Join Us Today!

Join our non-denominational community with 10,000+ members and more than 50,000 monthly visitors today. Engage in bible discussions, studies, prayer support and friendly fellowship.

Ga. Student Fights Expulsion Over Beliefs

Discussion in 'News Stand' started by dannibear, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. A Christian graduate student at a Georgia university has asked a federal appeals court to bar the school from expelling her over her beliefs on homosexuality.
    Augusta State University put counseling student Jennifer Keeton on academic probation in 2010 after she said it would be hard to work with gay clients.
    Keaton claims the university's move violates her First Amendment rights.
    The university said her thinking was unethical and threatened expulsion unless Keeton attended gay pride events and sensitivity training.
    She refused and filed a federal suit against the school for trying to expel her for her Christian convictions. A judge rejected her challenge, and the case is now before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The nonprofit Christian advocacy Alliance Defense Fund is representing Keeton in the case.

    "[Augusta State University] faculty have promised to expel Miss Keeton from the graduate Counselor Education Program not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity," Keeton said in the suit.
    Both sides have declined to comment on the matter as the case is under a gag order by the court.
  2. I'm not sure why Miss Keeton would find it difficult to work with gay clients. Helping homosexuals doesn't mean condoning their actions. Would she also find it difficult to work with alcoholics?

    Maybe her profession could put her in the position of condoning homosexuality.
  3. That is what I was thinking. She says her convictions are the reason,
    but Jesus dined and talked to sinners in His day. She is going
    about it the wrong way, given her choice of career.
  4. With all respect, I think the difference between your 2 examples is, the alcoholic is not likely to ask the counselor to accept or condone his condition. He knows he's doing wrong and he wants treatment for it.

    Whereas the difficulty with homosexuals is, they are likely to demand and expect that you accept and condone their sexual perversion and not try to change them. There are laws that say you have to do that.
    So I'm not so sure that one could counsel a homosexual, in all situations, without necessitating that you condone his actions, whether you're being forced to, or not.

    In this hypothetical situation, would you, as a Christian, be able to counsel the client, without condoning his perversion? :

    A gay person comes to you for counseling, saying he's having a fight with his lover because one of them wants to have a monogamous relationship, while the other wants to be a swinger and visit bath houses, among other unmentionable practices.

    How could a committed Christian answer such a question? Tell him that being gay and monogamous is the way to go? Say he doesn't condone either choice? If you did that you would be breaking your employer's rules and possibly State laws.

    The gay man in this scenario is not asking you to help him stop sinning, or be a better person, etc. He is asking you to give him an answer that will allow him to continue sinning. So if you don't condone his lifestyle and immorality, you would not be able to help that individual. Do you see my point?
    So, what it comes down to is, it is a poor career choice for a Christian to be a counselor in a secular workplace.
  5. I don't think we are talking about the homosexual seeking counselling about their condition. Miss Keeton said she would find it difficult to work with gay clients but doesn't distinguish what the treatment is. It is likely a homosexual would seek counselling for any number of reasons unrelated to their sin.
    True there could possibly be a situation that could bring conflict but I don't see how. Could you give me an example?

    Oh here's the example. That was fast : )

    In this situation I wouldn't be able to provide the counsel requested.Homosexuals no doubt require other types of counselling though.

    Here's a hypothetical for you. If a homosexual had contracted aids from his sinful actions would you provide treatment for him/her ?
  6. I agree but would add that He always said to sinners, "go, and sin no more".

    So I respectfully submit that, if Jesus did hang out with homosexuals, He would most definitely have required them to repent of their sins, ie: not remain practicing homosexuals. Unless we believe Mary Magdalene continued in her sin while she walked in Jesus' company.
    Therefore the whole issue is a non sequitur, that because Jesus walked among sinners, we should as well, unless they repent. Most homosexuals are not interested in repenting, and as such they expect their counselors, like the Christian woman in question, to accept (condone), what to them, is not sin.
  7. Keep in mind PS there are many repentant homosexuals who are now Christian. Their sin wasn't any worse than an adulterer.
  8. Yes, I agree that a homosexual could likely need counseling for any number of problems unrelated to his sin. And I think they should be able to have it.

    When I read the article clip, I assumed that when Miss Keeton said she would find it difficult to work with gay clients, that she was referring to dealing with sin-related situations. I understand why she would feel that way.

    Regarding the client who has aids, we are dealing with a deadly disease, so you are inadvertently asking me if I have a duty to place myself, and by extension, my immediate loved ones in a life-threatening position, to help someone who brought the disease upon himself. That is a tough question, one I will have to ponder further...... :)
  9. Most definitely, some homosexuals do repent, to God's glory! Regarding, "Their sin wasn't any worse than an adulterer". I will just say we have no record of God ever destroying a city because it was full of adulterers. :zip:
  10. Yes we do. : )

    Sodom and Gomorrah's sin wasn't only homosexuality. It was a perversion of many sexual sins.

    I'll need to confirm this but it's what I was taught.
  11. Okay, please do. I have always thought it was specifically homosexual. Like the term Sodomy we use today, for the city that was destroyed.
  12. Ok here's what I've found.

    Jer 23:14 NKJV Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery and walk in lies; They also strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.

    This doesn't necessarily mean the sins of the prophets of Jerusalem were the same as that of Sodom but simply God saw them both as evil ?

    Eze 16:47-50 NKJV You did not walk in their ways nor act according to their abominations; but, as if that were too little, you became more corrupt than they in all your ways. (48) "As I live," says the Lord GOD, "neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. (49) Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (50) And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.

    God said that Jerusalem's sins were worse than Sodom's and notes Sodom's sins as "pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (50) And they were haughty and committed abomination"
    This doesn't specify every type of sin but and we know homosexuality has been described as an abomination by God. It does suggest it was more than the homosexual sins that displeased Him though.

    2Pe 2:6-7 NKJV and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; (7) and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked

    Peter says the destruction of S & G was an example for all that live ungodly. Again this doesn't specify the sin involved.

    Jud 1:7 NKJV as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    Jude definitely identifies the sin as sexual immorality and going after strange flesh. This could mean any sexual sin but it does link the type of sin with strange flesh.

    Gen 19:4-5 NKJV Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. (5) And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them
    to us that we may know them carnally."

    This definitely specifies homosexual sin and since the offer of Lot's virgin daughters didn't stop them it seems they may not have been interested in heterosexual sex.

    Well that's all I've found atm. What do you think?
  13. Thanks for your effort in posting this!

    I can see your point from the verses you cited and your comments, that there were more sins than that of homosexuality in S&G. But I am still curious why that specific sin - homosexuality - was portrayed as being the sole catalyst for God's destruction of those cities.
    Perhaps the reason those other verses mention other sins that were in S&G, was because the book was being thrown at them, so to speak, that because they were so abominable, all their sins would be exposed. I don't know, only God does.

    And yes, I know a sin is a sin, so we could argue that any sin would be reason enough for God to destroy. Nonetheless God does distinguish between sins, otherwise why would He call certain ones abominations? And some sins were punishable by death in the Old Testament, yet most were not.

    Anyway, it's 1:30 am and I need to get to sleep and think about this some more when I'm more alert. Cheers!
  14. #14 rizen1, Dec 1, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
    My head is swirling and not in a good way, please I beg you, explain this because I'm hoping you prove me wrong and that it's my ignorance that is interpreting your statement as ignorant.

    Kindly elaborate on what you meant, line by line and word for word.


  15. The Pharisees asked Jesus why he ate with
    godless sinners. Jesus responded in Luke 5:31-32,
    "It is not those who are well who need a physician,
    but those who are sick. I have not come to call
    the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance."
    Now, keep in mind that Jesus hated sin and worldly
    lifestyles, but he put up with man's sinfulness in
    hopes that they would turn from their evil ways.
    He loved the sinner not the sin. And yes, Mary
    did repent, but there were others who listened
    to Him, but didn't accept Him at all.
    John 12:37: "Even after Jesus had done all these
    miraculous signs in their presence, they still would
    not believe in him."
  16. Yes it was.

    Possibly yes.

    There are many sins in scripture that God calls an abomination ranging from eating unclean foods, to making idols, to lying etc. Some of these were punishable by death and were the reason the Jews met with God's wrath on several occasions.

    : )

  17. Dear Rizen1,

    I am hoping you have misunderstood the statement in question, simply because I inadequately conveyed my thought or sentiment. It is harder to convey thoughts in written words than with spoken words, but anyway, thank you for allowing me an opportunity to elaborate on what I said.

    One inherent difficulty with this discussion is we don't know each other. We don't know who we are as people, where our hearts are at, what motivates us, etc.

    It may sound cliched, but if you knew me, you would not think I am ignorant.

    Anyway, to (hopefully) make it more clear, when I made that statement that put your head into such a swirl, because of my past work background, I said it in the context of being on the front lines of treating patients, not in the context of being in an office with someone. My mistake, force of habit.

    I meant no insensitivity toward those suffering with a deadly disease, in case that's what it looked like to you. I am to love all people as Christ loves me, and I desire to do so, as much as I am, in my human frailness, able to do so.
    I don't know if that makes a difference to you, but I just wanted to add that point.

    Now, have you ever worked closely with people with aids? I have, so I respectfully ask that you please keep that in mind while you take it upon yourself to brand me as ignorant or not. Have you ever been spat upon by someone with aids?

    Incidentally, ignorance is not a sin (so why make such a big deal about my assumed ignorance, on a non-religious matter to boot?), but wrongly judging is.

    Also, I am curious as to why you would feel you should be the sole arbiter of who may or may not be ignorant. Because for one to suggest that another may be ignorant, is to also imply that the accuser is not ignorant, and as such is an expert in knowledge and the sole judge in the matter.

    With all due respect to you, my head would be swirling if that was your position.

    Also, let's say for the sake of argument that I am ignorant. Would you also agree that everyone is ignorant about something, and that none of us is perfect in knowledge? If so, shall we all cast stones at each other and point fingers at each other for all our ignorance? I don't think so!

    So if you think my statement was ignorant, I assume your reason for taking the time to post to point that out to me, is because you want to educate me (for that's the definition of ignorance :lack of education) and impart your wisdom to me on the subject of aids?

    I have learned nothing if I think I am learned, so by all means I humbly submit to any teaching you have in mind for me.


    in Christ!
  18. The university said the young woman's views were unethical and threatened expulsion unless she attends gay pride events and takes sensitivity training.

    That about sums it up, you will not say a word against homosexuality and to do so is against the rights of a homosexual. This is the current view of the world and most churches today.

    Today on the news, some school somewhere some 8th grade kids have produced a video to not even say the word gay, that even the word is offensive and not to be used, of course one kid slaps the other kid, that makes no sense, but the point is, do not say the word gay. To say the word gay is mean and offensive, just look away is the message.

    One christian web site I checked out discriminate against a homosexual is to violate their rights as humans and is the same as discrimination against those who have an allergy. Really!!!

    The above simply shows what is, and how we are in the mess we are in, and we are simply way to liberal and accepting.

    Did not Jesus say throw the rotten apples out of the barrel? Does not God eventually destroy them himself?? Are we not to learn from our Father ??

    So as for me I will treat them with grace and understanding and quite simple tell them they are wrong and lead them to understand they can change and if they do, salvation is granted. If not to live in continuous unrepented sin will only lead to destruction. Not only by loss of eternal life, but also in this world there are many things such as aids and other health concerns that go along with this lifestyle.

    We have become so passive that we allow too much. It is all well and good to understand, and offer grace, but it is not OK to become friends, to allow and tolerate without question as the world wishes us to now do. To allow the world to push our own views and rights to one side, I think is the sin we ourselves commit, as we are too easily accepting.

    As for how to help and treat those with aids, my wife is a registered nurse and they have many ways of self protection , from gloves and face masks to even full suits and full face shields and even restraints for a person who is violent. In just every day life and treatment or even as a police officer, and a person is in need of first aid, the training is now to take precautions for the worst. Aids has become something to be expected in anyone.

    Homosexuality is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it is not something one is born with or something God given. It is a learned behavior and that particular lifestyle is full of sin. It breaks down the family structure and the way of normal life and way. It adds social acceptance to things not acceptable.

    So as for me, yes understanding and grace, and the simple message of the bible. Each of us has free will, if they do not wish to use theirs and accept and to deliberately pursue their way, then I do not offer friendship or acceptance. I will not harm them, or hate them, but I will not hire them, or tolerate them or accept them as teachers and in positions of leadership without protest.

    It is one of the things in the world that makes my soul cry sometimes. You see I do believe in God, and what he tells me. And the world cannot teach me that to state that homosexuality is wrong is a violation of their rights. You see, I and my family and all honest and those who do wish to live a good life, have the right to not have to suffer them. Our liberal attitude on sin, crime, homosexuality and many other things has led us and the world to the mess we are now in. That ole nonsense of judge not least you be judged in many cases is exactly that, nonsense. Each of us judges things of life, and how to raise our children and how to act and interact with others. So do not apply this to sin, and to say things like God hates the sin but not the sinner, is a cop out. It is a way of acceptance, to turn the other way and not say anything. Who is God going to punish, the sin or the sinner?? The way I see it the sinner is the one going to end up in the Lake of Fire. The sin may cause it, but the sinner will pay the price.

    If I tolerate without a voice against, then I also become a sinner by acceptance. I have to live within the laws of the land and of our government as God tells me .....but I do not have to accept and allow the world to change my heart to sin myself by acceptance.


    Of course the world sees it differently, but God told us this would take place too.


  19. #19 Peace Seeker, Dec 1, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
    I agree with everything you said! Especially about how the church has fallen for the trap of following society's dictates on how we should think. That permissive attitude you talked about.

    I think a very telling point in all of this is, NO ONE here has yet DEFENDED the woman counselor!! A fellow Christian!!

    She is treated by her own as a social pariah (She merely has a different opinion than others!), while we are quick to defend and extend love toward unrepentant sinners. What's wrong with that picture?????

    We are so knee-jerk and reactionary when it comes to gays (because we let them brainwash us) that we tend to have an instinctive Pavlov's dogs response towards them.

    Love the sinner and hate the sin is an excuse not to cause waves or rock the boat. The homosexual movement has made great strides in their agenda, thanks to that attitude.

    Lastly, why has this thread focused on gay rights (they have more rights than us, thanks to us), when the only real question is, does the Christian counselor in question have a right to her opinion, to freedom of speech and conscience, without fear of reprisals?? For crying out loud, people!

    It is despicable that she should be required to attend gay pride events and take sensitivity training (brainwashing 101). Anyone that attends such things under the guise of love the sinner, hate the sin, is merely deceiving himself.
  20. Hi, Agua!

    I just wanted to pass this on to you about "strange flesh", in case you didn't already know it. I looked up "strange flesh" in Strong's for that verse, and the Greek word is Heteros!

    So it must be talking about strange heterosexual flesh, (prostitutes, etc.???) in that verse. Yet just before it mentions strange flesh, it mentions sexual immorality, which you'd think would have already covered the strange flesh?
    I am going to ponder all of this some more.......

Share This Page

Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 0)