Will gay students be ‘collateral damage’ to the cause of ‘religious liberty?’

[xchrom]

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/12/02/will-gay-students-be-collateral-damage-to-the-cause-of-religious-liberty/

The lgbtq community would do well for itself to pay attention to two lawsuits fueled by religious right organizations. From an article in a recent issue of the ‘Augusta Chronicle:

An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student’s First Amendment rights were violated when professors at Augusta State University sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights.

ASU put Jennifer Keeton on academic probation for saying it would be hard for her to work with gay clients, and threatened to expel her unless she attended events such as Augusta’s gay pride parade, Keeton’s attorney Jeff Shafer told the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Keeton initially sued ASU when she was expelled from its graduate student program because she refused to take part in a mediation program. It required her to read material about counseling gays and increase her exposure to the gay community. The mediation program was set up after Keeton said that she would tell gay potential clients that their orientation was wrong and then try to help them “change” their sexual orientation.

[NMMNG]

1. More whiny bigots pretending they're being persecuted

An attorney for a graduate school counseling student told federal judges in Atlanta on Tuesday that the student’s First Amendment rights were violated when professors at Augusta State University sought to punish her for her biblical views on gay rights.



She wasn't punished for her "biblical views". She was expelled because she wanted to get a legitimate psychology degree without completing the required coursework and for flat-out saying she'd engage in practices condemned by the APA and every other legitimate group. If she wants to get a "degree" from a Bible college and become a "Christian counselor" she'd be more than welcome in their circles. In the real world she has no business working with vulnerable people

I'm sick to death of people whining about their "religious liberty" and using that as an excuse to run roughshod over the rest of the world. People need to do their jobs or practice their religion, not try to merge the two. If they can't seem to separate them they should go work for a religious organization. No innocent person should be provided substandard care due to some practitioner's moral grandstanding.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[Vanje]

6. +1

[WillParkinson]

8. +1 again...

Perfectly stated.

The OP is also heartily kicked and recced as kids, especially gay kids, will always bear the brunt of vicious adults. We're pro-life and pro-hatred because, of course, they go hand-in-hand it seems.

[Glorfindel]

3. Recommend

[William769]

4. The religious right may very well be the death of us and our Country.

Recommended.

[starroute]

5. This is not just about gays -- it's about science and professionalism

These cases are of a piece with the people who want to be pharmacists but not have to fill birth control prescriptions. And it's not just a Christian thing, because there was a thread at DU the other day about Muslim medical students in Britain who were refusing to attend the required lectures on evolution. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x320428)

Every society in history has been founded on the idea that there is a certain body of commonly-accepted scientific knowledge which forms the basis of discussion of current issues and which has to be passed along to the young. And complex modern societies in particular have added standards of professionalism which set certain criteria of objectivity and neutrality in the name of social inclusiveness.

People are certainly free to adhere to eccentric belief systems of their own, but they're not free to impose them on a society which in many ways is held together only by those standards of objectivity and professionalism. So these people are not merely demanding freedom of religion -- they're demanding the freedom to sabotage the larger social contract in the name of religion. And that is unacceptable.

[MisterP]

9. where did you read that all societies eveerywhere are founded on scientific consensus?

which anthropologist(s)?

[starroute]

12. I didn't mean it as a theory but as a description

You may have to broaden your sense of "science" to see what I'm getting at. I'm referring to the entire body of information about the natural world that is passed on to the young and that forms the basis for group decisions.

In hunter-gatherer societies, it's the knowledge of plants and animals, of the seasons of the year, of how to chip a stone tool and glue it to a wooden handle, of the uses of medicinal and psychedelic substances.

In simple agricultural societies, it has to do with farming and irrigation, with the yearly movement of the stars, with the construction of houses and granaries.

In early civilizations, the knowledge starts to get more specialized. There are professional doctors and midwives and builders of roads and aqueducts. But the body of knowledge is still held by the society as a whole and is not a matter of argument.

It's only in Western culture over the past few centuries that traditional knowledge has been replaced by theoretical knowledge and has gotten dragged into religious disputes. This may be a reflection of how fast our body of knowledge is growing, or perhaps of the extent to which we now operate on the basis of laboratory studies rather than hands-on experience. But whatever the precise causes, its seriously interferes with out ability to communicate with one another or to agree on the best ways for getting things done.

[MisterP]

13. what I mean is, the idea that knowldedge must be kept inviolate or society will crumble sounds like

Chris Mooney, and the idea of universal, self-evident, black and white scientific knowledge seems to be pure Popper

I'm interested in WHO provided your consensual model of science, or the separation of science and practical knowledge (I mean, James C. Scott may have something to say about that)

also, where would sociobiology fit into all this?

[Meeker Morgan]

7. It's not 'collateral damage' ...

... it's what's on their (you should pardon the expression) agenda.

[beyurslf]

10. The MSW program at my school teaches that if you can't be honest an open with a certain clients,

then you should not treat those clients. If you would want to tell gay clients in therapy that they are wrong then you should not provide services to gay clients. Why is that so hard for her to accept?

[mitchtv]

11. Of course they will be damaged

that's the point isn't it?

[JoeyT]

14. No, they won't.

They're not collateral damage, they're one of several primary targets. Collateral damage is stuff you blow up by accident, not when you blow up exactly what you were aiming for. Controlling sexuality (Of all kinds) is exactly the point.