What a farce. This is what happens when political correctness trumps religious liberty. Ms. Ward did the right thing by referring the client to another counselor because she knew her own limitations. Apparently EMU isn’t first amendment-religious freedom friendly. Shame on EMU and the judge.

Moreover, there are dozens of Christian counseling programs accredited by American Counseling Association and abide by it’s code of ethics.The problem isn’t Ms. Ward’s actions, the problem is EMU’s intellectual and philosophical intolerance towards those with religious beliefs. ~unproud alum.

Ms. Ward is free to practice her religion all she likes, but she is not free to practice it upon others, particularly in a counselling role where she could do substantial harm by substituting her chosen mythology in place of facts and science. The world’s legitimate, reputable scientists agree that homosexuality is not a moral issue or a behavioral choice, but is in fact a natural part of human variance, no more “wrong” than red hair or blue eyes or left-handedness or a height of six feet, two-and-a-half inches. Neither does Ms. Ward get a free pass for her “somebody else take this patient” attempt to selectively adhere to just those parts of her would-be profession’s ethical code that don’t happen to conflict with her chosen religious dogma. Fact is, she refused to do the work required of all students in her program and she refused to adhere to the ethical code all students (and counsellors) must adhere to. As a result, she’s outta there.

The court decided correctly.

Ms. Ward did just the opposite of practicing her religion upon others, she rightly chose to refer the client to a fellow classmate without such bias. Yes, she could have done harm to both the client and herself, she correctly avoided doing so. In the EMU Social Work guidelines, student are taught to do just that, refer clients to another professional in the case that your personal beliefs, prejudices, biases could get in the way. We all have them, whether we like them or not. Yours happens to be bias against religious dogma/belief, acknowledging that and excusing oneself so as to avoid harming a client is the proper thing to do. Moreover, the world’s has the same legitimate, reputable scientists that take a more conservative position of homosexuality being genetic. That is not the issue anyway, Ms. Ward was not saying the client couldnt or shouldnt be gay, she was saying she couldnt counselor a gay client effectively. Knowing ones own deficits is a strength. But, in a liberal institution, with liberal professors, even liberal judges. Of course Ms. Ward didn’t pass the litmus test of mainstream liberal ideology, apparently even at a public university where freedom of ideas are to be promoted, Christians need not apply. ~Unproud Alum.

Dear Dave,
Any true professional should not let their religious bias get in the way of performing their duties. I could give a dozen examples, from the practice of law or medicine and yes, even teaching as to why you should keep an open mind in working your profession. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with being an honorable human being.

Sir, how does it not have to do with religion when it is ms. Wards religious beliefs that appear to be incompatible with Emu, aca, and the court? I beg to differ, it has everything to do with religious belief and academias supression of religious freedom. Moreover, examples exist where helping professionals excuse themselves from controversial situations like doctors performing abortion. Referral of a client is appropriate and taught at emu might add in soc wrk dept. Liberals wants tolerance/acceptance for some while denying it to others, in this case a Christian.

Dave, no matter how fervently you want this to be about religious oppression, it’s simply not. Fact is, a counselor must be able to treat a client according to best practices based in the science (i.e., knowledge) of medicine and psychology — no matter what issues the client might present, and no matter what the counselor’s own beliefs might be. Sure, in this particular case the client was known to be homosexual before beginning therapy, but many’s the time the issue of sexuality doesn’t come up until therapy is well underway and a great deal of time, effort, money, and pain has been invested. That’s why passing a client off to another therapist is not a workable, practical, or acceptable solution: it would mean the counselor would either abruptly say “Ah, you said the ‘H’ word, so I’m unable to continue treating you; I’ll refer you to another therapist, g’bye and good luck” or would say “Homosexuality is a sin and a bad choice; let’s work on turning you away from it.” In either case, the damage to the client would be significant and substantial — to say nothing of the cost.

Various self-proclaimed “Christians” (invariably very unChristlike) and self-proclaimed “conservatives” (who babble about small government leaving people alone except when it comes to their right to be bigots) run around publishing “research” consisting of nothing but tarted-up sermons based on what they think they understand of the Bible. This is not science. It is not research. It is religious dogma spoken with a fake scientific accent. The legitimate, reputable, genuine science on homosexuality is clear and robust: it is an integral part of the personality. It is not a lifestyle choice or a behavioral choice. Attempts to “cure” homosexuality don’t work, and cause damage.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is a lifestyle and behavioral choice. Each individual is free to choose his or her religious beliefs — but not to inflict them upon others in any way, shape, or form. That is the ideal, and while its realization is taking longer than it should, that’s the direction things are headed. And that is good, and it is appropriate, and it is in accord with the principles according to which the United States of America was founded. Of course, it’s predictable that those who for years have had carte blanche to enforce their beliefs upon others will whine and bleat about oppression they’ve never actually known as that undeserved privilege is gradually seen for what it is and cancelled. Too bad.

Your protestation of those who do not tolerate intolerance evinces a sad feeblemindedness. Your attempt to equate actual, real homophobic bigotry with nonexistent discrimination against Christians is an utter failure — no matter how hard you jam your fingers in your ears, no matter how loudly you holler “IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!”.

Yours in Christ,

-Stan

Stan, I am beginning to soften to your point about being able to counsel people from various backgrounds or belief systems. I think it is worth pointing out, that EMU’s Social Work tenured faculty taught that referral is appropriate and encouraged it in circumstances where bias could harm the helping relationship. In regard to one’s bias, If I refused to work with a particular population, religious nuts, homosexuals, etc. it would be my responsibility to ensure I am not in a position where that was required of me. That personal choice, deciding for oneself whom I will work for, was denied Ms. Ward. It was made for her by her supervisor, EMU, the judge. Agreed that the individual needing help could be harmed by refusing to work any further a population. I’ve worked with another colleague who experienced that situation because she was Jewish.

At issue is not whether homosexuality is genetic or not, its whether religious belief and practice is supported in a public institution when a conscious issue is involved. EMU says it is not, the ACA says its not. Guess we’ll see what the appeals court thinks, and ultimately the Supreme Court. I don’t think decisions in either direction will change you and my position of the issue. How might you explain an ex-homosexual by choice or spiritual conversion toward a hetero-orientation.

I think some devout orthodox belivers would argue that their religious beliefs and convictions rival that of a homosexual making the same argument. That it is who I am, a CHristian, A Buddhist, a homosexual, etc.

Saying that homosexuality is immoral and will be judged by a holy God is not homophobic bigotry. Its religious dogmatic proposition in accord with bible doctrine.

So what exactly would you call elevating the status quo of the day (all-inclusive ethics) above that of orthodox christian ethics?

In CHRISTiansen.

Forgive my ignorance but aren’t Christians supposed supposed to be tolerant, forgiving and loving?

I am happy to read that judges decision, it only makes sense.

How might I explain an ex-homosexual? Easy: There’s no such thing. Oh, sure, there are people who claim to have been converted or cured or turned away, but the research shows they’ve not been — they’ve merely adopted a heterosexual facade of one sort or another, suppressing their natural orientation. The language they use is remarkably consistent; they talk about how they continue to struggle with same-sex attraction. The struggle is created extrinsically by those who continue to preach, without any scientific basis, that there is something wrong with homosexuality per se.

Homosexuals are not broken or insufficiently-prayerful heterosexuals, any more than redheads are broken or insufficiently-prayerful blondes.

Yours in Christ,

-Stan

There’s no such thing. Oh, sure, there are people who claim to have been converted or cured or turned away, but the research shows they’ve not been — they’ve merely adopted a heterosexual facade of one sort or another, suppressing their natural orientation.

The language they use is remarkably consistent; they talk about how they continue to struggle with same-sex attraction. The struggle is created extrinsically by those who continue to preach, without any scientific basis, that there is something wrong with homosexuality per se.

Term Life Insurance (Ads by Yahoo!)