College Orders Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

[The Neo Nerd]

Now just for clarification, has it been determined definitively yet that homosexuality is a birth condition?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2107047-post85.html

 

[brbubba]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2107047-post85.html

I guess that's a no. They seem to say a host of factors. Although not really relevant, if it wasn't birth or biology related wouldn't it be a condition that could be altered?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The conversion therapy thing was an alleged complaint by a third party student to the faculty, or so they claim. The girl denies her belief in conversion therapy.

And you're sure that the student is trustworthy, and that her story has all the relevant information?

My point is that there's two sides to this story, and we've only really heard one of them. It's a bit early to condemn the university.

Edit: so far, the story basically amounts to this: "university takes disciplinary action against student; student feels hard-done by." In and of itself, there's nothing here that suggests that the school necessarily did anything wrong.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I guess that's a no. They seem to say a host of factors. Although not really relevant, if it wasn't birth or biology related wouldn't it be a condition that could be altered?

You just can't be serious. You want to go into that debate here?

 

[Magic Man]

The ACA sets the curriculum, but she has satisfied the curriculum.

No, she hasn't. That's the point. Following their principles and rules is part of the curriculum.

The complaint states that this arose from viewpoints made inside and outside class. But if she wasn't satisfying the curriculum she would have flunked out.

That's what's happening. She's flunking out.

And it is 100% impossible to do any job free of bias. You can attempt to be free of bias, but anyone who says they are is fooling themselves.

That's a sad view of things. I think you're fooling yourself that people can't do their jobs impartially.

I've been reading the brief and much of her complaint seems to stem from the idea that the professors in question are requesting that she fundamentally alter her beliefs as opposed to altering her approach on how to treat GLBT individuals.

Are they requesting that, or is she accusing them of requesting that?

If her complaints are actually valid the university is going to have some major problems. Some of the complaints are frankly appalling and seem to indicate a bias against Christianity and the bible amongst the faculty.

Which complaints are appalling and seem to indicate a bias against Christianity? Also, why would you assume the complaints have any validity?

 

[Magic Man]

Has there been a follow up on this case.???

I haven't found any new news on this case, but apparently there was a recent, very similar case at Eastern Michigan University. A counseling student there refused to counsel homosexual students due to her religious beliefs, and the university expelled her from the program since she refused to go through a remediation process. When it went to court, her lawsuit against the university was thrown out and the judge upheld the university's right to expel her for her actions. Link

That case had one clear thing this one doesn't. That student refused to counsel homosexuals. That is more clear-cut than the case in this thread, but it's the same principle.

 

[Autodidact]

I see a "this is COMPLETELY different because I believe it too" coming.

I'm going to predict a "I'm going to ignore this question because...".

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what kinds of degrees to 'christian councelors' normally have?

Just wondering.

Many seminaries have counciling certificates, the requirements include clinical internships at hospitals and/or other other professionals in the field of psychology.

note - Brite Divinity School - Pastoral Care and Training Center

 

[brbubba]

And you're sure that the student is trustworthy, and that her story has all the relevant information?

My point is that there's two sides to this story, and we've only really heard one of them. It's a bit early to condemn the university.

Edit: so far, the story basically amounts to this: "university takes disciplinary action against student; student feels hard-done by." In and of itself, there's nothing here that suggests that the school necessarily did anything wrong.

That's not the point, I'm basing it on the information we have. I'm not going to sit here and make baseless conjectures about the case until someone shows me some evidence to the contrary.

You just can't be serious. You want to go into that debate here?

Sure why not? If counseling were to state that homosexuality was caused by social factors then there's no reason to assume that it couldn't be an altered behavior.

I haven't found any new news on this case, but apparently there was a recent, very similar case at Eastern Michigan University. A counseling student there refused to counsel homosexual students due to her religious beliefs, and the university expelled her from the program since she refused to go through a remediation process. When it went to court, her lawsuit against the university was thrown out and the judge upheld the university's right to expel her for her actions. Link

That case had one clear thing this one doesn't. That student refused to counsel homosexuals. That is more clear-cut than the case in this thread, but it's the same principle.

That's troubling to me too. What if a student refuses to counsel convicted sex offenders? I would say that it's within her rights to refuse treatment to those individuals based on her personal views or that she feels threatened. Is that also not permissible? If you say yes, then I have no qualms, if you say no, then I don't see the difference except that it's a varying viewpoint on morality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the point, I'm basing it on the information we have. I'm not going to sit here and make baseless conjectures about the case until someone shows me some evidence to the contrary.

Ha! You can't condemn the school without making baseless conjectures, but this hasn't stopped you yet from doing just that.

 

[Magic Man]

That's troubling to me too. What if a student refuses to counsel convicted sex offenders? I would say that it's within her rights to refuse treatment to those individuals based on her personal views or that she feels threatened. Is that also not permissible? If you say yes, then I have no qualms, if you say no, then I don't see the difference except that it's a varying viewpoint on morality.

A counsellor is supposed to counsel people. If the prospective counsellor says that he or she won't counsel some people, that's a problem. There are obvious limits that you allude to. Of course if the counsellor feels threatened, that could justify his or her rejection of the client. However, that's a wholly different matter unrelated to what we're talking about, which is why I think it's dishonest of you to include that in your wording.

Also, counselling convicted sex offenders is completely different from counselling homosexuals. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure why not? If counseling were to state that homosexuality was caused by social factors then there's no reason to assume that it couldn't be an altered behavior.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure why not? If counseling were to state that homosexuality was caused by social factors then there's no reason to assume that it couldn't be an altered behavior.

I missed this the first time. It doesn't matter what it's caused by, there's no reason to alter it. Even if it's caused by social factors, it's still an integral part of who the person is, and attempting to change that will only affect them negatively.

 

[brbubba]

Ha! You can't condemn the school without making baseless conjectures, but this hasn't stopped you yet from doing just that.

This isn't a baseless conjecture, it's based upon her brief. That's all the information we have. If you want to start a fantasy thread and make up your own version of events, feel free!

A counsellor is supposed to counsel people. If the prospective counsellor says that he or she won't counsel some people, that's a problem. There are obvious limits that you allude to. Of course if the counsellor feels threatened, that could justify his or her rejection of the client. However, that's a wholly different matter unrelated to what we're talking about, which is why I think it's dishonest of you to include that in your wording.

Also, counselling convicted sex offenders is completely different from counselling homosexuals. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

Compare anything you want, black people, white people, etc. I fail to see the difference between refusing to counsel sex offenders and refusing to counsel any other group of individuals. In both cases the counselor feels threatened or uneasy, why then are we forcing them into a situation that they don't want to be in??? The only difference here is an imposed social morality as opposed to a personal one. I see nothing wrong with someone not wanting to treat someone else based on any factor!!! If their employer wants to fire them based on that factor then fine, but it's not up to the school to play moral guardian.

I missed this the first time. It doesn't matter what it's caused by, there's no reason to alter it. Even if it's caused by social factors, it's still an integral part of who the person is, and attempting to change that will only affect them negatively.

That's fine, but that wasn't the contention in that external link, it was more along the lines that it is unalterable,i.e., that which cannot be altered. I'll have to find the quote again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I missed this the first time. It doesn't matter what it's caused by, there's no reason to alter it. Even if it's caused by social factors, it's still an integral part of who the person is, and attempting to change that will only affect them negatively.

I can see the need for care if the person has been abused (etc) and develops a hatred for the opposite sex. Sexual issues could be an indication of a need for treatment.

I would imagine that this can come out while talking to a therapist who asks a few simple questions:

1) Are you happy with your sex life
2) Is there anything more or less that you want or need
3) Tell me how you came to realize your sexual preference

Answers to these questions can lead to a longer conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This isn't a baseless conjecture, it's based upon her brief. That's all the information we have. If you want to start a fantasy thread and make up your own version of events, feel free!

The baseless conjecture comes in your apparent assumption that her account of what happened is necessarily fair, accurate, and didn't leave out any important details.

Virtually any student who gets disciplined by their school will feel hard-done by and could probably go on at length about why they feel they were unfairly treated... but by itself, this doesn't mean that the school was necessarily wrong to discipline the student.

 

[brbubba]

The baseless conjecture comes in your apparent assumption that her account of what happened is necessarily fair, accurate, and didn't leave out any important details.

Virtually any student who gets disciplined by their school will feel hard-done by and could probably go on at length about why they feel they were unfairly treated... but by itself, this doesn't mean that the school was necessarily wrong to discipline the student.

I never said it was fair. I'm sure she is a crazy ***** who was fishing for a lawsuit, but I'm not stating that. To assume anything else that is not in her brief would, at this point in time, be baseless conjecture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I never said it was fair. I'm sure she is a crazy ***** who was fishing for a lawsuit, but I'm not stating that. To assume anything else that is not in her brief would, at this point in time, be baseless conjecture.

There's a difference between deductive reasoning and baseless conjecture.

Her breif could inform us of things which are not explicity written.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The baseless conjecture comes in your apparent assumption that her account of what happened is necessarily fair, accurate, and didn't leave out any important details.

A hermeneutics of trust in a source that is not trustworthy.

 

[Magic Man]

Compare anything you want, black people, white people, etc. I fail to see the difference between refusing to counsel sex offenders and refusing to counsel any other group of individuals.

You can compare anything, but some things don't make for relevant comparisons in certain situations, like comparing sex offenders and homosexuals in this case. Yes, a counsellor should counsel anyone, even sex offenders, but they wouldn't have to treat the crimes of the sex offender the same way they would the sexual preference of the homosexuals.

In both cases the counselor feels threatened or uneasy, why then are we forcing them into a situation that they don't want to be in???

Where are you coming up with this "feeling threatened" thing in reference to homosexuals? Why would a counsellor feel threatened by a homosexual anymore than they would a heterosexual? They might be uneasy, but the threatening aspect is just a ploy by you to make it sound acceptable.

The only difference here is an imposed social morality as opposed to a personal one. I see nothing wrong with someone not wanting to treat someone else based on any factor!!! If their employer wants to fire them based on that factor then fine, but it's not up to the school to play moral guardian.

Is it that you don't understand the standards set by the ACA or that you refuse to acknowledge them?

That's fine, but that wasn't the contention in that external link, it was more along the lines that it is unalterable,i.e., that which cannot be altered. I'll have to find the quote again.

Well, I'd say no matter what the causes, it is unalterable. You can't change someone's sexual preference, even if it was originally caused by social factors.