George Offerman
Andrew Beacham, who is associated with Randall Terry and the Insurrecta Nex team, decided to go in front of the White House on 9-11 and protest the latest ‘controversy’ over the acceptance, tolerance and spreading of Islamic influence in this country. It is interesting how from Obama on down, want to bend over backwards and press for country wide acceptance of the Muslims ‘constitutional right’ to build a victory mosque near ground zero, but want to deny our constitutional right of freedom of speech in declaring our beliefs on the subject.
I agreed to participate in this protest because it seems like the right thing to do. I am very tired of this RELIGION OF PEACE being presented as the beacon of peace, when our own president ‘warned’ us of the ‘violent repercussions and al queda recruitment tool’ that burning or destroying the ‘Holy book’ of the RELIGION OF PEACE could and would bring. It is more than ironic that we have the most to worry about from the RELIGION OF PEACE by doing nothing more than challenging them and questioning their motives without some veiled, or direct threat from the representatives of the RELIGION OF PEACE.
The Iman, in charge of the proposed Mosque, sent Obama a thinly veiled threat when he boldly declared “Moving the location of the Mosque WILL HAVE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS”. Wow, it sounds like the RELIGION OF PEACE is making wholehearted efforts to reach out with an olive branch and attempting to appease this nation, whose birth was directly attributed to Judeao-Christian values. NOT! The RELIGION OF PEACE will utilize our laws against us in the name of expanding their influence, while having one of their main Iman’s in this country clamor for laws like the Sharia laws currently practiced in other countries. It seems the RELIGION OF PEACE will continue pressing and demanding our tolerance for their ways until they can impose their intolerant ways upon us.
When the RELIGION OF PEACE can hoodwink the majority that tearing up a book is worse than beheading, imprisoning, raping and pillaging MILLIIONS of people, such as in the Sudan over the past couple of decades, the majority has an issue with understanding basic morality. It is not the issue of destroying a book for the sake of destroying a book, the issue at hand is the fact the book that was destroyed calls for the active killing and/ or imprisonment of those who do not believe in that book. And the fact that our so called president validated that destroying the book will result in violence, goes to show the RELIGION OF PEACE has no intention of quelling any firestorm that follows ANY CRITICISM of their religion.
The RELIGION OF PEACE wants to place ‘extremists’ from Christianity on the same page as the Extremists’ in Islam. What it seems the RELIGION OF PEACE conveniently forgets is there are not now, or ever been suicide/homicide bombers from the Christian persuasion. There are not now or ever been whole sects of Christianity that have vowed to ‘wipe off the face of the map’ a whole people as many in the RELIGION OF PEACE are doing with Israel. There are not now, or ever been millions forced at the point of sword or gun to ‘convert or die’, or had their wives and children taken as slaves and concubines. There are not now, or ever been “Pastors’ going into Islamic capitols and making threats that if churches are not built near mosques or in prominent places ‘national security’ would be at stake. Christianity does not teach, nor ever has that a Christian should kill defenseless non combatants for not converting, or for the sake of creating terror. How is destroying a book on the same moral plane as these?
The RELIGION OF PEACE has no moral authority to discuss or dictate the moral and ethical resolve of peace and non violence to those it would eliminate if it had the chance. Based upon the past century or so, it is very clear that it is Islam, in general, that has been on a bloody footing, and not Christianity, as evidenced by their actions, and the threats spewed towards the west if the west ‘does not change its ways”. Keep this truism in mind, the next time someone wants to criticise Christians: Jesus, the founder of Christianity never killed anyone, and DIED to start Christianity. Mohammed, the “Prophet” PERSONALLY KILLED and personally ordered the death of thousands. Now, who is the more peaceful founder?
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
NEUTRALITY AT EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY?
George Offerman
In a ruling that hit too close to home for me personally, a graduate student, Julea Ward, who was enrolled in the school counseling program was expelled due to her stance that homosexuality is morally wrong. The ruling cited the supposed facts that Ms. Ward had violated EMU school policy as well as American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics. The university had given Ms Ward the opportunity to continue on in the program if she agreed to a remediation program, and cease and desist in her belief systems pertaining to homosexuality, and ‘imposing’ her views onto her clients. In this ruling EMU has attempted to sell their position as being neutral, and therefore correct, while attempting to sell their point that they welcome ‘individuals from diverse background into our community”.
Interestingly enough, EMU along with most in the mental health community and the larger society in general are either not aware, or are not willing to admit that homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder as late as 1973. (This year is famous for another horrible decision). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders second edition (DSM II) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, and reclassified it as Sexual Orientation disorder. The subsequent DSM III further removed the category and again reclassified this as “ego dystonic homosexuality” which puts it into a category describing only those who are ‘disturbed’ by their orientation. In fact, there is a strong effort to utilize the DSM IV, that came out in 1994, to classify homophobia as a mental disorder, thus completing the 180 degree turn by the homosexual activists in scrubbing their ‘way of life’ from any treatment criteria, and vilifying anyone who disagrees with them as ‘mentally ill’.
The DSM series, otherwise known as the ‘psychiatrists’ bible’ is the standard in which mental health is diagnosed and treated. No one would argue that the DSM has changed over the decades and that there are many instances in which the diagnostic criteria has been altered due to medical, societal, as well as political pressures to change them. There definitely is no question, that if one researches this issue, there was tremendous pressure put on the American Psychiatric Association to change the status of homosexuality from a disorder to a more normal behavior, to a protected behavior over the years. The current DSM V is going through final revisions, and will most likely move diagnostic criteria even further away from a mental disorder, and may even begin to target those who oppose it with their own newly minted disorder.
The idea that therapists and counselors cannot and should not verbalize limits or boundaries to any client’s behavior is the height of insanity. What would the EMU counseling center recommend a counselor to do, if for instance, a client came in and stated “I hate all ‘fags’ and I wish they would all die” I don’t believe for a minute that limits wouldn’t be set, or possibly, that client would be ‘fired’ by the therapist or transferred to another provider. If the school wants to truly be ‘Neutral’ in its teaching and training of counselors, it should teach that it is OK for married people to carry on affairs with no guilt or depression, sociopaths to continue on in their sadistical and contorted ways, drug addicts and alcoholics should be allowed into sessions high or drunk without kicking them out, wife beaters, child molesters or other miscreants cannot be corrected in their behaviors. After all, isn’t it their ‘choice’ and the ‘code of ethics’ states we providers are supposed to meet the clients ‘where they are’ and not ‘judge’ them? We are not, and should not be ‘neutral’ on most of these issues, and have an obligation to society to have norms that need to be respected.
The articles I have read simply stated that Ms. Ward sees homosexuality as immoral. It did not mention, or allude to her preaching or attempting to convert clients while in session. There was no allegation of complaints lodged against her by clients that felt ‘offended’ by her statements or behaviors. The school alluded to Ms. Ward needing to change her beliefs about homosexuality, not about her behavior while delivering mental heath services. If this is the case, then the school outright lied about ‘welcoming individuals from diverse backgrounds into the community.’
It is insanity to claim to be open academically, and claim to teach and train students to be counselors, and then tie their hands with unreasonable and prejudicial precepts. There are limits to people’s unacceptable behaviors, and they need to be called on them. Unfortunately in this day and age, what is considered to be a mental disorder is too often what is politically correct, and what used to be considered an illness is now a protected status. EMU is doing no favors by singling out a student based upon her Christian views, as it sets up a true monopoly on thoughts and beliefs. Doesn’t EMU’s behavior meet some criteria in the DSM?
In a ruling that hit too close to home for me personally, a graduate student, Julea Ward, who was enrolled in the school counseling program was expelled due to her stance that homosexuality is morally wrong. The ruling cited the supposed facts that Ms. Ward had violated EMU school policy as well as American Counseling Association (ACA) code of ethics. The university had given Ms Ward the opportunity to continue on in the program if she agreed to a remediation program, and cease and desist in her belief systems pertaining to homosexuality, and ‘imposing’ her views onto her clients. In this ruling EMU has attempted to sell their position as being neutral, and therefore correct, while attempting to sell their point that they welcome ‘individuals from diverse background into our community”.
Interestingly enough, EMU along with most in the mental health community and the larger society in general are either not aware, or are not willing to admit that homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder as late as 1973. (This year is famous for another horrible decision). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders second edition (DSM II) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, and reclassified it as Sexual Orientation disorder. The subsequent DSM III further removed the category and again reclassified this as “ego dystonic homosexuality” which puts it into a category describing only those who are ‘disturbed’ by their orientation. In fact, there is a strong effort to utilize the DSM IV, that came out in 1994, to classify homophobia as a mental disorder, thus completing the 180 degree turn by the homosexual activists in scrubbing their ‘way of life’ from any treatment criteria, and vilifying anyone who disagrees with them as ‘mentally ill’.
The DSM series, otherwise known as the ‘psychiatrists’ bible’ is the standard in which mental health is diagnosed and treated. No one would argue that the DSM has changed over the decades and that there are many instances in which the diagnostic criteria has been altered due to medical, societal, as well as political pressures to change them. There definitely is no question, that if one researches this issue, there was tremendous pressure put on the American Psychiatric Association to change the status of homosexuality from a disorder to a more normal behavior, to a protected behavior over the years. The current DSM V is going through final revisions, and will most likely move diagnostic criteria even further away from a mental disorder, and may even begin to target those who oppose it with their own newly minted disorder.
The idea that therapists and counselors cannot and should not verbalize limits or boundaries to any client’s behavior is the height of insanity. What would the EMU counseling center recommend a counselor to do, if for instance, a client came in and stated “I hate all ‘fags’ and I wish they would all die” I don’t believe for a minute that limits wouldn’t be set, or possibly, that client would be ‘fired’ by the therapist or transferred to another provider. If the school wants to truly be ‘Neutral’ in its teaching and training of counselors, it should teach that it is OK for married people to carry on affairs with no guilt or depression, sociopaths to continue on in their sadistical and contorted ways, drug addicts and alcoholics should be allowed into sessions high or drunk without kicking them out, wife beaters, child molesters or other miscreants cannot be corrected in their behaviors. After all, isn’t it their ‘choice’ and the ‘code of ethics’ states we providers are supposed to meet the clients ‘where they are’ and not ‘judge’ them? We are not, and should not be ‘neutral’ on most of these issues, and have an obligation to society to have norms that need to be respected.
The articles I have read simply stated that Ms. Ward sees homosexuality as immoral. It did not mention, or allude to her preaching or attempting to convert clients while in session. There was no allegation of complaints lodged against her by clients that felt ‘offended’ by her statements or behaviors. The school alluded to Ms. Ward needing to change her beliefs about homosexuality, not about her behavior while delivering mental heath services. If this is the case, then the school outright lied about ‘welcoming individuals from diverse backgrounds into the community.’
It is insanity to claim to be open academically, and claim to teach and train students to be counselors, and then tie their hands with unreasonable and prejudicial precepts. There are limits to people’s unacceptable behaviors, and they need to be called on them. Unfortunately in this day and age, what is considered to be a mental disorder is too often what is politically correct, and what used to be considered an illness is now a protected status. EMU is doing no favors by singling out a student based upon her Christian views, as it sets up a true monopoly on thoughts and beliefs. Doesn’t EMU’s behavior meet some criteria in the DSM?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)