Comments on: Judge Rules That Christianity Is Indeed No Longer Allowed At Public Universities

By: WilliamJamesWard

WilliamJamesWard — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:59:05 +0000

It makes me angry that the student can not express their own views and beliefs while defending
themselves in what is supposed to be and educational environment. How are counselors
supposed to help people free up their minds from problems when their own minds have been
nailed shut with prohibitions that do not pass the smell test. It would be better to boycot these
Universities and go to private Colleges, a loss of funds may change their minds about being PC.
If all Americans can not receive equal treatment and be subjected to PC prejudices the offending
University should no be able to receive tax funding………………………

By: aspacia

aspacia — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:39:44 +0000

She should have been smart enough to us implication rather than overt intolerance. This PC correct thought pervades all liberal studies and tends to be absent in the hard sciences.

Walter, I too had to play the game, however, instead of using faith based claims, it is far more practical to use reasoned arguments., similar to the Jesuits. Most Catholics are well versed in philosophy and how to make a claim.

By: Nick Shaw

Nick Shaw — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:48 +0000

Walter has hit a nail in regard to Muslim counseling. I want to know how many Muslims have passed the schools ethics test. I'm willing to bet that not one has been challenged in their beliefs due to duplicity in the system, meaning, of course, political correctness. The authorities only answer would be, "Well they serve the Muslim community." Big deal, this young lady could just as well serve the Christian community, if she so chooses. PC has gone insane when one cannot say, "I suggest another counsellor as I cannot address your problem in a satisfactory manner.". It's like suggesting your Ford dealer be forced to service your Nissan even though the service guys "can't relate". I know that sounds trite but, think about it and it makes sense.

By: Crush Liberalism

Crush Liberalism — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:08:09 +0000

“No one is obligated to provide you with an education.”

Then just what in the H3ll is the UNIVERSITY obligated to do? If they’re not there to provide you with an education, then what in the Sam Hill are kids and parents (and taxpayers) paying billions for??

Now, if you meant to say that they are under no obligation to give her a certification (which is NOT the same as a degree), then you may have a point. A degree is conferred when all academic criteria has been met, and in her case, it looks like it has been met. If a certification depends on some subjective criteria, that may be different.

But even then, if conferring/denying of the certification is based IN ANY WAY on a person’s religious beliefs, that is a violation of the Constitution and federal law. The university doesn’t have a leg on which to stand, if that’s the route they wish to go.

Cassy is right: This girl may wind up losing clients or potential clients based on her faith. That is her concern, NOT that of the university.

By: Walter Scott Hudson

Walter Scott Hudson — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:50:15 +0000

My wife spent five years in graduate school for counseling psychology. I can attest to the chilling power of the "code of ethics." Beyond religious beliefs, my wife was actually nervous about going out on the town for a drink because she might be seen by a client who would object. It was ridiculous. Until you get that degree, you're under fascist-level scrutiny. Schools hold ALL the cards.

That said, I'm not sure a code of ethics is wrong in and of itself. No one is obligated to provide you with an education. The issue here is the double standard. For instance, I have no doubt a Muslim who objected to counseling a homosexual would be tolerated.

By: Taxpayer1234

Taxpayer1234 — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:27:13 +0000

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org) takes on universities that stifle student and faculty rights to free speech and freedom of conscience. These two cases are not unique!