♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 28, 2011 7:37:00 GMT
We're drifting a little off topic.
More and more people have been losing their jobs are being barred from employment because their beliefs or opinions are not pleasing to the ACLU, pro homosexual lobbyists, etc.
In a different age people were fired or denied employment for beliefs and honest opinions that the present pc activists support, regardless of their ability to do their work.
Freedom of speech also means defending the right of others to disagree! Is it true that an increasing number of people are losing their jobs because of their beliefs? The key point you've touched upon is "regardless of their ability to do the work". Ward refuses to undertake counselling to the standards the college demands because of her beliefs. If she kept her views to herself while with her clients, and worked within the code set by the professional body who oversees the qualifications, there surely should be no problem. It might make her a hypocrite in the eyes of some, but I dare say we have all been asked to do things in the course of our employment that conflict with our ethical code. We either do them or quit. We could of course plead for a change in policy, but you can't have employees adopting different practices to each oher. It's true that in the past the ACLU, pro-homosexual lobbyists, etc. didn't have the ability to cause people to lose their employement or be barred from certain professions.
McCarthyism caused some to lose their jobs or be blacklisted from certain professions, but of course that is no longer in existence!
It's my wish that the ACLU and these proud pro homosexual lobbyists go the same way that McCarthyism went!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2011 12:07:55 GMT
when one aztec murdered another aztec, he was executed. human sacrifice was immoral, but not illegal, because any form of unjustified killing is immoral. the single inalienable right that everyone is born with is the right to life. that is why it has ALWAYS been immoral to murder. That qualification of 'unjustified' leaves a huge scope for a killing that is seen by one person as 'murder' to be not seen as such by the next. Even your 'born' qualification is not universally agreed upon, with people believing in a right to life for preborns as well. I thought you agreed with the death penalty BTW? Are they not born people with a right to life? That is where you will say 'it's justified' but your next door neighbour will say that it isn't.Another deceptive absolute. Consider many taxes. Many believe them to be legalised theft, whereas others say they are justified and so are not 'stealing'. there is NO contradiction in supporting the death penalty. the simple reality is that everyone IS born with the inalienable right to life. it is just simple reality that an individual makes the wilful and conscious choice to forfeit his right to life the moment that he proclaims this decision by committing murder. nothing difficult to understand about such a simple fact. it is the murderer who makes the choice to die. no one, nor any thing, else has any relevance whatsoever by the same token, if you choose to break into my house, my blowing you away cannot be claimed, by any rational person, to be murder. again, it is the choice that you, and you alone, make. only nutjobs consider taxes to be theft. it is wrong to tax individuals who are not rich while not properly taxing corporations and the rich, but, it is not theft
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Feb 28, 2011 17:25:19 GMT
there is NO contradiction in supporting the death penalty. the simple reality is that everyone IS born with the inalienable right to life. it is just simple reality that an individual makes the wilful and conscious choice to forfeit his right to life the moment that he proclaims this decision by committing murder. nothing difficult to understand about such a simple fact. How can you choose to forfeit something that is inalienable, ie 'Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor'? Whether or not they choose to exercise that right to life should be up to them, with their direct consent needed to take their life away. It's not for you to decide that someone has chosen not to exercise their right to life because of your interpretation of their actions. It is up to them to give direct consent. Else you do not believe in an inalienable right to life.So there is no line where tax becomes theft? What if the state took 80% of your earnings? Wherever you draw your line your nextdoor neighbour might draw it higher or lower.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Mar 1, 2011 12:40:06 GMT
To be honest, that's a serious problem you have when you reject Christianity. 1 thing I love about Christianity is that the teachings on morality are for ALL TIME. Jumbo's always going to be laughed at, etc., for believing that. I see it as 1 of the best things about him! ;D ???I'm not laughting at jumbo, I am asking him a question. Which I am sure he will answer when he pops in. Please note I didn't say you were laughing at him. I was making a general statement. I've seen him laughed at many times online for his stand. It's a sad state of things.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 16, 2011 14:46:35 GMT
Here's the latest in the Julea Ward case!www.thenews-messenger.com/article/C4/20110315/NEWS06/103150369/0/NEWS07/Attorney-General-Bill-Schuette-EMU-s-student-s-religious-beliefs-against-homosexuality-violated?odyssey=nav|head QUOTE: Attorney General Bill Schuette: EMU's student's religious beliefs against homosexuality violatedMichigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has waded into a closely watched federal appeals case, siding with an Eastern Michigan University student who claims her dismissal from the university for refusing to counsel gay and lesbian patients violated her religious belief against homosexuality. Schuette is the latest entrant in a case that has drawn conservative and religious groups, public universities and civil liberties organizations. "This case really is at the intersection of a lot of values," said Christopher Lund, an assistant law professor at Wayne State University who specializes in religious liberty issues. "There's gay rights versus religious liberty and the rights of individuals versus the rights of the universities to set curriculum. Whenever all those cross, you've got a lot of people and organizations that are interested." The suit also shows Schuette's willingness to weigh in on social issues. "This case signals he will act on questions of constitutionality, such as the case of President Obama's health care law," said AG spokesman John Sellek. "This case is also a constitutional issue, where no one should lose their religious freedoms as they work to get an education." A case study of religious versus university rights Eastern Michigan University discriminated against former student Julea Ward when it dismissed her from its counseling program after she said her Christian beliefs prohibited her from counseling a gay client, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a court filing. That's not the case at all, EMU said. Ward was dismissed because her refusal to counsel the patient didn't follow the assigned curriculum and professional ethics guidelines set up the American Counseling Association, the school said. EMU's position has been upheld by a federal judge. Now Ward, with briefs of support from Schuette and a number of religious rights organizations, has appealed that ruling. Oral arguments are expected to begin later this year. It's a case that's being closely watched, not only by religious organizations, but by other universities. Nine Michigan public universities have filed a brief supporting EMU, saying the case is about who controls curriculum -- the university or the students. "Fundamentally, this case raises the question of whether universities have the freedom to determine their own curricula or whether they must fashion their curricular requirements around the religious, political, social, philosophical and ideological beliefs and expressions of each and every students," said the brief submitted by the University of Michigan, Central Michigan, Grand Valley State, Michigan State, and five other schools. It was written by Debra Kowich of U-M's general counsel office, who wrote that a ruling for Ward "could require universities to dilute their curricular requirements to the point that they would not possibly offend any student of any faith" or political view. But that's not how Ward sees it. She and her attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund say the case is about religious discrimination. Ward sued the university after it dismissed her from its graduate counseling program in 2009 after she refused to work on a gay client's relationship issues in a clinical program. She said she believes homosexuality is immoral and being gay or lesbian is a choice and thus she could not in good conscience counsel the client. EMU said it dismissed her because she didn't follow a code of ethics that requires counselors to set aside their own personal beliefs in order to work with clients. Judge George Steeh of the U.S. District Court in Detroit ruled for EMU last July, saying the school was within its rights to dismiss Ward for failing to follow its curriculum. The judge wrote that Ward "has distorted the facts in this case to support her position that defendants dismissed her due to her religious beliefs." Ward and her attorneys, a legal group that works to uphold the rights of religious college students and faculty, have asked the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. They did not return calls seeking comment on Monday. But in their legal brief for Ward, the lawyers wrote that "EMU violated Ms. Ward's right to the free exercise of religion by acting as arbiters of her religious beliefs." Schuette agrees with them. "There is a striking difference between EMU's written standards and EMU's application of those rules to Julea Ward," the brief by Schuette's office said. "Indeed, the evidence suggests that Ward was punished and ultimately dismissed from the program solely for her attempt to exercise disfavored religious beliefs, not for a violation of the code. The attorney general's brief, filed Friday, also suggests political correctness was at work, suggesting "that EMU 'weeded out' Ward solely because of her religious views to ensure that only candidates with the 'right' beliefs are admitted to the counseling profession." A number of gay rights groups have weighed in as well, including a brief filed jointly by the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, Affirmations and the Ruth Ellis Center in support of EMU, which says counselors, especially school counselors (which Ward wanted to be), must be supportive of students, whatever their own views. "A school counselor who is unwilling to assist such students, or worse, a counselor who expresses disapproval of a student's status as LGBT -- is both incapable of doing her job and likely to cause significant harm," the groups' brief said. EMU says the case is about its curriculum, and nothing else. "This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," EMU spokesman Walter Kraft said in a statement last week. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly respected and nationally accredited counseling program."
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 23, 2011 1:09:38 GMT
Michigan's State Attorney is supporting Julea Ward in her court battle against EMU. The newspapers constantly and WRONGLY claim that Mrs. Ward refused to counsel a homosexual client! She was and is willing to counsel a homosexual client, but not willing to have an affirmative and approving opinion towards homosexuality. The video on the newslink again makes this clear when the news reporter interviews Mrs. Ward's attorney. Attorney General Bill Schuette files brief against grad student's dismissal for refusing to counsel gay clientswww.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/andrea_isom/ag-bill-schuette-files-brief-against-emu-grad-student-julea-ward-dismissal-20110314-wpms QUOTE: LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Michigan's attorney general says a graduate student's dismissal from a counseling program for telling clients to avoid homosexual behavior may have violated her constitutional rights. Eastern Michigan University said Monday it's confident the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule it acted appropriately. Attorney General Bill Schuette says on his state website that he's supporting Julea Ward's civil rights lawsuit against the Ypsilanti school. Julea Ward says she was removed in 2009 from Eastern's counseling program for saying she believes homosexuality is wrong. She filed a civil rights lawsuit, which a federal judge in Detroit dismissed last July. Schuette has filed a brief with the federal appeals court.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2011 7:23:12 GMT
Anna, let's think this through.
A pregnant frightened teenage girl comes for advice. Counsellor A (it could be you!) tells her to avoid an abortion and talks about killing babies.
Counsellor B (it could be me!) tells her to avoid bringing an an extra unwanted child into the world and that her foetus (or more probably her embryo) is not a baby.
See what I mean? Counselling shouldn't be "luck of the draw" - everyone should conform to the same standards. I believe that either Ward or Keeton (maybe both) have joined a Christian programme that allows them to counsel within their beliefs. That's fine so long as clients know exactly what they are getting when they apply for counselling.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 23, 2011 14:42:25 GMT
When you're a counsellor you're meant to be non-judgmental. Your own personal opinions (whether for or against whatever it is that your client is discussing) shouldn't come into the equation and if you can't go along with that, then you're in the wrong job (as this girl obviously is).
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 23, 2011 16:33:06 GMT
When you're a counsellor you're meant to be non-judgmental. Your own personal opinions (whether for or against whatever it is that your client is discussing) shouldn't come into the equation and if you can't go along with that, then you're in the wrong job (as this girl obviously is). That's like saying a pacifist in the army must learn to kill.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 24, 2011 0:14:09 GMT
When you're a counsellor you're meant to be non-judgmental. Your own personal opinions (whether for or against whatever it is that your client is discussing) shouldn't come into the equation and if you can't go along with that, then you're in the wrong job (as this girl obviously is). That's like saying a pacifist in the army must learn to kill.Sorry, not sure of what you mean. I used to do telephone counselling for a rape and sexual abuse counselling centre, and we had to be non-judgmental. I had to be accepting of all lifestyles and if I'd felt that my personal opinions would affect the service I gave, then I'd have resigned. I certainly wasn't there to lecture people on how they should lead their lives. I was there to offer support and help them come to terms with how rape or sexual abuse had affected them.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 24, 2011 3:05:40 GMT
That's like saying a pacifist in the army must learn to kill. Sorry, not sure of what you mean. I used to do telephone counselling for a rape and sexual abuse counselling centre, and we had to be non-judgmental. I had to be accepting of all lifestyles and if I'd felt that my personal opinions would affect the service I gave, then I'd have resigned. I certainly wasn't there to lecture people on how they should lead their lives. I was there to offer support and help them come to terms with how rape or sexual abuse had affected them. Congratulations for helping rape victims out of that world of hurt! That must be very trying!
The main contested point in this thread is whether or not a counselor may maintain and express a non affirmative belief or opinon of homosexuality. It is allowed to be critical of extramarital and incestuous affairs, but the dictates of PC are trying to suppress critical opinions and beliefs concerning homosexuality.
(sorry - I modified this in error - I meant to reply. It is now back as Anna postes. Sky)
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Mar 24, 2011 4:10:11 GMT
Her brand of Chritianity though! There are many devout believers who wouldn't share her views. As a believer, I can certainly say- that I do not share her views, in the least. If she's going to be a counselor, she needs to be ready and willing to listen to anything, without showing a bit of judgement to any person or group of people for any reason. I don't even like the looks of this lady. Perhaps another profession would suit her better.. Wow, nice long thread this ended up being! But yeah, I agree, she should face expulsion with this attitude.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 25, 2011 0:34:06 GMT
Sorry, not sure of what you mean. I used to do telephone counselling for a rape and sexual abuse counselling centre, and we had to be non-judgmental. I had to be accepting of all lifestyles and if I'd felt that my personal opinions would affect the service I gave, then I'd have resigned. I certainly wasn't there to lecture people on how they should lead their lives. I was there to offer support and help them come to terms with how rape or sexual abuse had affected them. Congratulations for helping rape victims out of that world of hurt! That must be very trying!
The main contested point in this thread is whether or not a counselor may maintain and express a non affirmative belief or opinon of homosexuality. It is allowed to be critical of extramarital and incestuous affairs, but the dictates of PC are trying to suppress critical opinions and beliefs concerning homosexuality.
(sorry - I modified this in error - I meant to reply. It is now back as Anna postes. Sky) I can understand that it is allowed to be critical of incestuous affairs (which aren't allowed in law), but extramarital affairs aren't illegal (at least, in Western cultures they're not). I was under the impression that in counselling it's not the place of the counsellor to voice his or her opinions, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 25, 2011 4:33:06 GMT
Congratulations for helping rape victims out of that world of hurt! That must be very trying!
The main contested point in this thread is whether or not a counselor may maintain and express a non affirmative belief or opinon of homosexuality. It is allowed to be critical of extramarital and incestuous affairs, but the dictates of PC are trying to suppress critical opinions and beliefs concerning homosexuality.
(sorry - I modified this in error - I meant to reply. It is now back as Anna postes. Sky) I can understand that it is allowed to be critical of incestuous affairs (which aren't allowed in law), but extramarital affairs aren't illegal (at least, in Western cultures they're not). I was under the impression that in counselling it's not the place of the counsellor to voice his or her opinions, but maybe I'm wrong. Hi Everso! What it boils down too is whether or not diversity is allowed in the field of counseling! No one should force a homosexual to visit a counselor, who has reservations about homosexuality, anymore than a counselor should be forced to lie about his/her beliefs to keep his/her employment.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 26, 2011 2:16:37 GMT
I can understand that it is allowed to be critical of incestuous affairs (which aren't allowed in law), but extramarital affairs aren't illegal (at least, in Western cultures they're not). I was under the impression that in counselling it's not the place of the counsellor to voice his or her opinions, but maybe I'm wrong. Hi Everso! What it boils down too is whether or not diversity is allowed in the field of counseling! No one should force a homosexual to visit a counselor, who has reservations about homosexuality, anymore than a counselor should be forced to lie about his/her beliefs to keep his/her employment. But why would someone go into a job like that when they hold such conservative views? Isn't it a case of "horses for courses"? Surely you don't go into a job if you feel some aspects of it won't suit you?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Mar 30, 2011 23:25:34 GMT
Hi Everso! What it boils down too is whether or not diversity is allowed in the field of counseling! No one should force a homosexual to visit a counselor, who has reservations about homosexuality, anymore than a counselor should be forced to lie about his/her beliefs to keep his/her employment. But why would someone go into a job like that when they hold such conservative views? Isn't it a case of "horses for courses"? Surely you don't go into a job if you feel some aspects of it won't suit you? A 100 years ago I imagine that counselors were ultra conservative.
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 31, 2011 20:49:59 GMT
100 years ago people managed to live without the aid of counsellors But why would someone go into a job like that when they hold such conservative views? Isn't it a case of "horses for courses"? Surely you don't go into a job if you feel some aspects of it won't suit you? A 100 years ago I imagine that counselors were ultra conservative.
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger on Mar 31, 2011 21:46:25 GMT
But why would someone go into a job like that when they hold such conservative views? Isn't it a case of "horses for courses"? Surely you don't go into a job if you feel some aspects of it won't suit you? A 100 years ago I imagine that counselors were ultra conservative. How does your counsellor cope?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 4, 2011 3:52:47 GMT
New legistration is being passed in the Michigan state senate and will protect people like Julea Ward from religious discrimination.
Again Mrs. Ward never refused to counsel a homosexual, but simply refused to be approving of homosexuality. www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1336314 QUOTE: Religious protection for college studentsLegislation to protect students from religious discrimination at the university level is working its way through the Michigan legislature. The measure was introduced in response to Eastern Michigan University's dismissal of Julea Ward from its counseling degree program two years ago when she refused to counsel a student who asked for advice on how to improve his homosexual relationship. Ward, who is a Christian, said being forced to encourage such a relationship would violate her sincerely held religious convictions. (See earlier story) So Michigan Republicans have inserted specific language in the appropriations bill for higher education to hold schools accountable. Tom McMillin (R-Mich)"The universities that have a counseling program must report what their efforts are to accommodate the religious beliefs of students in accredited counseling programs," explains Michigan State Representative Tom McMillin. But he tells OneNewsNow a similar effort failed last year when Democrats were still in control. "There's no reason to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate and throw out Christians because of their beliefs," the state lawmaker contends. "So with Republicans now in charge of the House -- and they've got two-thirds majority in the Senate, and the governor is Republican -- this should go through. We should...actually deal with this -- and I think this will have implications more than just in Michigan, because this happens across the nation." Meanwhile, Ward has accused Eastern Michigan of religious discrimination in a civil rights lawsuit that is currently before the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2011 6:29:55 GMT
I would have had a good deal more sympathy with Julea Ward had she refused to counsel the client. From what I can gather, she took him on then made her disapproval of his situation clear to him (I think it was a him!).
Had she stated her position at the outset and given him the chance to refuse, all well and good. But she didn't, did she?
|
|