Tom Usher wrote or added |"In a 48-page decision Monday, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward's lawsuit, saying essentially that Ward was treated poorly but not censored.
"'The university had a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values,' Steeh wrote in his opinion. 'In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs — including homosexual relationships.'"
This article is too vague for my tastes. In order to be properly informed, one would need to know the relationships between and among "treated poorly," "censored," and "requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values" as put forth by the judge. We are left with insufficient information regarding the supposed core points of the judge.
The issue of homosexuality is always a personal ... value. If a counselor in training agrees with the position that affirming homosexual relations is a good thing for the client, then that's still a personal value. There's no objectivity in the course material requiring a student to affirm homosexuality. It's completely arbitrary.
If the idea here is to refuse counseling degrees to all those who do not believe that homosexuality is immutable or always harmless or sanctioned by one's particular religion (in this case Christianity), then it appears time for a two-track program in the major universities — one for those who believe homosexuality is immutable and harmless and one for those who believe it is mutable and harmful (at least, among other instances, for those who desire to be rid of same-sex attraction or to reduce the "symptoms" as it were).
This is a legal and political decision. The US Constitution is not silent on Religion. The free-exercise clause was put there for what the vast majority of citizens who pushed for the Bill of Rights at the time felt were very good reasons. Much evil has been done in the name of "established" religions. The major universities in question here are tax-payer supported. For such institutions to force students to affirm homosexuality or be penalized goes directly against the whole point of the free-exercise clause. The judges in these cases are poor. It would have been an easy matter for the judges to say that the federal Constitution guarantees that the students in question may hold and hold forth with their religious views on the subject of homosexuality and to refuse to affirm the behavior in or out of class without being subjected to discrimination on account of the religious belief or persecution for same, which planned "remediation" certainly constitutes both discrimination and persecution. Who needs "a 48-page decision" to say that? No wonder the justice system is bogged down.
There are instances where religious free-exercise begins to do more harm than good. If the religious view is to stone all homosexuals to death, there's a place where the homosexuals' very existence in the flesh must be weighed against the call of the particular religion. No matter what, the Christian religion is opposed to all stoning regardless.
The hair here though may be continued being split. The argument in "psychology" and "psychiatry" comes down to lesser of evils or greater harm, individually and societally, and even benefit to the same. One side says the greater good across-the-board lies in affirming homosexuality. The others says that the good lies in people not engaging in homosexuality in feeling, thought, word, or deed. There are of course variations on these opposite positions. Some counselors simply will help the patient with what the patient wants to accomplish and will not take a stand concerning the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, per se.
Regardless, it is a sorry state of affairs when the secular state can't see its way clear to uphold its ostensible highest law, the US Constitution in this case, that includes the Bill of Rights, which guarantees that the government will not establish a religion but will also not bar the free exercise of religion. The bad decisions by these two judges does bar that free exercise and does establish an enforced anti-Christian dogma, which itself is tantamount to a religion — the religion of that state — established. Religion doesn't have to be theistic. Many Buddhists are atheistic, yet Buddhism is certainly a religion. A state could establish it as the official religion of the state. Consider that Tibet used to be such a state until the Communist Chinese under Mao moved in and took over and established a new "religion" of sorts.
Terms, people, organizations, etc.:
Augusta State University
Eastern Michigan University
Alliance Defense Fund
David French, attorney
U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh
Mike Brown, a discrimination and employment lawyer in Augusta, Georgia
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)