with the medical community.

Here is the problem as I see it. She stated in the articles that she would not do that. Made it very clear that she would not. It seems unfair of you to accuse her of being a liar when you know nothing at all about her.

I would have a problem if she said that she would "convert" homosexuals, but as far as we know, she has never said that. Without evidence contradicting that, you are wrong to assume that she is a liar.

She is 24 years old and strong willed. That doesn't make her hateful. The hateful people are the ones that would deny her opportunities because they disagree with her beliefs whether they be religious beliefs as it appears in this case or they simply be a belief that homosexuality is curable.

And I will repeat. It is hypocritical of this school to insist that she attend a "re-education" camp in order to brainwash her simply because they are afraid she may someday do that to a student. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy.


Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.

 

[Madeline]

Immie, you react to the remediation plan as if the school were sending this chick to a Gulag. Mightn't it be helpful to know what, exactly, the school wants her to do? Seems to me one way of looking at this is, they have a troubled/troublesome student and they are trying to accomodate her.

 

[Immanuel]

Do you have proof that she did so? No, you don't because this school is in fact preventing her from even entering the profession. How can you defend that?

And yes, this is based on her RELIGIOUS beliefs, no amount how much you want to claim it isn't.

For the 15th time: no one on here has proof of anything. What we have is the claim of one plaintiff. As I have said before, I want to hear both sides of the story.

I fully defend a school from not awarding a degree to someone who fails to meet the standards. It appears Ms. Keeton has a penchant to editorialize in her academic writing. That is sub-par and anyone that has made it out of English 101 knows that.

And again, I don't take umbrage with Ms. Keeton's religious beliefs. I take umbrage with her belief that she can introduce it into her academic career when it is not germane to the issue.

Her beliefs about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice are at odds with the medical community.

Did she pass all the required coursework? Yes or No? That is the ONLY thing the school should be concerned with. Once she gets her degree then if she chooses a field which requires accreditation, she should be subject to THEIR policies regarding that accreditation, but that is not relevant to the school's graduating her.

The problem is that she has not finished the coursework.

Her chances of passing a single class are now slim to none. By proceeding with filing this case she has damned near guaranteed that she will not pass another course as ASU.

Immie

 

[Madeline]

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.

I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.

O now c'mon, Quantum Windbag. Occassionally there might be a stupid MD or a well-informed lay person, but on average, better medical info can be had from MDs, etc. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think it's completely fair to characterize the MD's views as "personal". Yes, your instructions as a patient should be respected, and no, the MDs values should not override them. But I'm sure that to many MDs, a no-blood bracelet in certain circumstances reads like a do not rescusitate order on a healthy, middle aged person. Hard to abide by.

Did you know that transfusions during routine surgery significantly prolong recovery?

Did you know that a no blood order has an affect on the doctor performing surgery, and that he is significantly less likely to make a mistake?

In other words, it is his personal opinion that blood is necessary, and it is not based on what is best for the patient.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.

O now c'mon, Quantum Windbag. Occassionally there might be a stupid MD or a well-informed lay person, but on average, better medical info can be had from MDs, etc. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

So, if the consensus tells me that I am green with blue polka dots, and I can plainly see that I am not, I have to go with the consensus just because they have a few extra letters after their name?

 

[Madeline]

I don't think you can characterise the profession's standard of care as "personal". That's my only point....you have a minority POV, one I had never heard of before but which is intriguing. Still, the use of transfusions in some circumstances is doubtless a requirement of medical care unless the patient objects.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Well, to be accurate, GTH, is correct, we have only the word of the plaintiff about those facts. I suspect that Anderson-Wiley will vehemently deny that accusation especially after the firing of Ms. Sherrod last week.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Really?

Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong when they went against the consensus in regards to Heliocentrism? How about Darwin and his Origin of the Species? Einstein and the Theory of Relativity?

Suppression of free thought is contradictory to progress.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

Well, to be accurate, GTH, is correct, we have only the word of the plaintiff about those facts. I suspect that Anderson-Wiley will vehemently deny that accusation especially after the firing of Ms. Sherrod last week.

Immie

In that case, it's still about religion because the suit claims it.

 

[txlonghorn]

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?

it doesn't...her religious views just get in their way and they want to eliminate it.

 

[txlonghorn]

And then there's those pesky bi-sexuals....ALWAYS throwing a fly in the science of GLT.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

Really?

Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong when they went against the consensus in regards to Heliocentrism? How about Darwin and his Origin of the Species? Einstein and the Theory of Relativity?

Suppression of free thought is contradictory to progress.

Immie
Was Darwin wrong when he

Not only that, but our schools are established (by the Supreme Court) as a place where ideas are expressed and studied. Students CANNOT BE SILENCED because they voice an opinion that is unpopular.

 

[txlonghorn]

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.

Really?

Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong when they went against the consensus in regards to Heliocentrism? How about Darwin and his Origin of the Species? Einstein and the Theory of Relativity?

Suppression of free thought is contradictory to progress.

Immie
Was Darwin wrong when he

Not only that, but our schools are established (by the Supreme Court) as a place where ideas are expressed and studied. Students CANNOT BE SILENCED because they voice an opinion that is unpopular.

but they are....everyday...everywhere. The system is getting called down on the carpet this time

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Of course credit hours are factored into graduation requirements. To get credit hours, you have to pass the class. Not just pay tuition and show up. That's the issue here. Did Keeton meet the standards? If not, then why not and was it fair?

Also, the OP is heavily biased towards Keeton and as it stands, all we have right now is the word of Keeton. So I am not ready to buy that as the (pun intended) gospel truth.

I want to hear what the school has to say on this. If Keeton is being punished for simply expressing her opinion in class or saying something deemed "not politically correct" by the school, then I think she is in the right and the school is in the wrong. However, if she was being failed because she couldn't write a research paper without turning it into an OPED then I think the school is right.

It's that simple.

On what do you base your theory of her turning it into an OPED paper? She may write very well and support her point of view with pertinent information.

My understanding is that it was not all that long ago when homosexuality was not believed to be genetic.

Science and Homosexuality

The American Psychiatric Association

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, also known as the DSM, is the official list of mental disorders that all mental health professionals refer to when diagnosing patients.

The first version, released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the second version (DSM II) reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. Soon afterward, gay protestors began picketing at the APA’s annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality be removed from the list completely. In 1973, after intensive debate and numerous disturbances by gay activists, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from it’s next manual (DSM IV) completely.

What followed was a swarm of outrage from psychiatrists within the APA who disagreed with the decision and demanded that the issue be reconsidered. In 1974, a referendum was called and approximately 40 percent of the APA’s membership voted to put homosexuality back into the DSM IV. Since a majority was not achieved to reverse the decision, homosexuality remains omitted from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical manual.

Many in the scientific community have criticized the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM IV, claiming it’s motives were more political than scientific. Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes:

The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.15

more at site.

1973? Hell, Roe v. Wade was decided before this issue was... wait... has this issue been decided?

Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17 (emphasis added).

Note: I am not giving this site my stamp of approval. I don't know anything about it, but it caught my eye.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you react to the remediation plan as if the school were sending this chick to a Gulag. Mightn't it be helpful to know what, exactly, the school wants her to do? Seems to me one way of looking at this is, they have a troubled/troublesome student and they are trying to accomodate her.

I wonder if the Jewish people were told the same things as Hitler's thugs marched them off to concentration camps.

I'm not saying that you would want to do that, but might that not be what they were told?

Would you say the same thing if this young lady had hooked up with Jim Jones in early 1978 and they wanted to ship her off to a "re-education camp" in Jonestown?

You are damned right I look at this like a concentration camp, because when you start trying to force your opinions on someone else at the barrel of a gun (threatening to withhold a very expensive degree is the same kind of a thing) you are in effect putting them in a concentration camp.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

People were told that Jews were a danger to "normal" people. And Jews were chased out of the schools.

That's the way it works.