A loss for freedom of religion
Amazing that the Constitution can be so blatantly ignored. What part of: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't they understand? The "establishment" clause has been perversely treated but I don't see how any court can reasonably misinterpret "free exercise".
"A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday's ruling, according to Julea Ward's attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.
“It’s a very dangerous precedent,” Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told FOX News Radio. “The ruling doesn’t say that explicitly, but that’s what is going to happen.”
“Christian students shouldn’t be expelled for holding to and abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF senior counsel David French. “To reach its decision, the court had to do something that’s never been done in federal court: uphold an extremely broad and vague university speech code.”
Ward’s attorneys claim the university told her she would only be allowed to remain in the program if she went through a “remediation” program so that she could “see the error of her ways” and change her belief system about homosexuality.
The case is similar to a lawsuit the ADF filed against Augusta State University in Georgia. Counseling student Jennifer Keeton was allegedly told to stop sharing her Christian beliefs in order to graduate.
Tedesco said both cases should be a warning to Christians attending public colleges and universities. “Public universities are imposing the ideological stances of private groups on their students,” he said. “If you don’t comply, you will be kicked out. It’s scary stuff and it’s not a difficult thing to see what’s coming down the pike.”
The Alliance Defense Fund told FOX News it will appeal the ruling.
Source
Muslims are REALLY anti-homosexual so we would just have to have one of those to enrol for a BIG backpedalling to occur
12 comments:
In contrast, in the Netherlands a gay "integration councelor" was ordered to hide his homosexuality (not quite to stop being one, if the press report is right) so as not to offend Muslims.
Textg in Dutch:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/7282330/___Inburgeraar_moet_homoseksualiteit_verbergen___.html
Blacks are also notoriously anti-gay.
What this university and this judge have done, is to single-out one particular religion for discrimination, and you can't get more unconstitutional than that.
But keep in mind that a court decision comes from a judge, who in most cases, is a political appointee. And if you think they don't carry their political ideology/agenda onto the bench, i have a bridge in Brooklyn i'd like to sell you. If anyone can inject some sanity into this case, it's the ADF.
"In contrast, in the Netherlands a gay "integration councelor" was ordered to hide his homosexuality (not quite to stop being one, if the press report is right) so as not to offend Muslims."
---I have a crazy idea, how about we judge people on their job performance and not on their beliefs?
---I have a crazy idea, how about we judge people on their job performance and not on their beliefs?
You keep missing the point about these stories.
Neither woman was allowed to get certified because they were denied the curriculum's practicum due to their religious beliefs.
It is cute to say "just judge them on their performance," but the point is that there is no performance as the school is preventing them from "performing."
"Muslims are REALLY anti-homosexual so we would just have to have one of those to enrol for a BIG backpedalling to occur."
You nailed it. The problem with current judicial decisions is that they are blatantly anti-Christian, yet somehow favor Muslims. The Constitution has been dragged into the toilet.
"You keep missing the point about these stories.
Neither woman was allowed to get certified because they were denied the curriculum's practicum due to their religious beliefs."
---Thanks for explaining. It's unbelievable. It's like going to law school and getting expelled because you disagree or agree with the second amendment.
"---Thanks for explaining. It's unbelievable. It's like going to law school and getting expelled because you disagree or agree with the second amendment."
I doubt any lawschool would expell you for disagreeing with the constitution.
Agreeing with the constitution is far more risky.
If America is ever to be the place it once was, the place it was meant to be, the American people need to take a very hard look at some things that have gone way beyond what they were ever meant to be, like the courts, the media, and congress.
In far too many instances, judges, who are often nothing more than politically-connected lawyers and political activists, see themselves as gods. And while they are answerable to no one, their decisions often effect the day-to-day lives of every one of us. They must be made accountable to the people.
The media IMO, has gone way beyond anything the First Amendment ever intended. For the most part, they are now highly biased, political activists, with a very specific left-wing agenda. And, as we've "clearly" seen in recent years, they are now openly interfering with, and manipulating, the election process in this country, and always in favor of the Left. Biased political activists "do not, and should not" have special Constitutional protections.
As for the US Congress, including far too many state and local elected officials, well, what can you say. It seems they now see ignoring, insulting, and abusing, the tax payers as an official part of their duties. They do as they please and spend as they see fit, regardless of what the people say or think. They only people they truly represent are themselves, their friends, and their ($$) backers. The congress, along with this current govt., has become an insult to democracy.
Some day, the American people will wake up and ask themselves a very simple question as it relates to their elected officials. Why do some people spend $10, $20, $40, or $100 Million to get a job that only pays under $200K a year, and is intended to only last a few short years? What is really going on here? Do they love us so much that they would sacrafice that much for us? Or, perhaps, are they that bad at basic math?
No, the American sheeple will not ask themselves that simple question, mostly because they fear the answer...
Even so, come Lord Jesus, come.
I'm just glad Fox News exists, without FNC how would we know what's in the healthcare bill, the finance bill, Sherrod's controversial statements, the Tides Foundations, the activities of George Soros, and pretty much every other story that the liberal media ignored until Fox shed light on them.
Fox is a breath of fresh air in a corrupt environment.
" without FNC how would we know what's in the healthcare bill, the finance bill,"
Ah. Read the bills, you moron. I don't nerd a bunch of conservaratard wackaloons at Faux News to tell me what to think. Get a life.
The missed point here is that the national org that certifies and accredits counselors has in its standards for ethical professional conduct, wording that would make refusing to work with homosexuals (or other minority group members) w/o bias unacceptable. So since the student in question has stated that they do not believe they can work constructively with homosexuals in the context of performing their job they would not be able to be accredited by the national body and unable to gain employment in the profession they are training for unless they lie about their beliefs to the accrediting group. The national association is not directly affiliated with the school.
So, the school refused to continue the training of a person that, if granted a diploma, would have to lie to obtain accreditation and gainful employment in the field for which they were being trained.
Why is this a problem? I wouldn't want a polygamist Mormon in a position working with young girls or a militant Islamist counseling Jewish kids. Why would I want someone that states right up front that their personal views will prevent them from working with some of the people that they will be required to interact with as part of their employment? If you can't council some students in the manner called for by your job description without your personal feelings becoming an issue why would I hire you? And as a logical extension of this, why would I train you to perform the job in the first place?
Extra credit-is the student on government provided loans or grants?
Time_Line
Post a Comment