Christian Ethics Not Welcome at State School

This story from the Chronicle of Higher Education is about a lawsuit being filed by a student who claims that the state school is trying to force her to change her views on homosexuality if she wishes to receive education in counseling. The liberal agenda always seems to move from simple tolerance of dissenting views to approval of them as just fine to force and censorship of the views previously accepted by nearly all. (This could be called the Kinsey Syndrome in honor of that mid-western slimeball pervert "scientist." How dare you suggest that someone, anyone, might have a sexual urge that should be repressed? Isn't anything that occurs in nature, after all, natural?)

Comments

[Mark B. Hanson]

Five steps to the liberal takeover of a conservative institution:

1. We have a right to be heard.
2. We demand a place at the table.
3. The time has come for equal representation.
4. We'll let your kind stay around for awhile.
5. All of you get out!

Looks like that college has reached Defcon 5.

[Daniel Crandall]

If it weren't for the internet and talk radio, I'd have never learned about this case. And the federal government wants to restrict the flow of information in both those realms.

[Matt]

I wonder if this story is any more accurate than the original Shirley Sherrod story. Talk radio is notoriously inaccurate. I'll withhold judgment until I know more about it.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

I read the story and didn't see any reference to talk radio in it. Did you read it, Matt? Or were you referring to a previous commenter's noting that talk radio was how he found out about the story? The story itself is proof that the talk radio comment was accurate, is it not?

You should probably listen to Rush more often. He is very good about helping people make accurate judgments about how liberals view and treat conservatives -- especially Christian conservatives. If you read the comments appended to the story, you will read several saying the student's views of homosexuality were "unscientific" and therefore not worthy of academic respect.

Is taking a dim view of an activity (not people, but an activity) condemned by God unscientific?

[Matt]

Deacon Michael D. Harmon, yes, I did indeed read the story. My comment about talk radio was addressed to Daniel Crandall.

I'm skeptical about the Alliance Defense Fund crowd because of a prior situation in which they accused a California school district of disallowing the use of the word "God" in the classroom, which supposedly meant that the Declaration of Independence was not allowed to be read or referenced in this district's classrooms. The reality was that every 5th grade classroom in that district had a copy of the Declaration of Independence up on the classroom wall. Further, there had been numerous complaints from parents in this district that this teacher was proselytizing children -- an unwanted intrusion even in the minds of most of the Christian parents. Needless to say, that suit went nowhere. When I read that the student in this more recent case was on a remediation plan for her writing and grammar skills, as well as for counseling techniques that appeared to make her an unsuitable candidate, I have to wonder about the accuracy of this current story as well. Note that I'm keeping an open mind until I have more information. However, given the history of the ADF, I'm initially treating this story with caution.

I can't agree with your comments on Rush Limbaugh. I've listened to him and found him ignorant, misinformed, tendentious, hypocritical, divisive, nasty, extremely boring, and despicably racist. Like so many undisciplined commentators on talk radio and the Internet, he makes money by encouraging a sense of persecution and outrage on the part of his listeners, mainly by basing his arguments on false premises. I'm sure you'll find equally whacko people on the left who are, in the eyes of their beholders, "very good about helping people make accurate judgments about how conservatives view and treat liberals." I suggest anyone who still believes Limbaugh has any credibility should start fact checking his claims. In fact, I suggest fact checking most so-called news claims, otherwise one ends up duped into believing thing like Shirley Sherrod is a racist and Iraq was developing WMD. I think we're all tired of being duped and manipulated by liars.

[Rob G]

Matt, I've listened to Limbaugh for close to 20 years, and while I certainly disagree with him on quite a few issues he is most definitely NOT "despicably racist."
It should say something to you that one of his most frequent guest hosts is Walter Williams, who is decidedly and most definitely black. Would Williams support a despicable racist? Would a despicable racist choose a black to sit in for him? Please provide proof, via quotes, that Rush is a racist: Put up or shut up, dude, because I for one am sick to death of you libs playing the g-ddam race card.

[smh]

I also have been listening to Rush on and off for about 20 years, and appreciate him greatly. He's very bright and well-informed. (Clearly I pay attention to nothing and no one else, and exposure to him has turned me into a "mind-numbed robot.")

Matt's charges amount to three: (1) he promulgates lies, (2) he's mean, and (3) he's a racist. I discount the "boring" charge because I doubt listeners like Matt in fact find him that way when he obviously elicits such excitement from them.

As Rob notes, Matt's charge of racism has no basis in fact--unless people like Bo Snerdley and Dr. Williams are also among the Limbaugh zombies. (How anyone who has heard Walter Williams can think he can pronounce "Yassuh" is beyond me.) Naturally liberals do not enjoy the sensation of having their pants removed for a public thrashing by Singapore Rush. Yes, I can see why they think he's mean, nasty man.

As to the promulgation of lies: Rush makes occasional mistakes, and when he is called on them he admits it, but when liberals call him a liar, I always ask them to name instances. So far--when they have been able to enumerate anything at all--it has always turned out to mean that he doesn't agree with one or more of their hallucinations.

[John FB]

The school certainly can't mandate that Ms. Keeton "modify her beliefs". I'm not even sure how they can validate that she has done so. I think expulsion is also unwarranted.

Keep in mind, however, that the degree she was seeking was in a secular field guided by principles as set forth by the APA (among others). As such, it's not really surprising that one must follow those guidelines.

An analogy: We all know the dispute (even among Christians) about the age of the Earth. Some insist that the Bible implies a 6,000 (or so)-year-old Earth, while others allow for something closer to what scientists estimate it.

I'm taking a guess here, but if a student wanted a degree in geology, they would not pass a course where they attempted to completely discredit radiometric dating which puts the Earth's age at closer to 4.5 billion years old simply because their religious beliefs couldn't allow that. Should they be expelled or sent to some sensitivity camp? Of course not. They're going to fail the course, though.

[Juli]

What a very odd comment.

I agree with Matt that RL is tedious; his shtick gets old fast. Nothing more tiresome than someone who thinks he's far more clever than he is (or seems to - he's basically a ratings-driven entertainer, so it's hard to tell what he actually believes; it's obviously better for his shtick and his livelihood to have Democrats in control, and he obviously knows that).

[Matt]

Rob G. writes, "Put up or shut up, dude, because I for one am sick to death of you libs playing the g-ddam race card."

Ever heard of Andrew Breitbart?

"Please provide proof, via quotes, that Rush is a racist:"

Well that's easy: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

I think the one where he said "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" kind of gave it away. I suspect he has as much contempt for Walter Williams as he appears to have for everyone else, including his "dittoheads."

As to whether Rush is "highly intelligent" (guffaw), I'll merely point out that a) everything's relative, and b) he flunked all his classes at a no-name college. It's possible, I suppose, that he's just adapting his level of speech to his audience, but he still comes across as uneducated and boorish.

I find him very boring. He talks slowly, keeps repeating himself, and his whiny, aggrieved tone is hard on the ear. He's possibly even more boring than that other angry, vitriol-spewing old geezer with addiction problems, Mel Gibson. Mel's rantings and diatribes eventually cease to elicit pity or disgust because you get bored with them.

[Margaret]

Boring, sonorous, repetitious, whiny ol' geezer. And yet even the best and brightest, Al Franken, couldn't blow him out of the ratings. Our researchers have been working around the clock to discover his secret, no-fair advantage, so far without success. Our best guess is "racism" in a hitherto unknown form.

[AMereLurker]

To JohnFB, in what way does science instruct us as to whether an action is moral?

[John FB]

AMereLurker: Psychiatry doesn't use the language of morality , and many of the problems it aims to treat are value-neutral (phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, depression, etc.). None of these are really addressed within a moral framework. I've always considered psychiatry a nebulous science, to be honest, but it does have its own methods and framework for defining what is psychologically "healthy".

"Reparative therapy", on the other hand (which the student had recommended) has been widely recognized as junk science. Even many conservative Christian counselors have questioned its validity (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=183). Ms Keeton's recommendation of it is about as scientifically valid as if she had suggested crystals as a form of therapy.

Again, I'm not suggesting she should be expelled or "converted" by any stretch. Should she pass a course in which she disregards the standards required by the program in which she's seeking a degree? Sorry, but no.

[Rob G]

"Well that's easy"

None, and I mean none, of those quotes are racist except in the minds of hypersensitive liberal blacks and their guilt-manipulated white plantationists. They need to be understood in context (note how the context is never provided in quotes like this -- it's a bit like those snotnosed high-school atheists who quote the Bible out of context), and in consideration of RL's complete refusal to be daunted by political correctness.

Note too how the liberal commentator (white? black? green? does it matter?) has to interpret each comment to give it the acceptable racist spin.

Nope. Sorry, Matt. Care to try again?

[Clifford Simon]

>>"Reparative therapy", on the other hand (which the student had recommended) <<

It's clear from the article that the student did not recommend it. Her peers made a false allegation.

[John FB]

Clifford: Fair point. It's a "he-said, she-said" incident, it appears, so I guess we'll wait and see. Thanks for the correction.

[Christopher Hathaway]

The liberal definition of "Lie": an opinion that I believe is false.

The liberal: definition of "unscientific": disagreement with me on a subject I prefer to hold as both a science and settled.

It is amusing when such people refuse to make distinctions between levels of knowledge, as if the scientific opinion on the makeup of the solar system is on the same level as the present psychiatric opinion on human behavior. Thus, to disagree with the official "consensus" about the cause of homosexual desires and the ability to control or even correct them is the same as to think the world flat, just as to disagree with global warming is to deny the holocaust.

It's such a nice black and white world that accepts no nuances of certainty. It makes it easy to deal with disagreements: you just define your belief as self-evident and all who deny it as ignorant, insane or lyers. Nice and tidy.

It's hard to argue with such wilfull arrogant ignorance. It's also hard to know what to do with such risible statements as that "it's hard to tell what he[Rush] actually believes". This doesn't even rise to the level of honest ignorance. One can't listen to Rush for long without knowing what he believes. Saying what he believes is his entire "shtick", if you will. And his political "rantings" don't vary so there is a consistency there that should facilitate an understanding of his political philosophy. One has to presume from the beginning that he doesn't believe what he says so that one can be "ignorant" as to what he really beleives.

There is a word for this type of intellectual approach. It is called prejudice.

Re the original story: If one were to exchange anorexia for homosexuality would the liberal masses say that a counselor who believed anorexia to be an illness could not possibly be sympathetic to one with anorexia? Would they accuse her of doing harm by imposing her own standard of psychological health upon a young girl with alternative eating habbits? Of course not, because everyone believes that anorexia is a sickness, until, I guess, that they decide not to believe that anymore.

[Matt]

Rob G., none so blind as those who will not see.

Margaret, judging by some of the more breathless of the previous posts, I have to conclude that part of Limbaugh's broad public appeal is that he offers sadomasochism by proxy to the predisposed.

John FB and Clifford, there is some interesting information outside the original article about the student who is appealing, including that she was under a remediation plan for grammar and writing. Clearly there were issues besides that of dealing with homosexuality.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Clearly there were issues besides that of dealing with homosexuality.

If there really were serious academic problems why not just flunk her then? It seems like the latter accusations are a bit of a smoke screen, just as you're using them now.

[Matt]

Christopher Hathaway, how do you know that the homosexual issue was not a smoke screen to distract from her academic shortcomings and to try to force the college to pass her? Staff claim she was offered a remediation plan that was designed to help her be successful and avoid flunking. As I said earlier, I'm keeping an open mind until more information is available. Given that the ADF has totally misrepresented information in the past to claim persecution of a self-identified Christian, I'm not inclined to blindly buy into their side of the story.

[Aleksei]

Re the original story: If one were to exchange anorexia for homosexuality would the liberal masses say that a counselor who believed anorexia to be an illness could not possibly be sympathetic to one with anorexia? Would they accuse her of doing harm by imposing her own standard of psychological health upon a young girl with alternative eating habbits? Of course not, because everyone believes that anorexia is a sickness, until, I guess, that they decide not to believe that anymore.

It's not hard to find websites that give support and instruction for girls who would be thin at any cost.

Perhaps the worse it gets, the better things will be in the long run.

[Beth from TN]

Matt, where is the information that she needed purely academic remediation (grammar and writing)? I would be interested in a link as I have not seen this anywhere yet. Thanks.

[Matt]

Hi Beth,

Here you go: http://www.wrdw.com/schools/headlines/99146139.html

[Matt]

Beth, I'm having trouble linking. Just copy and paste the following into your browser:

http://www.wrdw.com/schools/headlines/99146139.html

[Beth from TN]

Thank you, Matt. The article you linked to (I had to type in the address, for some reason; clicking the link did not take me to the page -- maybe a browser problem?) links at the end to the lawsuit, which makes most interesting reading.

Ms. Keeton never at any time objected to taking an English composition course. This seems very much a side issue to everyone involved, receiving little discussion and no controversy. She even agreed to sign the remediation plan after her first reflections on it, because she thought she could go through that process and maintain her Christian beliefs. She was told this was a wrong motivation and that she would be required to change her beliefs, that not changing her beliefs was not an option.

I recommend the reading of this lawsuit to those of you interested in the case:

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Court+Paperwork.pdf

[Margaret]

"sadomasochism by proxy to the predisposed"

Sorry, not parsing this one... what?

[AMereLurker]

"Psychiatry doesn't use the language of morality"

JohnFB, did you read the court paperwork Beth from TN posted? In it, it is alleged that Jennifer could not complete the counseling program unless she "commits to affirming the propriety of gay and lesbian relationships." I find it strangely ironic that, in the name of not forcing one's moral philosophy on another, these folks are, oh, wait for it, forcing their moral philosophy on Jennifer.

[John FB]

AML: I've already mentioned that it is absurd to attempt to force someone to modify their own personal beliefs. The program does have the right to expect its employees to act consistently with their guidelines, but that's the extent of it.

[Rob G]

"Rob G., none so blind as those who will not see"

As one of my African-American friends says, "That's a kettle."

i.e., Pot. Kettle. Black.

[David Gray]

>The program does have the right to expect its employees to act consistently with their guidelines, but that's the extent of it.

A student is not an employee.

[Francis Beckwith]

Matt writes: "Christopher Hathaway, how do you know that the homosexual issue was not a smoke screen to distract from her academic shortcomings and to try to force the college to pass her?"

Boy, the hate-mongers do not cease, do they? When I was denied tenure in 2006, I heard the same sort of "plausible-deniability" slander uttered by people like Matt who commented on this blog. They speculated on the "real reasons," though they of course did not now them and knew they did not know them. (This makes them, by the way, morally negligent). The fact was that I could not defend myself because my case was pending and I was advised by both counsel and colleagues to remain silent. Perhaps this young lady is in the same predicament. So, let us, like good citizens, give her the benefit of the doubt and not try to destroy her without evidence. As we know, especially by the vile comments uttered here, that her views are not welcomed on the college campus as legitimate, though contested, understandings of the rightly-ordered ends of our sexual powers. In fact, on such campuses ridding the community of this Christian perspective is deeply embedded in the cultural infrastructure. Given that context of the modern campus, my money is on her. I could be wrong. Matt could be right that this is just a grand scheme because she is a bad student. But in that case the university should have offered her remedial training in the content of her degree program rather than what amounts to a re-education camp in exchange for a diploma. The fact that the university chose the latter rather than former means that it is likely that her grades were not in question.

The issue of the appropriate use of one's sexual powers is indeed a moral question, one that is central to the Christian understanding of philosophical anthropology and ecclesiology (i.e., the Church is the bride of Christ). It is not a "scientific question" in the same way that the question of whether I should run someone over with my car is not "a mechanics question" and whether the death penalty is moral is not a "pharmaceutical question."

For the record, I won my tenure appeal and was promoted to full professor 16 months later. I love my job and can't imagine myself anywhere else. But, sadly, some of the commentators who speculated about my case turned out to be morally equivalent to big fat liars, since they were willing to speculate knowing what they say may be false. Thus, they were unconcerned with hurting the innocent. That makes them very bad people. Matt, sadly, is in that ignoble tradition of morally challenged commentators. Argue, make your case, but for the love of God, remember that this is a real person you're talking about, who may have had her career aspirations destroyed because her conscience demanded that she not acquiesce to an ideological litmus test required by an arm of the state.

[Matt]

Francis Beckwith, you are making truly absurd and very prejudiced claims about "hate mongers." A student has made an as-yet unproven allegation against staff. She is using an organization (the ADF) which been wildly off-base in the past in its claims of Christians being persecuted. Christopher Hathaway suggested that staff's efforts to help the student with reading and writing might merely be a "smoke screen." Why isn't this "hate mongering" while suggestions that the student herself may be throwing up a smoke screen are not? We don't know which side is right. It makes sense to keep an open mind until the facts come out.

[MCModerator]

Comment removed for inappropriate content.

[Juli]

Btw, the "inappropriate content" was in response to this very bizarre comment:

"Naturally liberals do not enjoy the sensation of having their pants removed for a public thrashing by Singapore Rush."

[David Gray]

>We don't know which side is right.

Well regarding the ability of homosexuals to be able to resist their particular temptations to sexual sin we certainly do know who is right.

[Francis Beckwith]

Matt:

As a Christian who has been persecuted and who has lectured for ADF for the past 12 years, you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

If you disagree with Christianity, then I defend your right to make your case free of government interference and persecution. All that we are asking is that you reciprocate in a spirit of civic friendship and defend our right to do the same, in reference to those point of view with which we disagree, free of government interference and persecution.

The student, you are correct, has made an allegation. But it is one that is not unexpected given the nature of the university and its call to purge its students and faculty of criticisms of homosexual conduct. Imagine if a university had called for the purging of the public defense of kosher eating. Would it surprise you that one would find Orthodox Jewish students being singled out for exclusion?

Look, you hold a point of view, many in the university world agree with it, and it happens to entail that it is a view that implies that certain religious points of view are not only mistaken but evil. Given that, why do you find it shocking that the "evil" Christians are persecuted on these campuses. In fact, if they weren't, that would probably be offered as evidence that the university wasn't doing its job.

So, lighten up and man-up, for this is the world that you and your friends have created. Defend it. But don't pretend it does not have consequences for serious and thoughtful Christian believers. It does, and we don't like it. And in America (not quite yet "Amerika"), thankfully, we are still permitted to defend ourselves in courts of law. You're probably going to try to take that away as well, since in the secular syllabus of errors "hate has no rights."

The game you play is disingenuous.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Several questions that I'd like to see how folks answer:

1. Do the academy and government have a pronounced antipathy toward traditional Christian belief, values and practice?

2. Is said antipathy becoming more aggressive?

3. If yes to either of the above, what should the Christian response be personally and corporately (as a body)?

4. When does science become scientism replacing the dispassionate investigation of the way things work and the way people behave with a dogmatic and intolerant statement of belief concerning the ways things ought to be?

5. Is traditional Christian anthropology a mere anachonistic metaphor or is a description of how we actually are as human beings?

6. If the traditional Christian anthropology is an actual description of who we are as human beings, how much accomodation can be given to any anthropology, scientific or not, that is at odds with the traditional understanding?

7. Would you agree that a well formed and committed Chrisitan can give appropriate counsel to anyone in the midst of any sinful situation without prosyletizing?

8. Agree or disagree: All psychological and emotional difficulties have a root in man's inability to overcome sin as both unique persons and in a social context. In other words the spiritual state of our being has physical and emotional consequences. When we love the created thing more than the creator, we get ourselves in trouble.

9. Can therapy be successful if the threaputic approach ignores or falsifies both the human condition and the nature of humanity and personhood?

10 Is that not what is at stake here, two drastically different, competing and incompatible visions of the human person?

[Matt]

Francis Beckwith:

Your argument is entirely illogical and based on false premises. I have not backed either side. I suggest you reread what I did in fact say, which you have clearly misunderstood. In fact, you are making the same mistake that the ADF made when it filed a spurious and frivolous lawsuit, which went nowhere, against the Cupertino Union School District in California. You can find more information about that case online. In it, the ADF made several false assumptions, just as you have done. Is the ADF wrong again? I have no idea. What I am saying is that we can't be sure that the student's claim is true without further information. There are reasons why both sides, under circumstances yet to be established, might want to throw up a smoke screen. If you could read what I said with less hysteria, you'll be able to see that.

[John FB]

Michael asks: "All psychological and emotional difficulties have a root in man's inability to overcome sin as both unique persons and in a social context."

Some might, but I don't think there's any consensus among Christians that depression, anxiety, phobias and/or compulsions result from some personal moral failure. If that were the case, many of the saints would have been much more "sinful" in fact than many cheerful, well-adjusted non-believers.

[Margaret]

Yeah, let's not have any initial sizing-ups, why should a lifetime's observation about Things in General be worth even tentative consideration in this patternless world?

Although she must be one heck of a spitfire to get a national civil-rights organization to fall for such an elaborate ruse. Institutional persecution--what a bold smoke screen for bad English skills!

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

John FB, I said nothing about personal moral failures I was talking about the much deeper struggles with temptation and what the Orthodox have always call, the passions--disordered natural impulses that, due to the fall lead us into sinful attitudes and behaviors that may not actually be immoral in the normal sense. Not to mention the disconnectedness from our own humanity due to the fall.

Sinful people are not well-adjusted, they just fit well in a sinful world. They are neither whole nor healthy. There are times when in is appropriate to grieve for the state of the world and our own souls when we contemplate how far we are from God.

If the goal of modern therapy is to create a situation in which people can live without unhappiness in a sinful and mal-adjusted world, then the goal is so wrong that it approaches evil.

It is sort of akin to cutting off everybody's legs so that we all function at the level of amputees.