Can Jennifer Keeton, a student in the counselors masters program at Augusta State University, effectively counsel others if she believes homosexuality is a choice?
The school thought not, and told Keeton to enroll in a remediation program (and go to gay pride!) designed to foster … let’s say … more reasonable and open-minded beliefs about LGBTs. Keeton doesn’t think she needs to change what the Bible tells her, and has filed suit against the university. Naturally, the Alliance Defense Fund is involved; it calls the university’s actions forced “thought reform.” Relays the Christian Post:
According to the filed complaint, “She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.'”
In May, Keeton was notified that she would be asked to participate in a remediation plan. Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley, an associate professor who also oversees student education and discipline, explained that the faculty wanted to see Keeton’s writing skills improve and that they are concerned with some of her beliefs and views pertaining to GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) issues.
Several faculty members later met with the student and told her that they considered her to be failing to conform to certain professional standards. In a written Remediation Plan, the faculty said her speech on GLBT matters violated the codes of ethics that counselors and those in training are required to adhere to.
Keeton’s views “depart from what ‘the psychological research about GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning) populations asserts’ that that ‘sexual orientation is not a lifestyle or choice, but a state of being,'” faculty members said.
And if Keeton doesn’t complete the program? She’ll be kicked out of the Counselor Education Program, she claims. ASU isn’t commenting, because doing so would violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, it claims. But wasn’t it Keeton who signed up voluntarily for the program, knowing it followed the ethical standards of American School Counselor Association, which requires counselors “recognize and accept” cultural diversity and different points of view.
Not that ASU is dealing with this situation for the first time, notes the Augusta Chronicle.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Elizabeth Evans, of Louisville, said she had a similar experience when she began the counselor education program at ASU in 1995. After taking three courses, Evans said she was interviewed by a panel of professors who questioned her religious beliefs. “I told them I think homosexuality is wrong. The Bible speaks against it,” she said. “I was not admitted to the program, because of my beliefs. When I read the article, my heart hurt for Jennifer.”
Evans said she decided to pursue a master’s degree in early childhood education at the university. She is currently pursuing a doctorate degree. Though she found her calling, she said Christian students at the university should not be treated as Keeton has. “I can’t believe they suggested that she go to the gay pride parade,” Evans said. “I hope she sues the pants off of them.”
Below, Keeton tells her side:
vajayjay
I guess this bitch has the right to be a bigot but she shouldn’t be counseling anyone.
Qjersey
why do christian women in their 20s insist on using that “baby girl” voice?
concernedcitizen
I saw this on about her on towleroad.com and I agree with the school’s decision. If she’s counseling young teens who may be confused about their sexuality she could make a situation difficult by pushing her views onto them or worse condemning them when really what they need is someone to understand them.
And how did this chick make it that far and still need grammar and writing training um that shit is remedial!!!
Steve
Okay, so she’s religious. She can be a Christian counselor if her personal views really need to be involved with her job. But if she’s going to take a job where she will have to work with a diverse body of students, she better not complain when a Buddhist student sues her for telling them about how great God is. She needs to respect their diversity and their beliefs as well if they are going to respect hers.
GGeekboy
Hopefully she gets barred. Anyone that is dumb enough to believe their personal beliefs override their duties in jobs such as counseling students isn’t qualified. Let her believe what she wants but if she acts on those beliefs, they are dangerous to student’s well being, and she can’t understand that, don’t let her near children. Imagine if a KKK member became a firefighter and said “If a black person is in a fire I’m not going to save their life. It’s against my beliefs.” Rubbish.
dave
Sure she can.
Pretending this is about what she believes just dignifies her complaints. It isn’t. If she’s willing to abide by the professional standards of her chosen profession, and by the requirements of her scholastic program, then it doesn’t matter what she chooses to believe in private.
What she wants, though, is to have her cake and eat it, too: to belong to a profession while practicing in line with her beliefs and not that profession’s standards. That she does *not* get to do, nor does anyone else.
You can be a doctor and believe in prayer, reiki, faith healing, psychic surgery, chiropracty, or whatever bunk you like. If, however, the AMA asks you what the proper treatment for a disease is, and your first and only answer is prayer, reiki, faith healing, psychic surgery, or chiropracty, then no, you don’t get to be an AMA-certified doctor. Their profession, their standards.
If she wants to set up shop as a reparative therapist, then great. More power to her. If she wants to be a certified and accredited counselor, then fuck her. She can play by the rules just like everyone else.
Ian
If she’s serious about being a credentialed counselor by any credible body then she has to realize that in the context of work she has to throw her OWN beliefs out the window and concentrate on what is best for the client, as per the DSM-IV-TR. When you decide to become any form of Therapist then while your on the clock then the DSM-IV-TR becomes your work ‘bible’ and you have to go by what it says. And homosexuality was taken out of the DSM as ANY form of a mental health disorder WAY back in the early 1970’s.
fradiavolo
Can a creationist teach biology? Can I teach geography in a public school if I sincerely believe the Earth is flat? Or can I teach a graduate-level course in astronomy if I subscribe to the geocentric theory of planetary rotation? These folks are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. They are NOT entitled to their own facts.
David
Well, she says she can’t change her Biblical views.
The school’s view is that gay is ok. She disagrees, because of her theological opinions. Fine.
The school’s view is based on information derrived from the Scientific Method; her theological opinions are based on Revelation from self-styled “prophets.”
If she is uncomfortable with conclusions drawn from experience in the real world, and prefers the comforts given from Religious Authority, she should attend a religious school and earn accreditation from them. In the process, she could benefit from the Christian tradition of women keeping silent in public, and the Muslim tradition of female circumcision.
It would be a grave disservice to her future clients if she misrepresented herself as a counselor offering scientific, common-sense advice based on observable cause-and-effect, but was actually offering services rooted in Christian Fundamentalism that required her clients bow and conform to a religious dogma based on a work of fiction.
I consider most of the Bible to be a work of fiction because, well, the New Testament is built on the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is full of reports of events that never actually happened, yet form the basis for much of the Christian religion. For example, the Moses story in Exodus tells us that around 1500 BCE, over half of the population of Egypt -mostly Hebrews- left the country with most of its wealth, and in the process left its military in ruins.
First off, Had this actually happened, then one of the neighboring empires would have taken advantage of Egypt’s weakened state, conquered it, and history would have been quite different. But, the only place that this event is recorded is in the ancient Hebrew writings.
Over the past hundred years or so, archeologists have excavated enough of the Middle East landscape to have a fairly complete record and understanding of what was going on in that area. There is no record of any foreign country invading Egypt at the time in question. None whatsoever.
So the Moses story is just a story. As is, most likely, the account of his receiving the Ten Commandments from Jehovah. And if the Commandments originate from human writers instead of God, then that calls into question the presumption of God’s authorship. Since the New Testament presumes that the Old Testament is 100% innerrant when indeed it is not, then that calls into question its own value.
Back to the original issue — If Ms. Keeton wants to counsel based on religious principles, she should seek accreditation from a religious school, and not the Agusta State University.
David Ehrenstein
Like all religious fanatics she looks like a zombie. There’s no life behind those cold dead eyes.
JT
Fradiavolo, I teach down the hall from some biology teachers who don’t accept evolution. They give lip service to it in class, and don’t actively teach creationism, but they basically do their jobs. As was said above, if she can put her beliefs to the side to perform her job, that’s fine, but I really don’t see it happening. She is denying reality to suit her own biases, and the fact that she has written those papers spelling out her beliefs that students who are gay and lesbian need to be forcefully changed means she definitely needs remediation or removal from the program.
Bill
It’s too late for this young woman. She has been thouroughly and completely poisioned by ‘christianity.’
She will harbor her bigoted beliefs, backed, she believes, by Jesus Christ himself, until the day she dies.
Sadly, that’s not enough for ‘christians.’ They are not happy until they have poisioned everyone and everything in their path.
This young woman has no business counseling or instructing a human being in any way.
It is amazing to see society finally beginning to recognize ‘christianity’ for the form of social terrorism that it is.
Perhaps it is time to send all of the ‘christians’ to that island they’ve been advocating for US for so long.
These people will destroy our society if we allow them to.
CHIP1218
If this gets bigger and goes national, expect an endorsement by Sarah Palin on her Facebook/Twitter page and a job offer to be Bristol and Levi’s marriage counselor!
Kenster999
Anyone who so thoroughly misunderstands homosexuality is not qualified to be a counselor.
Ogre Magi
I am so sick of christians and all of there shit!
Pip
You can’t take up a profession and not agree with the academic standards of that profession. A psychologist can’t water board a schizophrenic patient because he believes it will drown the devil out of someone, or whatever. This woman should be training to be a nun, not a counselor.
She also shouldn’t be considered a Christian in that second report. Blanketing all Christians as total nonprofessional conservative wing-nuts, isn’t ethical journalism.
Jack E. Jett
OMG…..it is ann coulter’s evil sister.
Devon
I know how to deal with this. Quick, someone fetch me a lion.
Steve
The difference between biology and psychology is that teaching evolution with less conviction than other people doesn’t actually harm anyone. If it happens on a grand scale (similar to the Texas schoolbook thing) it has some negative effects on society as a whole, but just one such teacher can be tolerated.
However, as a counselor she is responsible for the mental well-being of other people. And as that, she has to comply with the professional standards. She can’t let her beliefs get in the way of helping those under her care. It’s unacceptable especially considering the far higher suicide rate among gay youth.
mark snyder
She will contribute to the suicides of young gays if she continues down this path.
Enron
She looks very anorexic.
tinkerbell
I’m a licensed health care professional who believes that Christianity is inherently wrong and immoral. Should I be able to deny Christians proper medical treatment because of my moral beliefs? I shudder at the notion.
Why should Christians be allowed to deny gay folk proper treatment simply because they follow a bronze age book of fairy tale beliefs?
Why should these nuts be allowed to infuse their irrational, illogical and insane superstitious religious beliefs into professional treatment and care of gay people in need of help?
Lanjier
I am so glad that the school is standing up for science and reason, and stopping those who try to turn their hate into science. If she is permitted to continue, she could do real damage to those she counsels. How can self-hatred be therapeutic? Pride and acceptance are therapy, not the bible.
Dandy
I am a school counselor in the state of Georgia. She should be thrown out of the program. It is against the law to share her biblical beliefs in a public school. If she beleives that homosexuality is a sin, she cannot practice unconditional positive regard for students which is essential for being a counselor. Bravo ASU!!
tjr101
Ugh, to think there is potentially millions like her across America is just sickening. This young woman is as dangerous as a potential terrorist and should not be allowed anywhere near our young people.
Being a professional is being able to separate your personal beliefs from your duties, she’s obviously incapable of doing such.
tom
she wear her makeup wrong..
but she’s hot…
hope she’ll change her hart about Christ (and by implication Christianity).
you Christian can keep the ugly ones , and the rest of us will have the rest.. OK ?
P.S
i may think that being gay is’nt a good thing , but i mind my own matters.
Jeffree
In related news, Baptist University of Montana [BUM] has expelled Bhaktipad Srimatavishnudav from its Master’s program leading to becoming a Baptist Pastor because Bhakti:
—“believes in all the wrong gods, hasn’t been baptized, doesn’t tithe and cannot speak in tongues”—-
according to BUM spokeswoman Grace Armagreddon.
Mr. Srimatavishnudav plans on filing an appeal and a lawsuit. His backup plan is to become Methodist.
Roger
She’s like a surgeon who’s afraid of blood, except instead of blood it’s gay.
lolwhat
I think the real question here is whether someone graduating from “Augusta State University” is qualified to be a counselor period. Sounds more like ditch-digger school.
Cassandra
“There is no record of any foreign country invading Egypt at the time in question. None whatsoever.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt
“A second period of disunity heralded the arrival of the first foreign ruling dynasty in Egypt, that of the Semitic Hyksos. The Hyksos invaders took over much of Lower Egypt around 1650 BC and founded a new capital at Avaris. ”
and
“The Thirtieth Dynasty was the last native ruling dynasty during the Pharaonic epoch. It fell to the Persians in 343 BC after the last native Pharaoh, King Nectanebo II, was defeated in battle. Later, Egypt fell to the Greco–Macedonians and Romans, beginning over two thousand years of foreign rule. The last ruler from the Ptolemaic line was Cleopatra VII, who committed suicide with her lover Marc Antony, after Caesar Augustus had captured them.”
Egyptian history is not as straightforward as the Mummy movies make it out to be.
“These people will destroy our society if we allow them to.”
Homophobes routinely make this exact statement about homosexuals. When it squawks like a bigot, it is a bigot.
“She has been thouroughly and completely poisioned by ‘christianity.'”
Homophobes also speak of homosexuality in these very same terms – an outside contagion that infects and poisons people.
“Sadly, that’s not enough for ‘christians.’ They are not happy until they have poisioned everyone and everything in their path.”
Again, a repetition of standard homophobe talking points. Where homophobes assert that GLBTQ people are trying to ruin everyone and everything, Bill mirrors that hate by libeling Christians.
“I know how to deal with this. Quick, someone fetch me a lion.”
The historical event referenced here – feeding Christians to lions, was an attempt at coercion and genocide. How healthy is it, emotionally and morally, to make fun of the death and torture of other human beings?
“infuse their irrational, illogical and insane ”
Homophobes routinely characterize homosexual in the above terms.
Those here who are bad-mouthing Christians are no different from any homophobe, they are the (allegedly) gay Fred Phelps’ of the internet.
Simon Carter
“Those here who are bad-mouthing Christians are no different from any homophobe”
Uh, no, sorry, Cassandra, but that’s wrong. There is a large and crucial difference: One’s religious belief is nothing more than a conscious decision, like what brand of chewing gum to buy. It has no biological basis. One’s sexuality is not a choice, the world’s legitimate scientists and doctors all agree. To compare a basic component of one’s person and personality with a decision to believe a book of fairytales is offensive enough; to advocate codifying those fairytales so that they are enforced on those who choose not to believe them is grievously inhumane, and if your mythical god actually existed, he would weep at your utter failure as a human being.
Cassandra
“Uh, no, sorry, Cassandra, but that’s wrong.”
No. Your subsequent excuse making does not change the fact that christian-haters here are using exactly the same hate speech that homophobes use.
“There is a large and crucial difference: One’s religious belief is nothing more than a conscious (sic) decision,”
Homophobes insist that homosexuality is a conscious choice. However, people of faith testify that their faith is an innate and intrinsic part of their being.
“It has no biological basis.”
Homophobes insist that homosexuality has no biological basis.
So you see, you are also mirroring the language of hate.
In both cases, homophobia and hatred of religion, bigots like you think that they are excused in hating and vilifying other people, if the object of their hate is reduced to a choice.
You are articulating bigotry just like any homophobe.
“One’s sexuality is not a choice, the world’s legitimate . . .”
Homophobes also declare that only those experts who agree with them are “legitimate”.
“To compare a basic component of one’s person and personality with a decision to believe a book of fairytales”
Homophobes also reject the testimony of their targets, by declaring that homosexuality is a fake construct, as you have done to people of faith. You are employing exactly the same technique that homophobes use. You are characterizing other people’s meaningful experiences in derogatory ways, not from any evidence, but out of your hatred and contempt for them.
“he would weep at your utter failure as a human being.”
And, like so many bigots before you, you close with a personal attack, as if being abusive and degrading so directly and explicitly proves that your premise is not abusive and degrading.
Your contempt for Christians is a prejudice equal to homophobia.
Roger Rabbit
Ok Tinkerbell,
IF I go to Brigham Young University I WILL be kicked out for just being gay. It is a religious school.
So a public school, which is OBLIGATED by our constitution to keep church and state separate, MUST kick out this student for being unwilling to adopt PUBLIC standards for therapy certifications.
Pretty simple.
Roger Rabbit
Apologies to Tinkerbell. I read your post wrong.
But the point stands, just not directed against you.
nikko
@tom: TOM, why troll your offensive opinion that “gay isn’t good” if you claim to keep your matters to yourself?!
nikko
@Cassandra: Your argument falls flat because we all know religious beliefs are a choice-homosexuality is not and has biological roots. Furthermore, it is Judaeo-Christinan beliefs that has demonized and persecuted homosexuality throughout history, NOT the other way around. Religion deserves all the damnation it gets from homos and all other victims. No tears from me.
B
No. 17 · Jack E. Jett wrote, “OMG…..it is ann coulter’s evil sister.” … hardly. She is just a confused young thing who made the wrong career choice. Eventually she’ll find some line of work where her religious-based beliefs won’t interfere with what she has to do to support herself.
It’s no different than someone finding that he’ll have trouble getting a job in a college geology department if he does around claiming the earth is only 6000 years old.
Jeff K.
Human beings DO have a biological propensity to believe in irrational concepts like religion. What they DON’T have is a propensity to believe in Christianity in particular.
I find it hilarious that she says she can’t change her biblical world view, yet she expects gays to change who they are attracted to! Talk about irony!
I hope she gets hung out to dry.
Cassandra
Hi my name is Cassandra and I am a dumb cunt!
David
@Cassandra:
David wrote:
“There is no record of any foreign country invading Egypt at the time in question. None whatsoever.”
————-
Cassandra replied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt
“A second period of disunity heralded the arrival of the first foreign ruling dynasty in Egypt, that of the Semitic Hyksos. The Hyksos invaders took over much of Lower Egypt around 1650 BC and founded a new capital at Avaris. ”
and
“The Thirtieth Dynasty was the last native ruling dynasty during the Pharaonic epoch. It fell to the Persians in 343 BC after the last native Pharaoh, King Nectanebo II, was defeated in battle. Later, Egypt fell to the Greco–Macedonians and Romans, beginning over two thousand years of foreign rule. The last ruler from the Ptolemaic line was Cleopatra VII, who committed suicide with her lover Marc Antony, after Caesar Augustus had captured them.”
Egyptian history is not as straightforward as the Mummy movies make it out to be.
——
David chortles, guffaws, and snorts:
Cassandra has data for 1650 BCE and 343 BCE out for invasions. However, Fundamentalist Bible historians http://bibletimeline.info/ agree that Moses and the Exodus thing transpired about 1450 BCE. It would be quite interesting to find new information supporting an event involving loss of over half of its population (a difficult occurance to overlook) combined with destruction of the Egyptian military (a situation that neighboring empires would have quickly taken advantage of, had it actually happened).
As I mentioned, many of the Bible’s stories are only stories, and do not reflect actual historical events. This means that the Bible is not the 100% inerrant document that Fundamentalists claims it is (not even close). And as such, while it might form the basis for a sort of religious tradition, it is hardly an authoritative source document for anything — and is certainly not reliable enough to justify a negative view towards gay people.
Cassandra wrote:
“Those here who are bad-mouthing Christians are no different from any homophobe, they are the (allegedly) gay Fred Phelps’ of the internet.”
David replies,
First off, there’s no need to feel personally slighted about some honest criticism of the Bible. We “love the beleiver, but scoff, jeer, and hiss at the beleif,” particularly when it is used to whup up on us gay folk. Actually, one might take the honest and impartial evaluation of one’s revered scripture as an opportunity to learn how it might be viewed from a different angle. Consider — In the book of Genesis, Moses was able to view Jehovah’s “backside” but not his front. In modern times, True Beleivers are allowed to consider sacred texts under the dim light of orthodoxy, but not under what skeptics regard as “the cleansing light of day.” One might be well-advised to take advantage of this unapproved view of scripture. It could be quite liberating to discover the major flaws of a document beleived to guarantee eternal damnation if one did not beleive.
So, while the subject of the story has indeed been “thouroughly and completely poisioned by ‘christianity,” she is not beyond redemption. All she needs do is exercise her brain, ask a few probing questions regarding the nature of her sacred texts, and drum up the courage to overthrow the dark demons of orthodoxy that hold her intellect hostage, and be willing to accept the responsibility that comes from having to find one’s own answers to the Big Questions of Life.
David
@nikko: Nikko, you have the gift of brevity; a virtue I completely lack.
san
but how cool would it be to have your counselor to tell you that you are going to hell instead of actually helping you.
Jeffree
@Cassandra: I’m interested to know if you think this candidate for Counselor should or shouldn’t be allowed to stay in her program. Please advise.
Thanks!
J’free
Eloise
Jennifer Keaton using her religion to back up her bigoted beliefs. This isn’t about religion, and it makes me mad when I see people attack all Christians because there’s hateful people thrown in the mix. I wish we could all peacefully coexist, but as long as people keep attacking each other over sexuality and religion, it doesn’t seem to be happening. 🙁
Griff
What if a conservative Christian refuses to “believe” that US law is based on the constitution and should instead be based on Leviticus? Is a Law School required to graduate that person? If this woman wins it could set up a very dangerous precedent?
ZJ
@Cassandra: “Those here who are bad-mouthing Christians are no different from any homophobe, they are the (allegedly) gay Fred Phelps’ of the internet.”
Actually, it’s quite different. Espousing a belief which, for no justifiable reason, holds innocent persons to be sinful deviants because of who they are, is totally the opposite of rejecting the beliefs that encourage this prejudice. Religion-based prejudice against gay people, and opposite the religion that supports that kind of prejudice, are two completely different things. There’s really no room for equivalence there.
The Christian prejudice against gay people is thoroughly irrational. But fighting against that prejudice, because of its widespread harmful effects, is quite justifiable.
B
No. 30 · Cassandra wrote, “Those here who are bad-mouthing Christians are no different from any homophobe, they are the (allegedly) gay Fred Phelps’ of the internet.”
Since Mr. Phelps claims (as far as I know) to be straight, I think most gays would be willing to go along with that – they don’t want him any more than members of the U.S. military would want him. Fred Phelps, Cassandra, is your problem.
Judd
This is an interesting situation. I totally disagree with her position regarding sexual orientation, but it sound like the school is attempting to block her based on her personal beliefs on that subject. Yes the APA does not consider being gay to be a disorder and reparative therapy is ineffective, the fact remains there are some individuals who will not accept that they are gay and will seek some form of treatment or therapy to try to resolve their psychological discord. The purpose behind medicine, psychiatry and psychological counseling is to relieve suffering. Those that refuse to accept that they are gay suffer horribly. It seems cruel to deny treatment to these individuals simply because the establishment has (rightly) concluded that what is troubling them is nothing to be concerned with.
On the flip side, the fact that she wants to work with school aged children scares the crap out of me. Adults can choose who they go to see, kids can’t.
Jeffree
She’d be better off seeking a degree in pastoral counseling, which is separate from becoming a licensed clinical professional counselor. That would be a more appropriate course of study. Then her clients will know up front that she bases her counseling on faith, not science. She can then treat religious issues rather than psychological ones.
She should not however be allowed to pursue or obtain an internship, credentials or licensure in a field where her faith will impede her ability to adequately address the full range of issues presented by her clients.
The code of ethics in her chosen field will not allow her to obtain an internship or sit for the licensing exam.
[I had a little help with this post]
Cassandra
Nikko
“Your argument falls flat because we all know religious beliefs are a choice”
No. You are making the same false distinction that homophobes – when they claim that sexual acts are chosen. Further, you are assuming that you know what is going on in the minds of other people better than they do, just as homophobes do when they insist that homosexuality is a choice.
You’ve missed the bigger point – the question of choice is irrelevant, you and your peers are vilifying Christians, human beings, over a part of their lives you do not approve of, just as homophobes vilify GLBTQ people, human beings, over a part of their lives that homophobes do not approve of.
It is bigotry in both cases.
“Furthermore, it is Judaeo-Christinan beliefs that has demonized and persecuted homosexuality throughout history, NOT the other way around.”
Beyond being a gross exaggeration, your tit for tat argument for dehumanizing others has been used before by oppressors of every kind. Some people of faith have demonized and persecuted GLBTQ people, others have not, so you would plummet to the level of those who have oppressed GLBTQ people, by becoming an oppressor yourself.
By doing so, bigotry wins and you become your enemy.
“Religion deserves all the damnation it gets from homos and all other victims. No tears from me.”
Homophobes insist that homosexuality deserves damnation. You have co-opted their very hate speech, and in doing so, revealed how little you deserve the equality GLBTQ people seek.
You lose the moment you become the same as your opponent, Nikko, and you have become as much a bigot as any homophobe.
Cassandra
Jeff K
“Human beings DO have a biological propensity to believe in irrational concepts like religion. What they DON’T have is a propensity to believe in Christianity in particular.”
Your characterization of spirituality as ‘irrational concept’ mirrors the way homophobes use false and derogatory characterizations about homosexuality.
Frankly, atheism is hardly rational, it is just another prejudice like homophobia, and of course, implicit within atheism is antisemitism, and we’ve seen how that harms society.
In the comparison of sexual orientation and faith, the difference religions are like the different preferences or tastes in intimacy. So your argument is like saying there’s a biological propensity to physical intimacy, but not to oral sex or romantic sex or leather sex – therefore society can condemn or revile any particular way of expressing sexual desire.
Further, should you have paid attention to what people of faith say, you’ll find that there is an astonishing similarity between the way a person finds a faith that fits them, and the way someone finds their sexual orientation, and other sex related preferences.
In both cases, some things – belief in this, doing that, are a natural fit for some individuals, while other things turn out to be a natural fit for others.
Which makes your response so tragic – you are using the same condescending assumption that homophobes use: what works for you is the only thing that has value, and anything that doesn’t work for you is, according to you, useless for everyone.
Like any homophobe, you are trying to define and control other people’s lives for them.
Cassandra
David
“David chortles, guffaws, and snorts:”
So, David has nothing of any value to add.
“Cassandra has data for 1650 BCE and 343 BCE out for invasions. However, Fundamentalist Bible historians”
Ah, there’s that fundamental dishonesty. You use the some of the assertions of some people of faith – those who are most useful, while dismissing as fiction the whole thing anyways.
That is dishonest, and such dishonesty reflects poorly on you.
The reality is that there is no consensus when Mose and the Exodus account took place.
“As I mentioned, many of the Bible’s stories are only stories, and do not reflect actual historical events.”
Really? So, just how many millenia have you lived? Unless you lived through all those millenia, you are just pulling prejudice out of malice.
“This means that the Bible is not the 100% inerrant document that Fundamentalists claims it is (not even close).”
So? Literalism is only one of many ways Christian approach the Bible, and its value is not contingent on literalism.
David replies,
“First off, there’s no need to feel personally slighted about some honest criticism of the Bible.”
Don’t waste your time fantasizing about my emotions, or lying about the remarks posted here. What has been presented about Christianity, or the Bible, has not been ‘honest criticism’.
No, you’ve done the same thing homophobes do – pick and chose, distort and misrepresent your way into a false vision, a derogatory and degrading fantasy which you then insist reflects other people’s real experiences.
And when challenged about it, you insist on parsing more bits and pieces, creating the anti-Christian equivalent of the dishonest arguments used by Intelligent Design supporters. They distort and fabricate and fantasize about science, you’ve done so about the Bible and Christians.
“We “love the beleiver, but scoff, jeer, and hiss at the beleif,” ”
Ah, like the homophobes who ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’. Funny how folk around here get so angry when some homophobe pulls that nonsense. Yet here you are, trying to argue that your malice about religion is not a prejudice, and using one of the standard rally cries of homophobes.
“particularly when it is used to whup up on us gay folk.”
Ah, if only you and your peers showed such selectivity, or heck, any selectivity at all. If only your focused your criticism on the specific ideas, beliefs, assumptions that have wormed their way into Christian theology. But you and your comrades do not. You malign all Christians, all of Christianity, and that is the defining trait of prejudice.
“Actually, one might take the honest and impartial evaluation of one’s revered scripture as an opportunity to learn how it might be viewed from a different angle.”
How prejudicial of you to assume that I do not take all evaluations of Scripture as a learning opportunity.
However, your remarks have been neither honest nor impartial, and I am as well acquainted with the bigot’s angle on religion as I am with the bigot’s angle on sexual orientation.
“In modern times, True Beleivers are allowed to consider sacred texts under the dim light of orthodoxy, but not under what skeptics regard as “the cleansing light of day.” ”
One of the many valuable lessons in the Bible, that you and your peers seem not to have learned, is that lying is wrong. Your statement above is false.
“So, while the subject of the story has indeed been “thouroughly and completely poisioned by ‘christianity,” she is not beyond redemption.”
If I had a nickel for every time a homophobe has made the same statement about homosexuality, I could have a paid off mansion in Bel Air. You protest the comparison, and then repeat the evidence. You are using the exact same language to describe Christians that homophobes use to describe GLBTQ people. You are the peer of any homophobe.
“All she needs do is exercise her brain, ask a few probing questions regarding the nature of her sacred texts, and drum up the courage to overthrow the dark demons of orthodoxy that hold her intellect hostage, and be willing to accept the responsibility that comes from having to find one’s own answers to the Big Questions of Life.”
Did that make your ego feel good? I have long considered that the ugly and derogatory things that homophobes say about GLBTQ people gives them ego-erections, and your remarks seem to serve the same purpose.
You are not refuting my position, David, you are providing more evidence of the strong, and ugly, commonality between homophobia and atheism.
When you use the hate speech of bigots, it is hard to convince others that you are not a bigot.
Michael
Way to many people are in jobs that are above their mental faculties. Why someone would consider taking such a job, or faking their way in, usually boils down to the desire for higher pay. However, when I am looking for professional investment advice, I have found I can save a buck or two by consulting my trash collector.
Jeffree
@Cassandra: I do so hope to hear from you on whether or not you believe this person should be allowed to continue her studies to become a licenced professional clinical counselor.
You know that I admire you greatly. We may not share the same faith but I have utmost respect for your knowlege of Scripture.
I think she should pursue Pastoral Counseling instead.
And you?
axos
Jennifer Keeton is arrogant and doesn’t understand what science is. You can’t get a degree in physics if you maintain the sun is circling Earth and that atoms don’t exist because you can’t see them. What she is doing is the equivalent of that, and she should not get her degree. Simple as that.
Cassandra
ZJ
“Actually, it’s quite different.”
No.
“Espousing a belief which, for no justifiable reason, holds innocent persons to be sinful deviants because of who they are,is totally the opposite of rejecting the beliefs that encourage this prejudice.”
Ah, but you and your peers are not criticizing beliefs, you and your peers are attacking people. Bill was very explicit “These people”.
If people here were only criticizing the specific beliefs, idea, teachings, assumptions within any religion that condemn anyone, it would be a different story. But instead, participant after participant here, week after week, vilifies all people of faith, all Christians as people, and the entire accumulation of experience, testimony, thought, history and values of billions of human beings over the course of human history.
“There’s really no room for equivalence there.”
You are arguing a comparison I was not making.
“The Christian prejudice against gay people is thoroughly irrational. But fighting against that prejudice, because of its widespread harmful effects, is quite justifiable.”
However, what it happening here, and happens here week after week, it not ‘fighting against that prejudice’ – fighting the belief ‘homosexuality is sin’, but rather, fighting Christianity itself, and all of its people. And when an entire group of people are defined by the failings of some members of that group, that is prejudice.
B
“Fred Phelps, Cassandra, is your problem.”
No, like any bigot, including those who hate Christians or people of faith, Fred is every human being’s problem.
Jeffree
“I’m interested to know if you think this candidate for Counselor should or shouldn’t be allowed to stay in her program. Please advise.”
How does what I might think about her career choice change the nature of prejudice? Since I argue that atheism is a prejudice as well, are you willing to accept an answer that would apply to an atheist therapist in training who perceives of religious people as being mentally ill?
Personally, I think any one in the mental health fields should stick as close to the DSM as humanly possible, and leave their opinions about religion, philosophy, economics, etc, at home.
Cassandra
“I think she should pursue Pastoral Counseling instead.”
Personally, and recognizing that I have no say in her life, just as I don’t want any homophobe having a say in how I live my life,
if she asked me for my opinion,
I’d advise her not to pursue any form of counseling position, whether in a spiritual or secular setting. Good counselors have to be able see both inside and outside of the perspective of the people they counsel – to be both impartial and empathic at the same time. I don’t think she has that ability, from what has been presented about her in the press.
__________________________________________________________
“You can’t get a degree in physics if you maintain the sun is circling Earth and that atoms don’t exist because you can’t see them.”
The irony in the statement above is a beautiful thing.
Dominik
Another fine example of just how broken public education really is in the United States. In private sector education, this person would have been justifiably dismissed, finding little sympathy from any court of law. Sorry teachers, but until public schools can at least get the fundamentals right, we will remain lower on the world scale where higher education is measured.
axos
So Cassandra, we can agree on that she should not counsel people and that one should not see as equivalent a religious belief and being homo- (or for that matter hetero-) sexual?
DAV
@Cassandra:
I’m not going to get into any serious discussion/argument with you, but I do have to say at least a few things.
1. “Frankly, atheism is hardly rational, it is just another prejudice like homophobia, and of course, implicit within atheism is antisemitism”
This may possibly be the most irrational statement I have ever read. Atheism, on the contrary, is perfectly rational. The only thing that being an atheist says about a person is that he or she does not believe in any god(s)/supreme being(s)/deity(ies)-whatever you want to call it or them. I would venture to say that most atheists arrive at this conclusion based on the fact that no concrete evidence has yet to be shown for the existence of such a being; this is how I became an atheist, personally. In that case, one is merely making a decision about what to believe based on evidence, or lack thereof, which is the very definition of rationality.\
DAV
@Cassandra:
I accidentally hit “submit” before I was finished.
Anyway, there is also no link whatsoever, between atheism and anti-Semitism. I honestly have no idea where you would even get that idea. Jews have been persecuted throughout time by various different religious groups, including Christians, but not, at least in large part, by a significant number of atheists.
Furthermore, I believe that you are confusing atheism with anti-theism. As I stated before, atheism simply means to be without religious belief. It does not inherently imply anti-theism as well, as there are plenty of atheists who couldn’t care less about the religion of others. However, I believe that many atheists, including myself, are also anti-theists, because their use of logic and rational that led them to the be atheists also allowed them to see the terrible harm that religion has caused to society over millenia. The Crusade, the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, the constant persecution of Jews throughout history, etc. Also, something I find very problematic in recent years-the Catholic Church’s stance on condoms. Condoms are the easiest way (besides abstinence, obviously) to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, yet the Church continues to preach against their use, which the missionaries carry out in Africa, further stigmatizing their use among the inhabitants of the countries that missions are sent to, which also happen to be the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. While I do think that the world would be better without religion, I am in no way attempting to condemn your beliefs; I am just pointing out why I don’t like religion, as well as the fact that you are clearly demonstrating that you have a very prejudicial stance on atheism, which is entirely unsubstantiated.
Jeffree
@Cassandra: Thank you for your thoughtful response. My esteem for you has risen.
I know hospital/hospice chaplains that do wonderful work with severely ill and terminally ill people of faith and their families. They receive excellent training on grief, death &dying. They do brave and noble work.
That might be a possible profession for the person in question. Clearly she has the desire to help people, and I hope she finds an outlet for that. It sounds like a bumper-sticker to say this but we need more people helping other people. She just needs to find the right place to do that—like we all do.
Be well.
j’free
DAV
@Cassandra:
Also, if I may ask, what has led you to the assumption that “implicit within atheism is antisemitism,” because frankly, and let me reiterate that this is coming from my anti-theist beliefs, not my atheist ones, I dislike Christianity-Catholicism, especially-far more than I have ever disliked Judaism?
Roger
@Cassandra: Speaking as an Atheist (who also happens to be an ordained reverend) I would have to say that despite the fact that I agree that she isn’t suited as a councilor I find your characterization of atheism as “prejudice against religion” rather (and ironically) prejudiced,if religions are like different brands of ice cream and an atheist is nothing more than someone who doesn’t eat an ice cream, that doesn’t stop me from giving people free samples and letting them decide.
Roger
@Cassandra: Forgot to mention that you are definitely exhibiting anti-atheist bigotry, I’d consider any intentional malicious mis-characterization of any group bigotry be it implying that all atheists are anti-semitic, Christians as fundamentalist homophones, Muslims as terrorists, Hindus as 711 shop keepers, gays as people that chose to like only men, lesbians as militant butch women, bisexuals as sex-obsessed freaks, trans-gendered as drag queens, whites as evil slave owners, blacks as lazy watermelon eating ghetto rats, Mexicans as taco eating illegal labor, Asians as cheap asses, Native Americans as casino owners and so forth.
Tallskin
Oh Please you people, just ignore that silly bitch cassandra.
Can’t you see that by responding to her that she takes that as encouragement.
Aaron in Honolulu
I’m sorry but there is no such thing as “reprogramming” people’s minds. This is not A Clockwork Orange. Jennifer Keaton can take a hundred of these sensitivity classes and attend tons of gay pride parades and still be able to believe whatever she wants to believe.
THE GAYS ARE TAKING OVER OUR BRAINS BY USING REASON AND FAIRNESS!!!!!
Lanjier
Cassandra:
They come at us, and we fight back — get it? Not equals. Gays are morally superior in their position, there is no moral relativity here. Gay anger is not offensive — it is defensive. Christians deliberately and maliciously target us for violence and inequality under the law based on their bible, which they cherry-pick for what to follow and what not to follow. So when we respond with force, there is not argument that it “equates.”
Christians selectively follows hate passages from their magic book, then spends all of their energy on persecuting us. There is no possible way to say, “Oh, they are just following their beliefs! I don’t don’t want to make the mistake of being a hater too!” No way — not with the crap they throw at us, instead of respecting that this is a secular society. They are not just following beliefs, they are on a hate mission, ignoring passages about the poor, love, killing disobedient children and human and animal sacrifices, and all of the other nonsense — or good — in what is a book with clear and plain failings as well as inspiration.
You are very confused because you fail to see that we are just finishing a fight that they started.
So enough with your “We say tomato, and they say tomato bullshit.”
Adam
Y’all.
The debate over whether religion is a choice is pointless. The real choice is WHERE TO ATTEND SCHOOL.
If you want to be a Christian counselor that can counsel gays to “heal” themselves, then you need to attend a Christian counseling program. Period. This girl might have seen this conflict coming if she’d done an iota of research into her chosen field.
All that said, I’m tired of these pharmacists who won’t fill prescriptions and cops who won’t protect ladies at abortion clinics and counselors who won’t counsel gays the same way they counsel others. Didn’t Jesus himself say, “Leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s?” or some such? Do your job, make your money, or get a different job.
Tallskin
For God’s sake fuckin Cassandra does this with every fucking thread she comments on and the entire discussion gets hijacked by her and then people try to answer her stupid and illogical “arguments”.
She fucking loves it!
Just ignore her for fuck’s sake! Garghhhhhh.
Kelly
She is getting bashed because of her beliefs. This is silly. This does not discredit her counseling abilities. What if she was Muslim or Buddhist? Would this be a big issue – No. Since she is a Christian she is getting a bad wrap.
To all of you who are bashing her, I have one question. How would you like to be dismissed after one year of college, in which you have been making good grades throughout all of your classes? To lose a year of college education that you have paid for over one differing belief. Whether or not you believe with this, everyone has differing beliefs. She has never said that she does not care about people who have a different life style then she does. All she has said is that she does not want to be dismissed for one belief. She has a right for freedom of speech and religion, Especially in a Liberal college. If ASU is that liberal, then they should be able to accept her view and not make her choose. This is less about her view points and more about her freedom.
Kai Jones
Dear Cassandra,
I think we should be friends! I think you have a great way of expressing your opinions and your ideas on religious/sexual orientation discrimination are truly profound. Would you like to have dinner with my friends and me? We would all greatly enjoy listening to your ideas; I think you should come as my guest!
Oh, and on a completely unrelated note to my dinner invitation, we’ll also be watching that new Steve Carell movie, Dinner for Schmucks.
I think you would be the biggest hit at our dinner event!
Please inform me of your decision,
Kai Jones
P.S. Dinner for Schmucks will in no way be incorporated into our dinner entertainment. Really.
axos
@Kelly:
You don’t get the point – this is not about her right to get an education, it’s about her ability to absorb the education, and about the people who in the future will consult her.
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. She can speak all she wants, nobody will stop her.
You also seem to believe that all Christian are homophobic and think homosexuality is a “lifestyle” that can be elected, and a sin. You are wrong.
A Muslim who understands those things can be a counselor, yes. On the other hand, a Muslim who is adamant that homosexuals are the scum of the earth and should be punished (whipped or killed) and sharia laws should be implemented, is completely unfit to be a counselor. It’s not the name of the private religion, it’s the ability to understand what you learn and use it for the right purpose.
Lanjier
Kelly:
All hatred can be characterized as a “belief.” Hitler was not immune from people responding to his hatred because “it was just what he believed.”
These Christian beliefs are cherry-picked from the bible, out of other thousands of beliefs that are totally ignored: stoning children, killing babies as human sacrifices. No, Christians like this belief because it allows them to express their general hatred for others, in a way that appears clean and holy.
But these beliefs are anything but clean and holy, and can never be therapeutic for a gay person, which his how Jennifer wanted to wield her beliefs.
There is no science in her mind, and must be removed from a scientific program where she could do real harm.
Tallskin
@Kelly – she is being sacked from her college because she doesn’t think that gays and lesbians should be treated equally to straights. How on earth could she be given a qualification in counselling if she believes that?? Would it be ok if she believed that red heads were inferior to blonds? Or blacks and chinese people were inferior to whites?
Ontop of that she obviously shows serious mental illness in having an invisible friend who provides her with guidance. Would it be ok if her invisible friend were a giant rabbit rather than an invisible sky pixie? No, of course not.
So, both her prejudice and her insane belief in a sky pixie preclude her from being a suitable person to award a counselling qualification to.
Understand now?
She is welcome to hold whatever beliefs in whatever she chooses, but really she is more suited to walking down the high street with a placard selling matches than working as a professional.
We have standards you know, and courses are designed to weed out the loons!
Steve
@Kelly
If she were studying engineering, science, economics, literature or whatever, no one would care. But she wants to be a counselor! Someone who works with young children and teens. A group who is especially at risk in times when they might be struggling with their sexuality.
If she can’t separate her beliefs from her work, she is in the wrong field. She shouldn’t be anywhere near children. The thought of her being responsible for anyone’s mental health is disturbing.
Seriously, why does anyone even know what she believes so extensively? Why does she mention this in class or in papers she writes? She isn’t studying theology. So therefor, she has no business whatsoever even bringing it up at school.
axos
May I add she will be harmful as a Christian counselor as well.
James Stone
How many young kids have committed suicide because faux counselors have told them they are sinners and are going to hell?? I’m sorry..people like her have blood on their hands. She has NO BUSINESS counseling anyone…
I hope her new career is being a greeter at Wal-Mart!!!
Adam
Fuck that bitch.
D Smith
whatever the christian apologists say here does not change one indelible fact. her beliefs are not compatible with the APA standards for councelors psychologists or psychiatrists, and as such she SHOULD be removed from the program.
if her beliefs were about something slightly different… say that the heart was the seat of decision making and not the brain… her beliefs would also be incompatible… without them being religious. just because her religious beliefs are what are preventing her from completing her courses does not change the fact that she is not qualified to councel people.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
As usual the Gays are the only group left where one can openly cast hate and slander aganist without fear or reprecussions. If this vile miserable crunt cast her venon towards any other group there would be an outcry against her and she would have been bounced from the program as soon as her wicked views were broadcast. The polticially correct movement has cast their umbrella over every single group in this country except the Gays.
Say anything negative about any group and suffer the consequences, spew negative bile against the Gays and dozens of orgs will come running to defend you………….
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
PS: Jennifer Keeaton: As you seek to further your “education” here is a bit of info on the subject of “choice”: Myself nor any of the other posters on this thread chose to be Gay. We were all born that way. We have no more choice in “deciding to be Gay” than one has in the color of their skin, eyes, or hair. You however have made a choice in deciding to become a bigoted, vile ,hatefull, miserable, reprehensive, dogmatic, crunt ………
Mike L.
Ugh Cassandra needs a Sassy gay friend to tell her she’s a stupid bitch.
David
David wrote: “As I mentioned, many of the Bible’s stories are only stories, and do not reflect actual historical events.”
Cassandra (She Who Entangles Men) replied: Really? So, just how many millenia have you lived? Unless you lived through all those millenia, you are just pulling prejudice out of malice.
David Tsks: Tsk tsk– “Prejudice out of malice?” Tsk tsk tsk . . .
Truth is, to scoff, one does not need to personally participate in absurdity before it is appropriate for one to Scoff. Consider the Bible stories where animals were said to speak.
The tale in Genesis of Adam and Steve would have us beleive that snakes can talk (“Want an apple, little boy?”). Baalam and his “Amazing Talking Ass” is another example of a talking animal story that one would not need directly witness before it would be proper to doubt, scoff, and jeer.
I am reminded of the “Man Eating Chicken” I once paid three State Fair tickets to see — Indeed, once inside, I did a man eating chicken. Barbecued chicken. But that’s another story for another time, but one life experience that confirmed my suspicions that one cannot trust everything one reads . . .
The point is sharp –> the Bible makes unreasonable claims. It states that during Noah’s flood, the entire planet — even the highest mountain peak — was submerged under water for several months, yet does not suggest where that quantity of water (which would have filled a cube some 990 miles on a side) came from, or where it went. It would have us beleive that up to seven of every species on the planet somehow found its way onto the Ark, which carried sufficient food and water for all of them for 14 months, and that afterward, the kangaroos – who cannot swim — found their way from the middle east all the way to Australia.
Some people are able to swallow this mindless pap, and in an unmatched feat of mental agility add to it a presumption that a complete set of dinosaurs also found accommodations on Noah’s Ark, and that the event transpired only 6000 years ago.
See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark
One does not need to own a bull to know what BS looks like. And the Bible is full of it. But as I’ve said, there is no need take that personally.
—————-
David wrote: “This means that the Bible is not the 100% inerrant document that Fundamentalists claims it is (not even close).”
Cassandra (She Who Entangles Men) replied: So? Literalism is only one of many ways Christian approach the Bible, and its value is not contingent on literalism.
David replies: I have no problem with anyone who finds comfort in the pages of the Bible or any other book, since life on this planet can frequently be truly awful. But, if they somehow conclude that other people are obliged to beleive and act the same way they do, and then conspire to inflict their delusions on other people, then they should not despair when those religious opinions are scrutinzed, evaluated, found to be wanting, and derided as foolishness.
Liberal interpretations of the Bible tend to be unobtrusive, and those who embrace liberal theology tend to make better neighbors than beleivers of the conservative ilk, who, becaue of their tendency toward literalism, would be happy to see all gay people sent away to the Antipodes for Reparative Therapy and not return until they were hopelessly interred in a heterosexual marriage. Some literalists would not be satisfied until all gay people receive the punishment prescribed for them in Leviticus. Tsk tsk tsk.
———–
David wrote: “In modern times, True Beleivers are allowed to consider sacred texts under the dim light of orthodoxy, but not under what skeptics regard as “the cleansing light of day.”
Cassandra wrote: One of the many valuable lessons in the Bible, that you and your peers seem not to have learned, is that lying is wrong. Your statement above is false.
David replies: What if a minister discovers a new fact? Can he freely bring his discovery to his congregation without risk of losing his job? Congregations frequently hire clergy based on their religious background, training, opinions and orthodoxy. If, for instance, a baptist clergyman was taught in seminary to revile gay people, and if time and experience and decades of reflection and prayer inclined him to beleive that John 3:16 applied to gay people, and he began to welcome gays into The Church without reservation, induced them to “accept Jesus as their personal saviour” and subsequently preached that Sabbath Breaking (one of the 10 Commandments) was a worse offense than gay sex (not one of the 10 Commandments), in this day and age such a baptist minister would be in grave danger of losing his job. The desire for an orthodox interpretation of scripture exceeds the desire for intellectual freedom.
This is only one example . . . congregations are known to expel those who they consider to be blasphemers, sodomites, and boat-rockers. Curiously, they never seem to banish Sabbath-breakers or those who manufacture or own “graven images” (another story for another time) or adulterers. Few churches encourage individual interpretations of the Bible. Instead, most churches post a moldy list of doctrines or catechism that one must beleive to be a member.
So, I present no lie, no obfuscation, no misrepresentation. In most religious organizations, compliance with a defined orthodoxy is encouraged, if not required. Independant thought is discouraged. A noteworthy exception is the Unitarian Universalist Church, which evidently has no official doctrine, but instead encourages each of its members to share what they have learned about God. A large number of people with a wildly varying range of ideas assemble and share their religious opinions, without fear of being banished for unorthodox opinions.
It is my opinion, borne of some 50 years of life experience, that the Bible contains more fiction than fact, and it should not form the basis for any sort of science, or regulate any sort of human conduct. I can offer many examples of how the Bible is a flawed document, and how the literal application of its absurdities by Fundamentalists lead to needless sorrow and sadness.
Cassandra wrote: “You are not refuting my position, David, you are providing more evidence of the strong, and ugly, commonality between homophobia and atheism.”
David replies: Atheism is nothing more than the state of being without “theism,” or without religious beleif. It has nothing to do with anything else. My cat is an atheist, because she knows nothing about a supreme being (she doesn’t even appreciate me). The Christian God is presumably an atheist, because a Supreme Being would know nothing of an entitiy greater than Himself. So, in that manner, I am not unlike the Christian God. Both of us know nothing about a being greater than ourselves.
Homophobia, on the other hand (where I have a small hangnail), is a fear of homosexuality. I’m not sure what this has to do with the veracity of the Bible.
Nevertheless, the sooner that the inhabitants of this planet dispose of organized religion with its oppresive doctrines and dogmas, the better off we will all be, including the poor unfortunate wretches who suffer under the therapy of Fundamentalist counselors such as Ms. Jennifer Keaton.
Pete B
We seem to have a problem with ‘tolerance’. The ethical standards of American School Counselor Association, requires counselors “recognize and accept” cultural diversity and different points of view.
You may disagree with her perspective. She may disagree with most of the readers views too. But live and let live, and surely that is tolerance!
It was hardly a generation ago, that Soviet and Nazi school faculties would bar students if they didn’t believe in communist or facist ethics. You could hardly be a counsellor in Russia if you didn’t believe that the bourgeois must go. The same happened in the cultural revolution in China, and in Vietnam. I once visited a psychiatric hospital in Russia where they sent people who had a faith to because they must be mad. I also saw the walls with bullet holes in the nearby miliary base next to the prison.
In barring a student because her views depart from what ‘the psychological research states’, is of the same ilk as banning Einstein because he didn’t believe in Newtonian physics, Leamatre because he believed in the big bang, or Copernicus because he believed the sun didn’t go around the earth. It stiffles diversity and cultural difference. She might be wrong BUT to shut out dissenting perspectives is a dangerous cause to celebrate. Just imagine if the prevailing view was that same-sex relationships must be pyschologically defective, and you might end up with the Christians in the same prison, like in the Soviet times.
Kitty
I agree with Cassandra that it is wrong to talk of throwing Christians to the lions! We should pick a more gay specific animal, like man-eating standard poodles with their fur died pink.That would tell the christians :Keep your Jesus off our penises and we will keep our poodles off of you
Cassandra
Dav
You quoted my statement: “Frankly, atheism is hardly rational, it is just another prejudice like homophobia, and of course, implicit within atheism is antisemitism”
and replied:
“This may possibly be the most irrational statement I have ever read. Atheism, on the contrary, is perfectly rational.”
No, atheism is not. Atheism is the assertion that the majority of human beings for as long as humans have been leaving records, are wrong about their experiences – simply because atheists have not had the same experiences.
That is not rational.
Atheism asserts that the absence of evidence of something is proof it does not exist, which is the heart of irony in the quote I mentioned last night “and that atoms don’t exist because you can’t see them.”
You and your peers cannot see God, and refuse to believe people who do experience God, and therefore, you assert from your absence of evidence that God does not exist. That is not rational.
“The only thing that being an atheist says about a person is that he or she does not believe in any god(s)/supreme being(s)/deity(ies)-whatever you want to call it or them.”
No. You are using a false definition of atheism, essentially confusing it with doubt. Atheism is the explicit statement ‘there is no God’. It is sad that you don’t even truly understand what you are defending and claiming.
Further, because atheism, by explicitly stating ‘there is no God’ negates the testimony and experiences of most of humanity, it says a great deal about atheists. First, it tells us that they refuse to believe other people’s testimony about their own lives, unless it matches what the atheist himself/herself has experienced. Second, the selectivity of the atheist’s refusal indicates prejudice against specific people, because of the millions of things that atheists cannot, will not ever experience directly, the one thing they explicitly and purposely reject is the testimony of one specific group of people.
“I would venture to say that most atheists arrive at this conclusion based on the fact that no concrete evidence has yet to be shown for the existence of such a being;”
Ah, like homophobes, who cannot find any evidence they consider concrete, or trustworthy, to prove to them that homosexuality is not chosen, not harmful, not wrong.
The hypocrisy of atheism is that it cannot provide any concrete proof that God does not exist. To do so, Dav, you would need to know absolutely everything about the entire universe – but – some portion, perhaps most according to some astronomers, is traveling away from earth faster than light (because the universe is expanding) and so, no data from that portion of the universe will ever be available to you. You cannot prove that God does not exist, you simply chose to dismiss the testimony, experiences and lives of most of humanity.
Further, the standard of “concrete” is highly subjective, it has changed thorough out the course of history, not only in legal matter and common usage, but in hard sciences as well. And ironically, few people who embrace science as their replacement for God understand just how in-concrete science usually is. The concreteness we experience and take for granted, is an illusion arising from our perspective, on a quantum level probability rules, and the fact is that our tangible universe, even our tangible bodies, are mostly empty space.
“this is how I became an atheist, personally. In that case, one is merely making a decision about what to believe based on evidence, or lack thereof, which is the very definition of rationality.”
Please do not pull my leg. Since there is no evidence to prove that God does not exist, and the testimony of most of humanity indicating that God does exist – you made a decision based on what you wanted to believe, and who you wanted to believe, rather than on the evidence.
“Anyway, there is also no link whatsoever, between atheism and anti-Semitism.”
LOL. The Jews are a people defined both by their ethnicity and by their religion, but their religion is the more crucial defining factor. Jews are a people defined, in their own culture, by their relationship with God. By stating that God does not exist, atheism is intrinsically anti-Semitic.
“I honestly have no idea where you would even get that idea.”
From studying.
“Jews have been persecuted throughout time by various different religious groups, including Christians, but not, at least in large part, by a significant number of atheists.”
Nice little caveat there in your red herring. Of course, the Soviet Union, an explicitly anti-religious, atheist culture, oppressed Jews, but perhaps not enough people were harmed for you to consider it significant.
However, the fact that in the U.S., atheists have lacked the power to persecute Jews, so far, does not mean that the belief itself is not intrinsically anti-Semitic.
“Furthermore, I believe that you are confusing atheism with anti-theism. As I stated before, atheism simply means to be without religious belief.”
No, you are not using an accurate definition of atheism, and it is interesting that you feel compelled to be dishonest about what atheism actually asserts. According to dictionary.com, antitheist: A disbeliever in the existence of God.
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism is more just just non-belief or doubt, it is an active conclusion about the nature of God. Further, your parsing of the meaning misses the message that atheists on line explicitly communicate. They state ‘there is no God’, and Tallchief, in his/her malice, demonstrates that quite clearly by using the pejorative ‘sky pixie’.
“It does not inherently imply anti-theism as well,”
Sorry, but unless your name is Merriam Webster, you’re just bs’ing people here.
“as there are plenty of atheists who couldn’t care less about the religion of others.”
Such folk must all be without internet access then.
“However, I believe that many atheists, including myself, are also anti-theists, because their use of logic and rational that led them to the be atheists also allowed them to see the terrible harm that religion has caused to society over millenia.”
Your “use” of logic and rational concludes that from the actions of some, all members of a group are suspect. Of course your rational is not accurate, it reflects your pre-conceived notions about causation, rather than the complex and nuanced reality of the history of humankind.
“The Crusade, the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, the constant persecution of Jews throughout history, etc.”
The causation in your examples above were predominantly issues of territorial and political power, rather than religious. Whether you are ignorant of the history of these events, or simply dishonest about them is irrelevant; the fact remains that each of the above driven primarily by issues other than religion, and religion was used as a veneer, an excuse.
The other flaw in your ‘rational’ is the fact that most wars, most human conflict of any kind, has had little basis in religion, most have been about political, personal or material power over resources and people.
What you’ve done is classic bigotry. You’ve cherry-picked the history of religious people, selecting only the negative, ignoring the much greater positive contributions and influences, and decided that the negative supports your pre-existing conclusion.
Bear in mind that all advances to civil liberty, around the world, have their roots in religious beliefs, particularly but not exclusively Christianity. The last century gave us several examples of anti-religious, atheist regimes, and those regimes were oppressive, brutal, destructive. While religion presents an imperfect impediment to the human tendency to oppress and harm, atheism presents no impediment at all, and implicitly defines some people as inferior and therefore, oppress-able.
“While I do think that the world would be better without religion,”
As homophobes do think that the world would be better without homosexuality. That alone should challenge your “rational”, if it were based on rational thinking or logic.
You are saying that the world would be better off without the experiences and testimony, the art, literature, music and ideals (like civil liberty) of most of humanity for as long as humans have existed. You know, East Germany tried that after WWII, it did not work out well for anyone but the elect.
And ‘the elect’ is an important concept, because at the heart of how atheists describe people of faith is the clear and explicit notion that atheist believe they are superior to people of faith. Your desire for a world without religion would require oppressing most of humanity – enslaving >90% of humanity to the “rational” of <10%.
"I am in no way attempting to condemn your beliefs;"
You're just trying to pull a con job while denigrating the lives and experiences of most of humanity solely on the grounds that you haven't experienced the same things they have.
"as well as the fact that you are clearly demonstrating that you have a very prejudicial stance on atheism, which is entirely unsubstantiated."
Interesting. Since I have argued that atheism is only a prejudice, you are complaining that I have prejudiced against prejudice. Where, oh where, have I heard that before?
Oh yeah, from homophobes. They too argue that it is prejudice to criticize their negative, derogatory assumptions about a group of people.
Here's the thing: atheism and homophobia are both, at their heart, conclusions about someone else. The atheist, and the homophobe both are concluding that other people are wrong, bad, mentally ill, delusional, etc. Atheism and homophobia both express themselves in forms of 'you people are bad' or 'those people are bad'.
Sexual orientation and religion are both things one does and is, they are conclusions about self. Sexuality and religion are both based on one's experience, one's own beliefs. Sexuality and religion are both expressed as "I experience" statements.
There is a huge ethical and moral difference between criticizing 'you people are bad' statements (like atheism and homophobia) and criticizing "I experience" statements. The first is criticism of thought processes, opinions, mental constructs, while the second is criticism of people, their experiences and their understanding of their experiences.
Negative conclusions about entire groups of people are prejudice, negative conclusions about mental constructs, like atheism and homophobia, are not.
Further, the abusive language used here by your peers are further evidence to the intrinsic abusiveness and dehumanizing quality of atheism – because it begins by assuming that everyone else is wrong, bad, inferior, it naturally manifests in the contempt and malice articulated by so many anti-religion folk here.
Steve
@Pete B:
It’s not necessarily her beliefs that are the problem. It’s if sh epushes those beliefs onto those she consults is the problem. If a gay student comes to her, there is an ethical road and an unethical road: she can counsel them like any other student or she can tell them what her religion tells her.
The point is, she may be a great counselor, but she also needs to learn to respect the diversity and beliefs of those she consults to be a good counselor. If she can do that, and not preach about her Bible or God, then I say let her be a counselor. If she can’t separate her religious beliefs from a multiethnic setting, then she’s got a serious character fault that could potentially make those she counsels uncomfortable.
David
@Pete B: This is different, in that it’s a question of agreeing to perform counseling according to scientific standards or religious doctrine.
She’s free to do either, but the state supported school awards certificates those who meet their secular standards, which is where she is. She should have enrolled in a religious school for their certification to counsel according to religious doctrine.
Perhaps Jerry Falwell’s university will take Augusta College’s credits toward an accreditation that she does want.
Cassandra
Lanjier
“They come at us, and we fight back — get it?”
If only that were what was going on, if only you and your peers would directing your attention only those people who actually had or are harming GLBTQ people. But you are not. You are lashing out at everyone who shares one particular trait with the people who harmed you.
That is prejudice. Remember, many, many homophobes can point to some GLBTQ person they believe came at them, to excuse their homophobia. That is the very reason for all the ‘think of the children’ propoganda; homophobes are try to portray all homosexuals as a threat. You are using the exact same tactic.
And it is a tactic that has been used in the service of bigotry for a very long time. In Rwanda, the Hutu used the exact same argument to justify murdering some 800,000 people – Tutsis and pro-peace Hutu.
“Gays are morally superior in their position, there is no moral relativity here.”
You are confusing atheism with homosexuality. Any oppressed people have the moral high ground – until they become oppressors in return. I should qualify that, because atheism expresses no moral or ethical position whatsoever.
“Gay anger is not offensive — it is defensive.”
But I’m not talking about gay anger, so your point is irrelevant to the issue I have raised.
Further, the fact that some people of a group have made you angry does not justify behaving just as badly in return. That’s the point I was making earlier – when you allow the prejudice of homophobes to lead you into being prejudiced against people of faith, you’ve lost to the homophobes, they’ve made you one of their own. It doesn’t matter that you target a different group of people, your hate validates theirs.
“Christians deliberately and maliciously target us for violence and inequality under the law based on their bible,”
No. Some people who call themselves Christians deliberately etc. However, other Christians, most of the people who support GLBTQ civil equality, do not oppress GLBTQ people.
“Christians selectively follows hate passages from their magic book,”
Again, you are wrong by exaggeration. Some Christians selectively follow the gotcha verses, others selectively follow passages that require social justice and equality. Atheism only has contempt and dismissal for people of faith, it offers nothing that nurtures anyone. Your dismissal ‘magic book’ is hate speech.
“You are very confused because you fail to see that we are just finishing a fight that they started.”
I’m not confused at all, I’m telling you that the task you have set for yourself is the moral equivalent of the very oppression you are fighting. I’m telling you that you are becoming your enemy, and in doing so, losing to them.
All prejudice is the same basic wrong, the same mental process. Acting out or supporting or nurturing or spreading any prejudice, whether it is racism or homophobia or atheism, nurtures them all. It is not a coincidence that racists also tend to be homophobes and sexist, nor is it a coincidence that racism has escalated in the U.S. after the success of anti-same-sex marriage campaigns and the rise of pop atheism.
Nurture contempt for people because they are different from you, and someone else will nurture hatred of you for being different from them.
David
@Cassandra:
Regarding your definition of the word ATHEISM:
“Atheism is the assertion that the majority of human beings for as long as humans have been leaving records, are wrong about their experiences – simply because atheists have not had the same experiences.”
No doubt you are aware of other definitions of the term, such as
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/Definition_of_Atheism_Dictionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm
and the definition I gave in a previous post.
I beleive that we shall have to agree to disagree on the precise definition of this word.
Nevertheless, you will agree that the Christian God is an atheist, yes?
glasshouses
“Atheism only has contempt and dismissal for people of faith, it offers nothing that nurtures anyone.”
There are approximately 1.1 billion atheists in the world, several of us raising our families in the same belief system. Please qualify how atheism inherently nutures nothing and espouses no ethical framework, as per one of your earlier points.
Cassandra
Roger
“Speaking as an Atheist (who also happens to be an ordained reverend)”
So, essentially, you are the spiritual equivalent of an ex-gay.
GLBTQ people do not, as a generalization, put much trust in the assertions of ex-gays about homosexuality. Why should I put much value in your assertions?
“I find your characterization of atheism as “prejudice against religion” rather (and ironically) prejudiced,”
I’ve covered this at length. Thank you for accusation though. It reminds me of the way ex-gays denounce any criticism of reparative therapy and ex-gay groups as ‘prejudice.
“if religions are like different brands of ice cream and an atheist is nothing more than someone who doesn’t eat an ice cream,”
That’s a fraudulent if statement. Atheism, in your analogy, asserts that ice cream does not exist, and, atheists here state that if anyone who likes the non-existent ice cream is delusional and a threat to society.
Cassandra
Glasshouses
“There are approximately 1.1 billion atheists in the world, several of us raising our families in the same belief system.”
Good grief, please do not make up statistics out of thin air.
“Please qualify how atheism inherently nutures nothing and espouses no ethical framework, as per one of your earlier points.”
Prove that it does. Atheism has only one tenet, one defining statement, and that one is a negative.
glasshouses
Here’s your cite:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
You present an argument that all of those atheists are inherently non-nurturing. What is your proof save “atheism has one tenent” (which is debatable, and further, Christianity has only one god, does that disqualify the argument?)
DAV
@Cassandra:
As I said before, I’m not going to get into an argument with you, but that post is just a whole lotta crazy. I honestly would like to debate what you said, as the vast majority of it is wrong, but I don’t have the time, and frankly, I don’t know where you get the time to comment on here so extensively, unless you don’t have much of a life, in which case I just feel bad for you. I hope that one day you’ll get over yourself, get some friends, get a life, and get out and experience the world, and then maybe one day you won’t be so full of the very prejudice that you rail against. Anyway, today is my birthday, so I’m going to go continue to enjoy it. Good luck with getting that life!
David
@Cassandra:
“Atheism only has contempt and dismissal for people of faith, it offers nothing that nurtures anyone.”
Cassandra, you’ll undoubtedly rejoice to know that atheism is happy to bring you the best “Good News” you’ve ever heard: You have no need to fear eternal damnation after you die, because there is no such thing as Hell.
The Christian religion brings gloomy news: Its god intends to uncerimoniously fling the vast majority of people who ever lived into an unhappy fate of Thousands upon thousand of eternities of unspeakable pain, misery, grief and woe, all for the simple offense of not beleiving in him and his absurd book and immoral messengers and advocates.
The Christian religion is a religion firmly based on Fear; its message is TURN or BURN.
In happy contrast, atheism offers hope and freedom for humanity based on what we can observe with our 5 senses: Once we die, our atoms and molecules will be recycled in the grand compost pile that is Planet Earth, and we will emerge again as bits and pieces of everything else that is on this planet.
Of course, this means that if you want to re-emerge in a future life on a better planet, you might want to take steps to take better care of this planet now.
But other than that, no devils with pitchforks dressed in plaid sportcoats and striped pants will torment you with “I Love Lucy” reruns. There will be no lakes of fire. There will be no “weeping and whaleing and gnashing of false teeth.”
Atheism encourages you to acknowledge what is known through the 5 senses (taste, touch, smell, sound, sight). “Spectral Evidence” was banned during the Salem Witch Trial; there is no need to worry about testimony or evidence that cannot be seen, heard, felt, or otherwise verified, because such evidence is BS.
Yep, atheism makes much more sense to me. I hope someday it will to you as well.
glasshouses
I’m kind of with Dav, even after only a few posts.
Raise a glass to your birthday (and to the air spirits, Isis, Hermes, or none of the above if that’s your thing.)
glasshouses
PS: “But other than that, no devils with pitchforks dressed in plaid sportcoats and striped pants will torment you with “I Love Lucy” reruns. There will be no lakes of fire. There will be no “weeping and whaleing and gnashing of false teeth.”
Oh crap! I’m an atheist and I flock to “I Love Lucy” marathons! Bummer, I guess I better find some religion, but not too much of course if I want to see that one episode where Lucy gets something Ricky said all mixed up, doesn’t get to play at the club, and ends up only making a joke out of it by the end. I love that one!
Cassandra
David wrote:
“Cassandra (She Who Entangles Men)”
When you have to resort to name-calling and insults, David, it indicates that you have no valid argument to make.
“David Tsks:”
Condescension does not indicate, or make, a substantive rebuttal.
“Truth is, to scoff, one does not need to personally participate”
Ah, but scoffing is substantially different from making a statement of fact, as you did. Your statement “many of the Bible’s stories are only stories, and do not reflect actual historical events” is not fact, it is just a case of “speak derisively” rather factually or accurately.
“The tale in Genesis of Adam and Steve would have us beleive that snakes can talk”
Have you been introduced to the concepts of metaphor and parable?
However, since you seem to want to dig in even deeper, your dismissal as ‘only stories’ is a poor one. All human testimony about experiences is story, including biographies and autobiographies. Even science relies on a form of story, a narrative. It may be expressed only in words, like a field observation of behavior, or it may be expressed in numbers, but essentially all science is derived from some form of narrative, some form of reporting some human being’s experience.
Metaphor, which the Genesis account is in the opinion of progressive Christians, and many mainstream Christians, is a kind of story used to communicate concepts that are otherwise difficult to explain.
Now, if you are unwise enough to continue to dismiss ‘stories’ and metaphors, then you have to set aside all human knowledge that you have not personally, directly experienced. You and I both know you won’t do that, and that takes us back to the fundamental wrongness of atheism.
It rejects the testimonies, the stories, the personal accounts of a group of people primarily because of who they are. That is a symptom of prejudice.
“one life experience that confirmed my suspicions that one cannot trust everything one reads . . .”
And yet, you post without supporting evidence, to persuade, communicate, with the expectation that others will trust you.
“The point is sharp –> the Bible makes unreasonable claims.”
No, your point is dull. A literalist interpretation of the Bible makes unreasonable claims, but then, some of the analogies and metaphors that physicists use make pretty unreasonable claims as well.
“It states that during Noah’s flood, . . .”
And science has stated that the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, that it is expanding but will one day contract, and now, that it is expanding so fast, that light from some parts of it will never, ever reach earth. And those are not examples of the metaphors used to explain science principles.
If you dismiss something because you do not understand it, that is neither rational or logical
“Some people are able to swallow this mindless pap,”
There’s that contempt again.
“One does not need to own a bull to know what BS looks like.”
However, if you manufacture your own fecal material and blame it on cattle, don’t be surprised if someone who raises cattle calls you on it. Additionally, you’d be amazed at what science has learned from material that others have dismissed as fecal material.
“And the Bible is full of it.”
No, you interpret a few portions, from an enormous text, in such a way that you see bs, where others find insight.
“I have no problem with anyone who finds comfort in the pages of the Bible or any other book, since life on this planet can frequently be truly awful.”
So? That’s irrelevant to the fact that you defined all Christian thought on one subset of it. Are you changing the subject to avoid acknowledging that you were being dishonest?
“But, if they somehow conclude that other people are obliged to beleive and act the same way they do, and then conspire to inflict their delusions on other people, then they should not despair when those religious opinions are scrutinzed, evaluated, found to be wanting, and derided as foolishness.”
Oh, like atheists then. Do you think that deriding other people is moral behavior?
“Tsk tsk tsk.”
Do you believe that being condescending and belittling is moral behavior?
“David replies: What if a minister discovers a new fact? Can he freely bring his discovery to his congregation without risk of losing his job?”
It varies from congregation to congregation, denomination to denomination, and individual to individual. That is how people of faith brought about the abolition of slavery in the U.S. That is how people of faith started the process that is ending racial discrimination in the U.S.
The interesting thing is that it is equally difficult for scientists to introduce new facts or theories, and they risk their careers if they are wrong or fail to convince their peers.
If I took your argument seriously, you’d have just discredited all of science as well.
“So, I present no lie, no obfuscation, no misrepresentation.”
And yet, you did, by applying events that occur in some congregations to all Christians. That was dishonest. Maybe honesty and accuracy do not matter to you though.
“In most religious organizations, compliance with a defined orthodoxy is encouraged, if not required. Independant thought is discouraged.”
Again, that is a gross distortion of the facts and history of Christianity. Keep in mind, there exist so many different denominations of Christianity because independent thought occurs and exists to this day. If your lie were accurate, there would be only one Christian denomination, instead of the hundreds that exist today.
The real problem is that you really have only a very superficial education about Christianity, and are trying to define two thousand years of human faith, lives and experiences based on what has appeared on TV from tele-evangelists in the last 40 years.
“It is my opinion, borne of some 50 years of life experience, that the Bible contains more fiction than fact,”
And it is the opinion of billions of people, over the course of 2 millenia, that the Bible contains fact, metaphor, poetry, history, philosophy, psychological insight, and, an account of humankind’s relationship with God.
” Atheism is nothing more than the state of being without “theism,” or without religious beleif.”
Please, you’ve been inaccurate about so much so far, at least be accurate about the belief you are defending.
“My cat is an atheist, because she knows nothing about a supreme being (she doesn’t even appreciate me).”
Oh. How exactly do you know what your cat is thinking? Are you suggesting that snakes and ass’s can’t talk, but your cat can? Isn’t your statement above “another example of a talking animal story that one would not need directly witness before it would be proper to doubt, scoff, and jeer”.
Don’t worry, I won’t jeer.
Is it not possible that your cat could experience the Divine and be unable to communicate that experience to you? Is it not presumptuous of you to declare on your cat’s behalf what he/she believes?
“The Christian God is presumably an atheist, because a Supreme Being would know nothing of an entitiy greater than Himself.”
No. Are you mocking and jeering again? God knows God’s self, God is the Ultimate; and therefore, is not an atheist.
But, you’ve provided an excellent lead-in to one hypothesis about the root of atheism.
“So, in that manner, I am not unlike the Christian God. Both of us know nothing about a being greater than ourselves.”
Many people of faith hypothesize that atheists reject God, and religion, because they cannot stand the thought of the existence of something greater than themselves. A less charitable way of putting it is that atheists reject God so they can be their own god, as you have indicated for yourself.
Essentially, you are projecting the assumption that you are the pinnacle of existence, nothing is greater or superior to yourself.
In other words, you do not believe in God because you do not believe that anything exists greater than yourself. Kinda like the way ex-gays believe that homosexuality is mutable because they don’t want to acknowledge that they do not have complete control over their lives.
“Nevertheless, the sooner that the inhabitants of this planet dispose of organized religion with its oppresive doctrines and dogmas, the better off we will all be,”
Again, homophobes say the exact same thing about homosexuality and homosexuals. You have your target for hate and contempt, they have their.
And the history of the 20th century made it very clear that ridding a society of religion doesn’t work well for anyone other than the oppressors at the top. A world run the Stasi would not be an improvement. Your dream requires oppressing most of humanity.
The sad thing is you don’t seem to see how truly terrible that is.
David
@glasshouses:
David wrote: “Cassandra (She Who Entangles Men)”
Cassandra (She Who Entangles Men) replied: When you have to resort to name-calling and insults, David, it indicates that you have no valid argument to make.
David replies: Name-calling, nothing. Do a Wikipedia search on “Cassandra” and you’ll find that’s the Greek meaning of the word.
I am told that my name, “David,” is Hebrew for “Beloved.”
It is what it is . . .
Nevertheless, if you find it disturbing, I will stop.
“David Tsks:”
Condescension does not indicate, or make, a substantive rebuttal.
Neverthelss, one cannot but help to tsk in response to some of the things that one reads . . . However, if you find tsking unnerving, then I will oblige your frailties and cease.
Cassandra
Glasshouse
“Here’s your cite:
http://www.adherents.com/Relig…..rents.html”
Did you even read this citation?
“Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious). ”
“You present an argument that all of those atheists are inherently non-nurturing.”
No, I did not. I stated something very different. You didn’t quote me, so I guessing you meant either:
“I should qualify that, because atheism expresses no moral or ethical position whatsoever.” Post 88
Or
“While religion presents an imperfect impediment to the human tendency to oppress and harm, atheism presents no impediment at all, and implicitly defines some people as inferior and therefore, oppress-able.” Post 85
First, let’s note that the concepts you accused me of using, do not appear in either of these texts, or in my posts.
“What is your proof save “atheism has one tenent” ”
Atheism is defined one by thing – denial of the existence of God/refusal to believe people who have experienced God. That is all there is to it.
Atheists may embrace other philosophies, ideologies, belief structures, codes of conduct, but atheism itself has nothing beyond its denial of the existence of God.
You were invited to provide evidence that atheism has more to offer, and chose not to.
“Christianity has only one god, does that disqualify the argument?”
No, because religions in general, Christianity included, are more than just acknowledging the existence of God. Christianity specifically includes repeated calls to create social justice, an acknowledgment of the imperfection of humans coupled with principles to guide us into toward perfection, justice, equality, mutual relationship.
Bear in mind, that because religion, the construct of testimonies and experiences, conclusions and histories and rituals and poetry and art about God is the testimony of human beings about their lives and experiences, at its heart, atheism is a rejection of those people.
An atheist, is not just not believing in God, he/she is not believing billions of people when they testify to their experiences. And that disbelief is not based on anything concrete or quantifiable, it comes from the ego. So it offers nothing other than a denial of the testimony and experiences of most of humanity.
Further, any moral or ethical code that atheists adopt for themselves is not only external to atheism, but is most likely derived from one or more religions.
The very criticism David mentioned, that Christianity is responsible for wars, is contingent on the premise that war is bad, that killing people is bad, that taking other people’s land is bad. These ideas, the very sense of right and wrong, comes from religion, including Christianity.
In fact, it was rather disingenuous of David, or any other anti-Christian apologist here, to criticize any wrong doing by anyone, since our culture’s notion of right and wrong is primarily derived from the very Bible David rejects “the Bible . . . should not regulate any sort of human conduct”.
His standard for judging Christianity comes from the very text he rejects. If the Bible has no value, then his critique is worthless.
David
David (He who is Beloved) wrote: “The Christian God is presumably an atheist, because a Supreme Being would know nothing of an entitiy greater than Himself.”
Cassandra replied: No. Are you mocking and jeering again? God knows God’s self, God is the Ultimate; and therefore, is not an atheist.
David (He who is Beloved) responds: Galatians 6:7 promises some sort of retaliation from an angry god for mocking and jeering: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
In my humble opinion, the principles known as Determinism make a lot of sense. Basically, everything that exists at this moment is the natural and inevitable consequense of all the conditions in the universe that immediately preceeded it.
However, in this passage from the Book of Galatians, anyone with sufficient spunk to “Mock God” seems to be warned that to do so carries some sort of penalty. But then, in this passage, it also seems to support Determinism: “what you sow is what you reap.”
I have no reason to suppose that the Christian Bible represents the thoughts or intentions of the Creator of the Universe. It has every appearance of being nothing more than just another collection of ancient, moldy, superstitious texts that should be relegated to scholars of antiquity to study. Creation myths are a dime a dozen; the Hebrew myth with its talking snake and “Adam and Steve” who had children who in turn married people from another village, well, that story makes no more sense than anything else I’ve heard from Inuits, Navahos, Greeks, Africans, Aztecs, Chinese, or Hollywood.
So, the warning, “God Is Not Mocked!” is an empty one, and I will be happy to oblige your curiousity to see if I intend to mock the God of the Christian Bible.
I do.
I don’t exactly know how to do so; but I presume much of what I’ve written today would meet with its disdain. I suppose what I could do, right here and now, in front of God and everybody, is “Commit The UnForgivable Sin,” which is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 12:31-32
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
What a bunch of crap. All this BS about Jesus is crap, and all this BS about the Holy Spirit is crap. It’s written by people who want to use religion to control people and keep them in fear. And that is, in my mind, the unforgivable sin. Enslaving people through religion. And oddly enough, threatening atheists with retaliation from an atheist God.
What do these Theists take me for? JHC . . .
So, what’s the natural consequence of writing my opinions and blasphemy? In years past, the Inquisition might drag me out of my house in drag and burn me on a faggot (lol). Lucky for me that those police powers have been taken from religious fanatics, and I am free to write and say what I like (Thank you, President O’Bama).
Anyway, getting back to the original subject — Ms. Keeton and her desire to practice counseling from a religious view instead of the secular view taught by the Augusta State College — she really needs to transfer to a religious college or become a preacher, and then she can be free to abuse the public with her views. But there is no reason why a State supported school has to give her a secular license to preach the Bible to counseling patients.
Mike L.
Would ppl please stop responding to posters like Cassandra, they just like attention.
Besides it’s prolly just a front username for one of the Phelps’ family spawns.
David
Cassandra wrote: “since our culture’s notion of right and wrong is primarily derived from the very Bible David rejects “the Bible . . . should not regulate any sort of human conduct” ”
David Responds: The Bible formed the ethical system of the folks who brought us the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, discrimination against gays, and the machinations of the Popes in Rome.
On the other hand, lots of other cultures do just fine without the Bible. Ancient Greece, the Romans, Africans, the Mayans, Aztecs, Inuits, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, Hawaiians, etc etc etc.
The Bible offers a bizarre menu of what’s right and what’s wrong. Sure, murder and stealing is a universal value, mostly because nobody want his “stuff” ripped off, and nobody wants to be “offed” prematurely.
But the Bible requires killing adulterers, sabbath-breakers, gays, and blasphemers, but allows slavery. What’s up with that? Secular moral systems can do better than that.
Lanjier
Hey Cassandra:
FIGHTING BACK is not behaving badly.
Do you think if Christians had not started their nonsense that we would be angry at them. There is no equivocation here — period.
And I’ll do you one better. If they stop WE will stop. If they REPENT for their harm, hatred and trying to impose their beliefs on secular laws — and start acting like Americans — the argument will be over tomorrow.
But if we stop, do you think for one minute that they will stop their attacks? NO FUCKING WAY.
So there is no equivocation. They started it, and we are going to finish it.
David
@Mike L.: Sorry for all the bile that we’ve been tossing back and forth.
In previous chats with theists, I’ve found the back-and-forth to be an interesting exhange in which to hone my arguments. I understand that most glbt folks are religious/spiritual, and most people are uncomfortable with some of my views.
I usually confine my excoriations to fundamentalists who feel that the Bible trumps government regulations. Occasionally, an odd duck like Cassandra shows up, and approaches gay issues from a different angle, and it’s like throwing red meat to a polar bear.
Perhaps we can moderate our exchanges in the future . . .
Best wishes;
-David
ewe
No Christian can be a qualified counselor because they insist on pushing a story that is so fanatically rediculous that it is no different than a therapist insisting that there is an Easter Bunny. Crazy. Cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Wake the fuck up.
Mike L.
@David:She’s just a xtian troll, ppl like her aren’t logical, she prolly thinks that when she debates atheists, or LGBT christians she’s debating agianst the devil, and that everything coming out of your their mouths is just deception and lies. I worked w two evangelical xtian reconstructionists for two years in the past, trust me that is exactly what they think.
David
@Mike L.: Reconstructionists? My sympathies . . . The worst of the worst.
I’m sorta new to posting here; I’ll look and see what’s going on . . .
Best,
Mike L.
@David: Yes stuff like taking over the government with xtian canditates for all parts of gov and this is a xtian nation, there is no such thing as separation of church and state, all the founding fathers were godfearing xtian men, also and this is a kicker, stuff like we would still have slaves if only the slave owners had treated their slaves right as the bible commands (YES, crazy!), speaking in tongues b/c that is prayer only god can understand and the devil can’t, also they heard god’s voice in their heads w their own voice and he tells thems what to do w their money and other things in their life (it sounds crazy but this is what I lived through at work for two years of my life).
Ahh, and faith healing.
Sorry my writing is all a jumbled up run on sentence lol.
p.s. they were also followers of Lou Engle from TheCall. Who when they went to Uganda actually supported what they were doing with regard to their “kill the gays” bill.
peace.
Steve
Can you stop having this pointless discussion about metaphysics? If you want to talk about such things, try a place like friendlyatheist.com. You can find some great comments there.
To get back on topic, here is the complaint:
http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/KeetonComplaint.pdf
This is about one thing only:
She believes in that Christianity applies to everyone regardless of what they themselves belief and think.
She wants to force her faith on other people and can’t conceive that this isn’t right or at least that there may be circumstances and situations where it’s completely unethical. And she flat out admits that she can’t disassociate her beliefs from her work if she works as a counselor. That alone obviously disqualifies her from the job she seeks.
It’s the typical christian persecution complex. Trying to meddle in other people’s lifes and then crying victim when they don’t get their way. And all too often, they have blood on their hands in the process.
David
@David: Yep, I know the type.
I was gonna call it quits for a while, but it dawned on me that Cassandra never answered my Bible Criticism in post #40 (other than change the subject), and I was gonna return here just to mention that . . . the whole Moses thing never really happened, it’s just a folk tale, just like lots of other stuff in the Old Testament. And the New Testament is built on top of that, which puts it on a shaky, crumbling foundation. The whole thing is BS, and there’s no legitimate basis for using the Bible to beat up on gay people.
Huhnh . . .
Anyway . . . I wonder why Cassandra bothers to troll through Queerty. If she’s averse to gay sex, well, I’m sure she could visit folks at a NASCAR website or maybe chat with dental hygenists or Veterans or something.
Is she a religion-befuddled closet queen or something? That’s a horrible affliction right there; took me years to get over the religion-inspired guilt and fear that the fundamentalist churches put in me. Years. If it wasn’t for my being gay and having the good fortune to meet Madelyn Murray O’Hair before she was murdered, I’d still be mired in religious guilt.
Oh well . . . ttyl . . .
axos
@David:
Points for trying to talk to Cassandra – it’s hopeless, though, I tried for a brief moment and she is just rambling. She mixes everything up, her line of argument is A followed by Z followed by a pear, and then apple jam and discarded typewriters… and if you successfully challenge her on one point, she just avoids it and moves on to another. She doesn’t want a discussion, she doesn’t know how to do that.
Jeffree
We seem to be in 95% agreement that this lady needs to switch to another training program in another field in another school, where her beliefs won’t get in the way of her ability to perform her career. Bottomline.
@David #111 Check the NOM/speaking in tongues thread: I left you 2 ideas on books you could write!
Jeffree
I will give props to Cassandra for something: whenever some fundie comes on the site to argue about scripture, she goes toe to toe with them. She’s truly fierce. She can quote chapter line & verse and they invariably give up.
I don’t share her faith, but there are times when we need her on our side.
I could do without the 4000 word lectures—sure—but you know when we get slammed, she’s there.
BTW, I’m a non-theistic Vajrayana Buddhist, but thats philosophy, not religion for me. And I don’t preach !
Mike L.
@Jeffree: Uh is Cassandra a gay here???
axos
Steve – thanks for the link to the complaint. Now I’ve read it.
Although I think it was unethical for the university to weigh in Jennifer’s private conversations unless she was preaching to or bullying her fellow students – private conversations may be the way to growth – the pivotal point is Jennifer’s stance that she does not believe she could tell future clients that it’s OK to be homosexual. She believed it would be enough to simply “treat everyone equal”, which to her seems to mean that she’d be polite and pleasant, in other words “hate the sin but not the sinner”. This is not enough, though, and she would not be able to help a gay person in need of reassurance to get peace in her/his life. She should not continue her studies there and for that profession.
That said, there was something in ASU’s argument that disturbed me, the demand that the therapist reaffirm each and any of a client’s standpoints and help the client reach her/his goals, regardless of what they may be. This could be a Nazi trying to overcome squeemishness about the holocaust, for instance, with the goal to be fully accepted by other Nazis. The profession cannot be totally void of ethical principles, they have to take the time to formulate a standard that pertains to basic human rights.
I also think maybe they were approaching Jennifer the wrong way. It appears their goal from start was to get rid of her, not give her a chance to grow and develop her knowledge about LGTB facts. Giving her the adequate literature and demanding her to spend time with the gay community (if they’d want her) was a proper idea, but they were obviously not expecting her to succeed. The issue of her thinking that homosexuality is a choice should have been addressed by presenting simple facts that have in themselves nothing to do with “beliefs”. The issue is not in itself religion, it’s whether Jennifer was unwilling to recognize scientific facts and incorporate them in her thinking and work.
Jeffree
@Axos: I understand your reservations. As an accredited school preparing students to become creditentialed counselors, the school needs to assure that students understand & are able/willing to adhere to professional standards, including knowlege & ethics.
Part of that includes nondiscrimination. If the student can not adhere to those ethics, s/he cannot obtain or succeed at an internship [or “practicum”] and thus is destined not to complete the program successfully. A counselor who believed certain ethnic groups should be directed to vocational training rather than university would be in the same boat. They would be encouraged to pursue a different program. Same would go for a nursing student who had phobias about blood/germs !
@Mike L: I believe she is but youd have to ask her that question. She’s very up to speed on bible verses about GLBT issues and defends us with an ironfist—in no fewer that 1500 words per post !
[I had help composing this message]
Roger
@Cassandra: @Cassandra:
“So, essentially, you are the spiritual equivalent of an ex-gay.”
No, I am not nor was I ever a christian, I’ve always been an atheist, the title of minister just means I teach the bible, nothing wrong with teaching people the “turn the other cheek” parts of the bible, just like teaching the “don’t go and sell other people’s debts to turn a profit” parts of the quran, if it’s good advice then it’s good advice.
“GLBTQ people do not, as a generalization, put much trust in the assertions of ex-gays about homosexuality. Why should I put much value in your assertions?”
You don’t have to, that’s the beautify of free will, if I assert that the sky is blue then you are free to believe otherwise.
“I’ve covered this at length. Thank you for accusation though. It reminds me of the way ex-gays denounce any criticism of reparative therapy and ex-gay groups as ‘prejudice.”
You are most welcome, and I can see you are attempting to confuse me with accusations of hypocricy using words that would typically be used by people who are stereotypically “on my side”, your attempt has failed and I am losing intrest in this childish game.
“That’s a fraudulent if statement. Atheism, in your analogy, asserts that ice cream does not exist, and, atheists here state that if anyone who likes the non-existent ice cream is delusional and a threat to society.”
Considering how you totally disregard what other people here say including your assertion that you know more about the beliefs of atheism than actual day-to-day atheists and intentionally slander groups of people while accusing others of the same hypocracy, I would reasonably guess that you are obviously here to ilicit a reply and not to actually learn from others, and in response I am denying you the priviliage of further attention from me unless I see an actual attempt to pay attention to what others say.
Good day madam.
Cj Maciejeski
Well, SOMEONE got an A in her logic and rhetorical debate courses.
Michael L. Seam
This country needs to wake up and seperate itself from these religious orginizations, institutions and minds….religion IS indeed harmful when it casts a spell on how others should lead their lives, and more and more we’re observing religious individuals who don’t want to keep their (unproven and self made) faith to themselves, they demand everyone convert to their way of life and thinking. That is harmful. That is wrong and that needs to be addressed. Fundementalist Christians in this country are doing exactly what fundementalist Muslims did to middle eastern countries…they are taking the country backward. Take Iran for example. Secular nation full of freedom, vibrance and liberties only to be conquered by those who harpoon about an after life, and heaven, and clouds and one unproven anecdote after another. We need to put a stop to these people ruling the lives and heads of our countries youth, because religious forces dominating a society is a recipe for disaster and halts the natural forward thinking progress that is essential to the livelihood of free thinking socities.
Religious people are often born in to their religion, don’t question it and demand you be the same. They have the right to choose to think as they may…don’t give them a platform to voice it and brainwash others minds with loads of wishful thinking.
Jane
Although I do believe in God and have faith, I will say the most noble people I know in my life who have ALWAYS been there for me in times of need and have proven being faith based or not has absolutely nothing to do with morality and principles were non believers and those with no religious beliefs, whereas the people who’ve done me wrong time and time again, stole from me with out any remorse were those who were the loudest Christians and believers I’ve ever known. These personal experiences, even as a believer myself, have made me realize athiesim does not mean no morals..often times, athiests I know appreciate life and living life in the moment far more so than many “religious” types I’ve encountered at work and in my family whom seem to be preaching just to attain a prize at the end of the tunnel and not to inherently do good, just get rewarded for it.
and again, I say this as someone who is a believer, but as they say, Christianity may not be bad, but it’s followers often prove to be time and time again.
Alexander
OMG!!! It’s a Carrie Prejean clone =O
Dookie
Do we really want her to be forced to hide who she is or what she believes? Do we really want her to be told she can’t perform a job for those same views/beliefs?
How is that any different than the current view the military has on gays?
Tolerance is a two way street. I refuse to become that which I’ve fought against my whole life.
Joseph
“She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces.”
She got it wrong. There is a right answer to this question and she got it wrong. If a lawyer answers question wrong on the bar they don’t pass. Counseling is a profession that requires certification and if someone answers those question wrong they don’t pass. she cannot practice counseling when she gets important answers like this wrong.
glasshouses
“Do we really want her to be told she can’t perform a job for those same views/beliefs?”
When those views are contrary to the professional contentions of the discipline in which she wishes to practice, yes. She is completely welcome to try to persuade the APA that they should change the DSM that she is obligated to uphold. Until then, the guidelines for practicing counselors are set and she is expected to uphold them if she wishes to be a professional in the field. If she does not, she will have to accept the consequences of breaking with the established guidelines of her discipline.
As to what she believes on her own in her private, non-professional world: go for it. She can believe in Christ, or the man in the moon, or the sugar plum fairy in her private life. She doesn’t have the right to demand that the profession that she is espousing be expected to do the same.
Roger
Even if she passes this course I’m not gonna hire her to council my employees as long as she’s going to keep insisting that being gay isa choice, title 7 doesn’t protect religious bigotry, case in point I can refuse to hire her if she isn’t going to do the job I expect her to do because of religion, she’s free to take up any other position for the same pay if she wants to as long she doesn’t cause trouble.
she’s still acting like someone who’s afraid of blood on religious grounds suing a nursing program to let her pass without seeing a surgery, she missed the point of “getting a better job through higher education”.
axos
@Dookie:
From an educational point of view, there’s no difference between a religious opinion or any other opinion. She has no grounds what so ever for her opinion that being gay is a choice (and a bad one, at that), other than she thinks it’s “in the Bible”. She is simply wrong, as she would be wrong if she would tell people to walk out in the water without a boat because she thinks she has a religious calling and can part the water. Both those views are simply wrong, and harmful. So she should not pass.
There is a huge difference between not passing an unqualified student and discriminate against gays in the military. There is no reasonable base for the latter. On the contrary – SHE is the one being like the military.
Skrewdriver
Do all of you sickos honestly think she is the first psychologist to think this way?
http://www.narth.com/index.html
Do you really think Christianity is to blame? Gays and lesbians are an abomination to evolution. You don’t even have biology to stand on. You’re only defense is most of the world feigning being politically correct.
Look at how you have sex. Honestly….just plain nasty.
They had to close your bathhouses, run you out of parks, ship your Catholic brothers from church to church when they bugger little boys. Your own families are ashamed of you and won’t admit it. Not to mention nambla being at those “gay pride parades” they want her to attend.
Queers, the new Nazi party. If you don’t believe the way they do they’ll put you in camps.
Tallskin
Skrewdriver you ignorant shit stain on the underpants of mankind, do you know nothing of history or biology?
Dunno why I am bothering to argue with you. Well I am not actually, I am saying this for the benefit of my fellow gays who step in reeking shit like you sometimes and aren’t sure of the best way to wipe it off their shoes without leaving unpleasant stains on the leather.
And YES Christianity is to blame. All the homophobia of western culture comes from christianity. The first anti gay laws in the west were passed soon after the emperor constantine made that filthy sky pixie cult the state religion of the roman empire back in the 4th century AD.
And as for your silly and ignorant comments about evolution, well you obviously know nothing about evolution. Homosexuality is common, very very common in the animal kingdom. You must read nothing but Klu Klux Klan comix to not have read about that over the past ten years.
I am sure others can pick up this from where I’m leaving off !!
Tallskin
Goddamit, why the fuck has queerty blocked from responding to this skrewdriver wanker??
Your comment is awaiting moderation. Our system might have erroneously auto-flagged your comment as spam; if so, we’ll fix it quickly. Or maybe you previously abused your commenting privileges, violated our Comments Policy, included a link to a known SPAM/harmful site, posted comments that detracted from the conversation, or have been repeatedly flagged by other users for being a jerk — in which case we won’t publish your comment.
Esperando
This reminds me of Carrie Prejean crying “discrimination” because her rambling, incoherent, factually inaccurate (“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.” Actually we don’t, just ask the voters that passed prop 8 and dozens of CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS banning same-sex marriage, or the legislators that drafted the DOMA.) speech praising the exclusion of same sex couples from society and secure family life didn’t automatically net her a miss America crown. Christians do indeed have a right to hold whatever belief they like, but that right does not extend to the content of their beliefs. Beliefs have consequences, and if those consequences materially interfere with the performance of a job, then they cannot be countenanced. A Christian who believes, based on literal interpretations of scripture, that the world is flat and has corners, should not be teaching earth science and geography. A Christian who reads the story of Phinehas and Paul’s epistles as banning interracial marriage shouldn’t be a marriage counselor. Likewise, when a gay teen who is mercilessly bullied at his high school turns to his counselor for support, he shouldn’t find someone who is more sympathetic to his bullies than to him. All of our rights extend only so far as they do not violate the rights of others. That principle applies even when those others are gay.
axos
Tallskin – I was blocked once too, for no reason. I think it was because I used the anatomically correct words for human genitalia, instead of the slang words. 😉 So just rephrase your post!
nikko
@David:Thanks, DAVID. I’m just too lazy to write much, like CASSANDRA and you!!!Peace.
Ponyboy
Screwdriver is an idiot, plain and simple. To bad there is no god to cleanse him from the planet.
Bryan
@B: she does seriously look like ann coulter though! You just mix hate, peroxide blond hair, and a meth problem, and, voila.
Unpopular
Not everyone gets to be what they want to when they grow up.
oatc
@Qjersey: “why do christian women in their 20s insist on using that “baby girl” voice?”
Simple, because their religion uses the psychological mechanism inbuilt to make us comply with our father’s protection as infants as the core of its manipulation, and thus infantalises its followers. It doesn’t have to be as obvious as titling the head of the church Papa.
Tasha Walsh
@concernedcitizen:
That is exactly what happened to my best friend. She was struggling with realizing she was gay and sought help to deal with it, because she was in a very negative family situation. She was unfortunately referred to a “counselor” like Jennifer, where she told that not only would she be unable to take my friend on as a client, but why. Which was of course, because she was Christian and believed it was a sin. Fifteen years later, my friend is out and proud with a wonderful wife. But she has never forgotten the shame she experienced at the hands of someone who was supposed to help her.
axos
@Skrewdriver:
You write: “Look at how you have sex. Honestly….just plain nasty.”
You sound upset. I really think you should get rid of your gay porn.
Can't Wait For The Next Purging
Seriously, The world has definitely lost its moral compass. That’s OK though because we knows it’s a pendulum swing. Right now it has swung to the view that your abomination is OK. That’s fine. The pendulum WILL swing the other way eventually. I personally hope that I’m there to see it. Then maybe we can go back to the “Smear The Queer” games, or other fun gay-bashing sport.
Enjoy your time homo’s…..it won’t be long before the world rights itself again! LOLOLOL!!!!!!
glasshouses
Oh goodie! Looks like “Can’t Wait For The Next Purging” came out to play.
All right, ‘fess up: Who let the troll out? You’re supposed to keep them in their cage during feeding time, not let them roam. They only get crankier when they smell the light of day.
So, “Purging” (can I just call you that for short? I mean, it’s close to the vomit that you are) why don’t you just go slink and slime your way back under your bridge now, go on, or I might have to pour salt on you and watch you shrivel up in a mass of stinking, putrid ooze.
adman
@Cassandra: Ah Cassandra, a mixed bag, are you not? Some of your posts I agree with, but the false equivalence in your post is total, and your blindness this morning sort of woke me up. LGBT’s do not go around persecuting Christians, OK? Say it aloud to yourself, whatever, but we do not enjoy the same rights to affect outcomes in American society the way the religious do, and we are speaking from a place of ethical truth when we describe our experiences and thoughts stemming from our experinces as LGBT’s. You as a Christian, are not.
Your Christian homophobe overlords will not, can not, and possibly couldn’t even imagine how to form the words to say the same thing. Get it right if you’re going to be an apologist, you advocate for the lore of a 2000 year old desert tribe to be our mutual proxy for truth. And that means all truth, even the things that are true that have yet to be revealed, nobody in the thread has dome anything of the sort, so again get it right!
nikko
@Can’t Wait For The Next Purging: Loser. Come put yourself up against me, you vile shit, I’ll show you…aargh!
Steve
Her religious beliefs are not the issue. The issue is her stated intention to violate the Code of Ethics of the American Counseling Association.
The ACA Code of Ethics states, in part:
“C.5. Nondiscrimination
Counselors do not condone or engage
in discrimination based on age, culture,
disability, ethnicity, race, religion/
spirituality, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, marital status/
partnership, language preference,
socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed
by law. Counselors do not discriminate
against clients, students, employees,
supervisees, or research participants
in a manner that has a negative
impact on these persons.”
If she refuses to subscribe to that Code of Ethics, she cannot be licensed, not even as an intern or assistant.
There are good reasons why Codes of Ethics are required. I would not want to be a patient of any professional who does not subscribe to the Code of Ethics of his or her profession.
S
The judge dismissed the case (ruling in favor of the university):
http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Upholds-Dismissal-of/123704/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
brenda
@Bill:
Firstly. a great deal of anti homosexuality comes from the book of Leviticus which is found in the old testiment. the old testiment is the foundation of judism. here was an attempt to remove judism from the world in the 30s and 40s . It only served to make in many cases, a stronger identity for the jewish faith and a more fervent need for a jewish homeland. Are you saying that you agree with the Nazis who set out to rid the word of a major religion? After you have removed all christians from society I supose the jews would be next. Just in time for someone to impose Sharia law.
The foundation of our choutry was based on christian ideals, and one of them would be freedom to express oppposing views on subjects with out reprocussions of violence.
While I question how her spiritual beliefs became part of the equation in whether she is qualified to be a counselor. She most like did not exercise prudence in announceing her beliefs. that makes her qualifications questionable. I believe your answer to her supposed intolerance is the most intolerant of all
gilber
ancient theologians under the disguise of philosophers have created a putrid and false system of morality. They hijacked and corrupted the field of psychophysics. Heterosexuality can’t be moral under any condition because it requires sexual deviancy. Sexual deviancy in psychophysical terms is the arousal with body parts, liquids etc that are not sexually related such as penis-vulva, usually a strong mismatch in size, function, physiology, and composition is observed. Only a psychometric model can reveal the truth about the mechanism taking place as a consequence of insemination with contrary physiological system. This model is based on emission/absorption. In the hypothetical model a maximum is reached. If this hypothesis is true then homosexuals should be able to let’s say just make a phone call to the homosexuals under that condition and ask them question such as are you sexual inverts? which coupling state is more disordered? and many others, heterosexuals should ask the same question to those with their same condition. Sexuality is not insemination but it can be involved in it, it is due to a process of mental absorptivity and excitation expressed as heterophilia or homophilia, Insemination is physiological. homosexuals must understand the modus operandi of the psychophysical sexual deviant vs the non sexual deviants etc. monosexuality and disexuality should be proven by constructing a psychophysical model involving changes in structure and composition, isolation and amplification, even possibly including alien beings as part of the model. the model aims at understanding the behavior of the mind, it looks for stressors, stabilizers etc. then a scale is built to quantify this changes. keywords for the analysis are sexual dimorphism, emission/absorption, binding and absorptivity,isomorphism,symmetry,polarity,belonging,congruency,wholeness,unity etc.
gilber
ancient theologians under the disguise of philosophers have created a putrid and false system of morality. They hijacked and corrupted the field of psychophysics. Heterosexuality can’t be moral under any condition because it requires sexual deviancy. Sexual deviancy in psychophysical terms is the arousal with body parts, liquids etc that are not sexually related, usually a strong mismatch in size, function, physiology, and composition is observed. Only a psychometric model can reveal the truth about the mechanism taking place as a consequence of insemination with contrary physiological system. This model is based on emission/absorption. In the hypothetical model a maximum is reached. If this hypothesis is true then homosexuals should be able to let’s say just make a phone call to the homosexuals under that condition and ask them question such as are you sexual inverts? which coupling state is more disordered? and many others, heterosexuals should ask the same question to those with their same condition. Sexuality is not insemination but it can be involved in it, it is due to a process of mental absorptivity and excitation expressed as heterophilia or homophilia, Insemination is physiological. homosexuals must understand the modus operandi of the psychophysical sexual deviant vs the non sexual deviants etc. monosexuality and disexuality should be proven by constructing a psychophysical model involving changes in structure and composition, isolation and amplification, even possibly including alien beings as part of the model. the model aims at understanding the behavior of the mind, it looks for stressors, stabilizers etc. then a scale is built to quantify this changes. keywords for the analysis are sexual dimorphism, emission/absorption, binding and absorptivity,isomorphism,symmetry,polarity,belonging,congruency,wholeness,unity etc.
TheIrony
The Irony of this is that even is she wins her lawsuit – NO SCHOOL in their right mind would ever hire a counselor who has pushed this publicity stunt and who has a precedent for going as far as SUING a SCHOOL! IMHO – Congratulations Jenny Keeton – you just screwed yourself out of a job in the best schools in the country – Enjoy counseling in private Christian Schools… At least you’ll never counsel my kid! 🙂
David
Disgusting
Carl
Jesus never condemned homosexuality.
“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. To him who can comprehend, that is enough.” (Matthew 19:12
William
No question this girl’s notions are wrong, but this school has made a huge legal mistake, and will likely have to pay if this thing gets to court. Her attorney will argue the State supported school is forcing their religious beliefs on this girl and mandating her adherence to their code of thought as a condition of employment. Their additional problem is the odd forced “remediation” program. The school’s better play would have been to reprimand the girl, advising she is free to believe as she chooses, but leave her beliefs at home, and away from the students. Might suck, but the law is very much on her side in this one.
Ryan
I don’t wanna be rude, but GO TO HELL GIRL!
George
I don’t understand why you are all so mad about this? She’s allowed to think the way she wants to just like you are. She’s not out dragging homosexuals by a chain behind her truck, she just merely thinks it’s an immoral sexual fetish. What’s so wrong about having an opinion?
nikko
@Carl: Thanks, CARL. I’m amazed at how many christians don’t see the homo part of “born so from the mother’s womb” in referring to men who don’t marry. Hello??!!
donna
@Jack E. Jett:
OMG! this comment is so funny because here in Augusta on the Augusta Chronicle’s discussion board, this observation kept coming up. Ha! Thanks for making me laugh after fending off these religious fanatics all day.
Joseph Mulroney
@Tallskin:
Yes, Cassandra is an obvious troll obviously here to get a rise out of people.
Kevin
So if we put all gays on an island how long would they last?? You know the answer.
slayer1
I am looking forward to an answer to the big question.. HOW LONG WOULD GAYS LAST ON A ISLAND. AND NO CROSSING THE LINE!! SO IF GOD IS SO ACCEPTING OF GAYS WHY CAN’T THEY REPRODUCE??? SO WHO IS RIGHT!!!!
slayer1
So… What ever higher level gays beleive in has not answered their big question either.. How can gays reproduce with out crossing the line.. YOU CAN’T!!! GAYS ARE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE CAST OUT BY THE NORMAL PEOPLE!!
slayer1
OHH AND WAIT!! HATE THEMSELFS!!!!
nikko
SLAYER1, homosexuality is for pleasure and bonding between the same sex, not reproduction. That’s heterosexual’s primary function. Not that populating the earth is really your major concern at this point in history. You’re sung that reproduction excuse as a distraction for your mostly false argument. Most males and females are homosocial, so in a “homosexual society’, the opposite sexes would get together when necessary and…procreate! that’s right, there are societies(or have been where (Siwan, I think it was)where such a social order existed. because when you think of it, most males and females have little or nothing in common, apart from having sex (and even that is highly debatable) and breeding. Most of us stick to our own, and hetero males have proven that time and time again with “battle of the sexes” and other very real incompatibilty issues between the sexes. It’s quite a homo world after all, buddy.And don’t worry, the world will never be underpopulated.
Nick
I actually am from Augusta GA and hold a business degree from ASU. I am so happy to read this story. I was in Augusta this past weekend and didn’t even hear a mention of the story. On the way home today it was brought up by Alexis Stewart on her Sirius radio show. WHAT A DUMB BITCH! I am glad I no longer live in Augusta around people like her. I loved my time at ASU and my diverse professors. My only hope is that an organization like GLAAD goes to help ASU.
David
@slayer1: Oddly enough, here in suburban Dallas, a large % of my business customers are conservative and Republican, and as such, are very closeted. After talking with them over the years, I discover that not only are they gay, but about 1/3 of them actually do have children from current or previous marriages.
Seems to me that for the folks who are fearful that gay marriage will deplete the planet of its population, maybe they’d be willing to compromise on this point — to allow gay marriage to gays who have already had one or two children.
Then again, since they aren’t really worried about global depopulation, I doubt they’d be open to this possibility . . .
————
God is an atheist
To be more like God,
I became an atheist.
————
What? You’re telling me that a god
that nobody’s ever seen plans to send my soul–
and nobody’s ever seen one of those–to a place of eternal punishment
that nobody–not even Mapquest–has seen or knows where it is? And you say you got this bit of information from the Christian Bible, which is full of stories of talking animals and is ok with slavery and punishes Sabbath breakers and adulterers with death?
I’m not referring to anatomy when I say, ‘You’re nuts!’
kt
I am a counselor and am abhorred by this woman. I think that what the school did is absolutely correct. As professionals our job is to LISTEN to our clients and help them come to a better understanding and/or awareness of themselves, it is NOT a place for us to ask leading or directing questions in order to push an agenda one way or another. We don’t give advice even if asked, and as the foundation of every program I have ever encountered, the value of being aware of one’s own biases is imperative. By this I mean that it is ok to be a Christian (or any religion!) and a counselor, a person just needs to understand how his/her views may affect the work that is done with clients…and thus take steps to educate him/herself on how best to interact with clients so that these views don’t negatively affect the therapy or the relationship. The fact of the matter is that this young woman was not even willing to examine her own views in terms of how they might affect her clients (condemning those who may be gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc.) and thus she lacks personal insight and awareness that is essential in this type of work. By refusing to attend diversity trainings, she appears extremely close minded and almost afraid to examine her own beliefs systems, which again is something we ask our clients to do. Is she afraid to look at the world from another perspective? How can you ask your client to do this when you can’t even do it yourself??
I believe there is some Bible verse somewhere (forgive me, as I’m no scholar on it) regarding how one not be so concerned with the speck in the eye of his friend before removing the log that is in his own eye. Case and point. Take a good hard look at your own biases and how they may affect others lady before you try to help someone else.
David
@slayer1:
“I am looking forward to an answer to the big question.. HOW LONG WOULD GAYS LAST ON A ISLAND. AND NO CROSSING THE LINE!! SO IF GOD IS SO ACCEPTING OF GAYS WHY CAN’T THEY REPRODUCE??? SO WHO IS RIGHT!!!!”
There’s no way to know.
We would turn the island into a tourist attraction, and before long we’d have lots and lots of heterosexuals having kids and enough of the new children would be gay to replace the old queens who died of old age.
I’m sure you’ll be happy and releived to know that the planet’s population is not imperiled from lack of co-interested heterosexuals. Should that situation ever change, you’ll be glad to know that I shall delegate all my egg-fertilization duties to you, will all its attendant pleasures.
Best wishes,
–David
Rebecca
@David:
I agree with your statement except for the Muslim tradition of female circumcision… that’s actually North Africa. I’m Muslim, and a female (yep, on Queerty for this comment), and I certainly do not know anyone who has ever even thought of thinking about contemplating a possible decision for doing female circumcision to anyone.
Peace
utyityutyr5tt43j5t34f34h
Uh, duh, the answer is ‘no’. What, is this like a trick question? How can someone with such a warped view of morality (a follower of a religion that includes bits like you can force a woman to marry after you’ve raped her so long as you pay her daddy off in silver) possibly be competent as a counselor?
andy
@concernedcitizen: and what about those who “force” confused kids in “helping their decision” that they are gay, should they be allowed? probably, and that is exactely what is doubleminded in the entire system. someone who has values is treated as trash whilst tjose who are mainly resposible for a continual growth of sexual tranferable disaeses are applauded… this is hypocricy to the bones,