By profession I am an HIV Prevention Specialist for the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health. Part of my job involves doing HIV testing and counseling; I also teach other social workers and health care professionals how to do the same. The definition of HIV prevention counseling is to assist clients in making behavior changes that can reduce their risk for acquiring or transmitting HIV. But counseling of ANY kind relies on certain skills and concepts, and one of the three important “Counseling Concepts” is this:

MANAGE YOUR OWN DISCOMFORT.

Anyone who does HIV prevention counseling is invariably going to be confronted with sexual behaviors and drug use behaviors that make us uncomfortable. But if we are unable to manage that discomfort, the counseling session will not be effective. If one of my clients feels that I’m being judgmental and sanctimonious, rather than caring and empathetic, that’s going to drive a big barrier between me and that person.

Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton are entitled to their views about homosexuality. But COUNSELING is the wrong profession for both of them, as any professional counselor will have you know.

So what evidence do you have that neither of these women can manage her discomfort?  The problem here is the school is making the unwarranted assumption that, because of her views, she will automatically not be able to come across as caring and empathic.  I should think a professional counselor should be able to make a judgment about a harmful behavior without necessarily being judgmental and sanctimonious rather than caring and empathetic.

Or are you saying that counselors should not make judgments about harmful behavior?  If the point of the counselling is not to change the harmful behavior, then what good is it?

DEAR C MATT:

So if one of these women was counseling a long-term Gay couple, she should be expected to say, “Well, MY religion says homosexuality is WRONG, and I think you guys need to end your relationship.” ?

THAT would not be counseling.

These women need to try something new. Maybe they can start their own churches, or work for the Family Research Council or Fox News or something like that, where their prejudices will be more greatly appreciated. They should NOT be professional counselors.

The problem, Chuck, is that one can uphold the Church’s teaching, call people out of sin, and challenge them to do what is moral (abstinence, in this case) without sacrificing “care and empathy.” the two aren’t opposed. The problem stems from an anti-Christian mentality among counseling professionals which sees Christianity as inherently judgmental and therefore harmful to the feelings of patients. The fact, however, is that most HIV patients contracted the virus through immoral activities and the only way to slow the spread of the virus is to cease such activities. That’s not even a matter of faith, it’s a matter of common sense. If I go to the doctor with chest pains and he says I’m close to having a heart attack, I certainly hope he will tell me how I got that way and what I need to do to stop the condition from worsening. For a counselor to ingore the fact that HIV is spread mainly through sexual contact and turn a blind eye to the sexually deviant activities that led to the condition is not only dumb, it’s irresponsible.  Counselors should be honest with patients. If feelings get hurt, too bad. Counselors shouldn’t judge, no, but they can’t be so afraid of having charitable admonition confused with judgmentalism that they don’t address the issues of homosexuality and HIV when its relevant. The medical establishment wants “unenlightened” Christian views, such as “you reap what you sow” and “stop doing things that lead to HIV and you won’t get HIV,” to be banished so everyone can feel good about themselves and their bad choices. Healing can only come about if we know how we got sick. It’s like going to Confession and having the priest tell me, “you need to do x, y, and z, to help you grow in virtue, but don’t worry, you don’t have any vice…not that there’s anything wrong with vice!” Christian principles in counseling would mean counselors treat their patients with compassion, helping to open their eyes to the causes of their disease, to accept their condition as a means of growing in holiness, and to stop practicing their vices that led them to that conversion. Yeah, it might hurt patients a little bit, but the beginning of conversion always hurts and conversion is always hard. We continue despite these things because we know that it is right and that it is God’s will. Counseling should be focused on actually helping the patient, not making the patient feel better.

DEAR MICAH:

There are plenty of Christian colleges and universities around that can indulge these women in their own prejudices. And I’m sure there are plenty of Christian’ counseling services they can find employment at. But in the secular workforce, the kind of judgmentalism you are endorsing is not going to work. If I took Jennifer Keeton’s or Julea Ward’s approach, my clients would simply get up and leave.

As I said, there’s no judgmentalism involved whatsoever. Show me how diagnosing the root cause of a problem and advising against it are judgmental. Further, state schools have no right to discriminate against those who bring their religious beliefs into their work. The First Amendment forbids any such thing. The religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution allows religion to inform the beliefs and actions of us all, without prejudice. This state establishment is showing an inherent bias against a religious approach to counseling, one which has contributed enormously to society (I can tell you from my work in the Catholic Church that the typical priest sees as many people for counseling as any professional counselor). Let there be no mistake: telling patients the truth about how they got HIV and advising against continuation of those conditions is nothing but charity and compassion. Hiding this fromthem out of fear for their feelings is nothing but false charity, the pride that comes from having spared someone hurt feelings, while nonetheless offering them no real solution to their problems.

DEAR MICAH:

First of all, AIDS is caused by a virus, and viruses don’t care what kind of person you are. And if two Gay men who have test HIV-negative enter into a monogamous relationship based on trust and respect, AIDS is not going to arbitrarily strike them like a lightning bolt hurled by an angry and vindictive God.

People at risk for HIV infection have many options available to them that can help them reduce or even eliminate their risk. They can practice safer sex. They can use condoms. They can get into monogamous relationships with other HIV-negative persons. My goal as a counselor is to come up with options that my client is willing to accept, not to simply say, “Sorry, MY BIBLE says homosexuality is just wrong, wrong, wrong!”

If these women want to be CHRISTIAN counselors working with CHRISTIAN clients, fine. But they better not come working for a public agency, because their freedom of expression only goes so far in such an environment.

Chuck,
The problem with this ruling is that it discriminates against religious people who want to be counseled by people with like moral values. I don’t want to open up to a counselor who is so misguided that he or she thinks homosexuality is normal. Good luck to me finding anyone. This is a free country and people are free to go to any counselor they want. We need people in this profession that can serve the needs of socially conservative people as well as gay people. I’m glad you’re there for gay folks, but how would you feel if a university said you shouldn’t be a counselor because you approve of homosexual behavior?

By this reasoning, no muslim,Amish, orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian or Catholic should be allowed to be a counsellor either.  It is a presumption that people will be unable to be professional because they actually have a religion they practice; soon only Agnostics and Athiests need apply for pharmasutical, nursing or counseling professions because others might have moral objections to something. 

Charity is based on the capacity to treat another as one would want to be treated and that is also, a Christian value which trumps as I recall from scripture, all others other than Loving God first.  It is sanctimonious to presume bad faith of people seeking to enter a healing or helping profession that they cannot practice it because of their faith. People who enter professions like this are required to take tests and do clinical work and if there are issues, that is where such issues ought to be brought forth. To deny a degree based on someone’s religion is discrimination, pure and simple. 

We ought not have litmust tests of which religions we will tolerate in a profession; that is tyranny of a specific seclarist ideology.  Or do you think that the line will be drawn here and no further, that there won’t come a day when you won’t be able to chose your profession if the gate keepers—the college determines that your faith if you chose to practice it, precludes you from persuing a certain career.

“If these women want to be CHRISTIAN counselors working with CHRISTIAN clients, fine.”

I agree with you. But, how do they do that if they’re denied a degree? This ruling is wrong and denies people their religious liberty. It’s tyrannical behavior by the university. It’s punishment for not falling in line with the thought police, nothing more.

Chuck,

Religious test are strictly forbidden especially by public institutions. The Constitution was pretty clear about this. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was even clearer.

Such comparisons almost inevitably do (as they do here) a grave disservice to Sen. McCarthy.

As a social work educator, I can tell you this is a tricky issue but I’ve known many students who understand boundaries and do not impose their religious views on others.  Everyone has value orientations and biases that come into play in counseling.  Then, there is the fact that at 25 you may be tolerant and secular but at 40, not be.  Are we going to throw everyone in the profession out?  There are many educational and professional ways of dealing with this issue, I am surprised at the black and white thinking here.

DEAR JP:

This has nothing to do with “religious tests.” No one is suggesting that Julea Ward and Jennifer Keeton are not free to practice their faith as they see fit. That cannot and should not be denied accreditation or a job based solely on their religion. The problem becomes whether their personal faith interferes with their ability to do the job they’re supposed to do.

Both women claim to be Christians who are incapable of counseling Gay people in a non-judgmental fashion. What if a client came in who was a Muslim or an Atheist? Would they be compelled to say, “Well I’m a Christian, and I feel that you are going to spend eternity in Hell if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior.” ? Do you think this would be acceptable professional conduct?

What if a woman goes into a pharmacy to fill a prescription for birth control? Should the pharmacist on duty be free to decline filling that prescription, because contraceptive are against his personal religious beliefs?

If I’m paying you for professional counseling, I expect you to do the job you’re supposed to do, rather than go all “Great Commission” on me. Don’t claim that you freedom of religion is being violated because you are incapable of separating your religious beliefs from the job you are being paid to do.

“First of all, AIDS is caused by a virus, and viruses don’t care what kind of person you are. And if two Gay men who have test HIV-negative enter into a monogamous relationship based on trust and respect, AIDS is not going to arbitrarily strike them like a lightning bolt hurled by an angry and vindictive God.”

I’m sorry, I thought you were an HIV counselor. Why would two homosexual men who test HIV-negative need an HIV counselor? How is your statement even relevant? Your straw man fallacy aside (really, you can’t prove I’m judgmental, so you accuse me, without knowing me, of believing that God is judgmental and vindictive?), I don’t see how HIV-negative men factor into this debate, except to say that not all homosexual men get HIV, which is a position I never argued against. You really think I believe people get HIV from homosexual activity? The truth is no one but fools think that. Rather, as you and I both know, people get HIV from having sex with someone who has HIV. Now, if two HIV-negative homosexuals entered a counseling center I was running, my first question would be, “what are you doing here?” However, if a homosexual couple enters and has tested positive, then, barring other less-common ways of getting HIV (intravenous injections, transfusions, etc.), I would be right to consider that their sexual activity has gotten them HIV, they same as if is a heterosexual married couple came in HIV positive that was HIV negative when they got married, it would be reasonable to say, “your extramarital affair got you HIV,” (again, barring the other means of getting HIV). Homosexual activity doesn’t cause HIV, and by claiming your opponents don’t know that, you just show how judgmental you are of us. What causes HIV to spread is sex between an HIV-positive person and an HIV-negative person.  Once a homosexual couple walks in the door for HIV counseling, it’s already obvious they have HIV. Logically, for the vast majority of such cases (again barring less-common explanations), this couple contracted HIV through their homosexual activity. This is the scenario we’re assuming. Now in such a scenario, for me to acknowledge that they contracted it through their homosexual activity is simply true. In fact, for me to gloss over that fact would prove that I am not scientific. For me to tell them to stop it is not offensive, it is helpful. They may consider it offensive, but a counselor should tell them that they can spread new strains of the virus to one another if they continue having sex. Which brings me back to my point, ignoring the scientific facts that they contracted it through their sexual relationship, which is homosexual in nature, and telling them they must stop is real charity. Refusing to do that or indulging them by saying, “yeah, keep having sex, here’s a condom,” is only a feeble attempt to keep them from being offended by the consequences of their own actions. For the sake of fairness, I should say that if a heterosexual couple came in, I would be equally truthful with them: “one of you got HIV from someone else and spread it to the other, so you either contracted it before you got married and didn’t know, or did know and didn’t tell, or one of you had an affair.” Judgmentalism, no, honesty, yes.

“People at risk for HIV infection have many options available to them that can help them reduce or even eliminate their risk. They can practice safer sex. They can use condoms. They can get into monogamous relationships with other HIV-negative persons. My goal as a counselor is to come up with options that my client is willing to accept, not to simply say, ‘Sorry, MY BIBLE says homosexuality is just wrong, wrong, wrong!’”

The inherent immorality of contraception aside, you and I both know that abstinence is the surest bet. Isn’t it considered a sign of a bad worker in the medical field when they don’t give you their best? And for what, avoiding the confrontation of being honest with patients, making them feel comfortable? Your caricature of Christian counselors is sad. Are you truly so incapable of believing that Christian counselors could tell the truth compassionately that you really think the best they can do is shout at a patient about how the Bible condemns their actions? I think you would be very surprised if you ever met the people in charge of the group Courage. Christian compassion is not incompatible with the truth.

“If these women want to be CHRISTIAN counselors working with CHRISTIAN clients, fine. But they better not come working for a public agency, because their freedom of expression only goes so far in such an environment.”

Right…only people who agree with a pro-homosexual agenda should be in secular counseling. Just because you disagree with e Christian approach doesn’t make it wrong or less valuable. Just because the voice of the Church is silence or drowned out by those who oppose her doesn’t mean she has nothing to add. Closing out people from the public discourse because we simply deem them to be lesser qualified is nothing short of prejudice and segregation. Private institutions have a right to set their own standards and philosophies, but public institutions have no place and no right to silence opposition. “The opposition is wrong because the oppose us and they oppose us because they are wrong.”

Goodness - so much litmus testing, so little time - how will we stop all these rogue do-gooders before they destroy the universe?
Interesting that the last two nominees to the Supreme Court when questioned about their decidedly non-mainstream views assured us, and we collectively if warily believed, that they could separate their personal beliefs from their professional actions.  We gave them the benefit of the doubt because it’s the fair and right thing to do.  The people being discriminated against in these instances aren’t intellectually inferior or unable to complete the coursework, the only acceptable reasons for refusing their graduation and certifications.  Anything else is official oppression, unfair, and wrong, being that they’re attending public institutions.  As far as being hired by government agencies (assuming they wanted to work at one), any question of their personal or religious beliefs should never come up, as it’s against most if not all public hiring regulations.

I have an MA in Counseling.  Because of my beliefs, I would have great difficulty providing services to a homosexual couple, were sexuality a central part of the presenting problem.  So what’s a professional to do?  Politely make a referral.  *It’s not that big of a deal.* i went to graduate school with a couple of people who hated Christians of any stripe and couldn’t imagine providing therapy for them.  They got the same instructions—if you can’t handle it, respectfully and politely provide a referral to someone who can.

And I suppose and Aethist counselor in the same program would have to go through re-education so he could be empathetic to Christians.  Because certainly he would simply tell them they are idiots who are deluded in their belief in GOD.  Part of being a counselor is knowing when to refer a client out if you cannot ethically or morally help them with their stated goals or work within their belief system.  All counselors have to put aside their belief systems in one way or another to help clients. 

Lets call the spade a spade - this is an agenda to force people to not only tolerate, but approve and affirm ______________ (list the politically correct issue of the day) or else we won’t give you __________ (list the withheld approval item of the day.

Why is it the left always, always seeks to limit speech, thought, freedom
and religious expression?  What are they afraid of?  Someday science,
real science - not psychology, numerology, etc - will find a genetic
cause.  Meanwhile, the stalinist consolidation continues apace at OUR
universities.

Any person who dies in a state of mortal sin for having committed sins of the flesh like adultry, fornication, homosexuality, masturbation, goes to Hell in accordance with the Lord’s infinate justice. Christ the Lord extends His mercy for repentent sinners through the Sacrament of Penance; for practicing adulterers, go to confession; for practicing sodomites and lesbians, go to confession; for child molesters, go to confession; for perverts, go to confession; for fornicators, go to confession; for maturbators, go to confession!

Micah—You are to be congratulated for the clearest, strongest, and best response to PC drivel that I have seen in a long time. What is happening to these students is the result of decades of indoctrination in falsehood, combined with decades of passivity and timidity by Christians and believers of all the major faiths.

Not sure the University of California case is as worrying as you think. Most of the courses at the Christian school in question were approved as college-prep quality, and the students were admitted. They just felt they shouldn’t have to take remedial classes for a few courses.

Some of the refused courses used books from Bob Jones University. What is BJU’s reputation for scholarly excellence? (Genuinely curious)

I am a Catholic and a counseling psychology PhD. I usuall like reading this site, but this article, and most of the comments, are simply uninformed, inflammatory drivel. Did one of you read the court’s summary judgement on the EMU case? This has nothing to do with her beliefs, but the behavior expressed by these students. When I received my doctorate not one person in my graduating class was not Christian, and yet we had no such issues. She blantantly violated an ethics code that is there to protect clients, and refused to engage in the curriculum that she agreed to prior to enrollment. Is there something here not to understand? Educated yourself on the issue before speaking, you are making Catholics look like fools with your blather. Although it won’t matter, they probably won’t post this anyway, instead choosing to censor my comments.

John, in my 9 years of internet apologetics, I’ve found that ending an argument with the insinuation that you’ll probably be censored tends to mean you’re writing of your audience, which is certainly not yhe kind of thing a good counselor does after one impersonal encounter. Plus, when you don’t get censored, it makes you look foolish. Take it from me, I’ve looked foolish plenty of times. If she did violate an ethics code she agreed to, you’re right, she shouldn’t have agreed to it. Such a code should be rewritten as it doesn’t take into account the natural dignity of the human person or the good of the patient, not to mention it smacks of a pro-homosexual agenda that refuses to treat causes of disease because it insists naïvely that those causes aren’t bad things, when anyone can tell you that even if it weren’t a bad thing (which it is), it’s still the cause of the disease. You may have a PhD, but that doesn’t give you license to insult the intelligence of everyone here. Believe it or not, some things only require common sense.

Let’s try that again without the iPad syndrome typos…

John, in my 9 years of internet apologetics, I’ve found that ending an argument with the insinuation that you’ll probably be censored tends to mean you’re writing off your audience, which is certainly not the kind of thing a good counselor does after one impersonal encounter. Plus, when you don’t end up getting censored, it makes you look foolish. Take it from me, I’ve looked foolish plenty of times. If the student did violate an ethics code she agreed to, you’re right, she shouldn’t have agreed to it. Such a code should be rewritten as it doesn’t take into account the natural dignity of the human person or the good of the patient, not to mention it smacks of a pro-homosexual agenda that refuses to treat causes of disease because it insists naïvely that those causes aren’t bad things, when anyone can tell you that even if it weren’t a bad thing (which it is), it’s still the cause of the disease. You may have a PhD, but that doesn’t give you license to insult the intelligence of everyone here. Believe it or not, some things only require common sense.

For those that are counselors, what is the purpose of counseling? Is it to help the person or to make them feel better.  It seems to me that if one believes the Catholic Church’s teaching on the issue, that is, that homosexuality is disordered, that is, homosexuality is at odds with the reality of man.  As a result, there will be health and psychological problems for someone that engages in those activities and lifestyle. It doesn’t seem to me that a faithful Catholic would be able to have a fruitful counseling session without advising the person to abstain from homosexual acts.  This would be the same for a man cheating on his wife.  If he comes to counseling with issues that are rooted in his illicit affairs, the primary solution would be to have him give up the affair.

Likewise, if a homosexual came with problems routed in his lifestyle, it doesn’t seem just to not address that lifestyle.  If he is not willing to change it, that all the counselor could do is deaden the person’s conscience and pain that stems from that lifestyle.

Actually, I did read the article.  The student asked permission to provide a referral to the client.  She did exactly what she should have done.  There are sometimes clients that we just can’t deal with, for our own personal reasons.  What if a gay counselor sits down with a straight client and soon discovers that the client is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle?  Part of good training as a counselor is to learn to see our own biases and know when to make a referral, instead of trying to counsel and perhaps digging a deeper hole because we can’t keep our own issues out of the way.  Nobody can be all things to all people.

“There are sometimes clients that we just can’t deal with, for our own personal reasons.  What if a gay counselor sits down with a straight client and soon discovers that the client is opposed to the homosexual lifestyle?  Part of good training as a counselor is to learn to see our own biases and know when to make a referral, instead of trying to counsel and perhaps digging a deeper hole because we can’t keep our own issues out of the way.  Nobody can be all things to all people.”

Just for the information of the people who are spouting off about “religious discrimination,” you have obviously not read the decision and don’t know the facts. Ward didn’t “sit down” with anyone, gay or otherwise.  She refused to even see a client who was gay.  As the University and the Court found, she violated the American School Counselor Association ethical standards.  So much babbling, so little *facts*.

You didn’t read the first sentence of my post, which you also left out of your block quote.

I did indeed read the decision.  In my training, which took place at a school that required us to follow the ACA code of ethics, etc., we were told flat out to keep our personal views about anything at all out of the way in sessions, and if we couldn’t do that, we were to make a referral.  My profs knew where I stood, and I wasn’t the only Christian in the class.  Every one of us, Christian and not, identified in class groups of people we would have trouble working with.  We were encouraged to educate ourselves to see if our prejudices were based on ignorance and could be overcome, but it was acknowledged as a given that we all have areas of difficulty.

I had a gay classmate who knew she would have a terrible time trying to do therapy with anyone committed to any conservative religion.  Nobody beat up on her.  On the other side, I have been on the receiving end of counseling which insisted I abandon deeply held moral beliefs in order to make “progress.”  My classmate would have made a referral, where that counselor overstepped and imposed her views.

Perhaps the key difference is that I didn’t make much noise about my faith in class, because I didn’t feel the need to point out which lifestyles I agreed or disagreed with.  This was also just over 20 years ago, so the climate has changed.

According to the letter of the law, she can’t fulfill the requirements of the program.  Fine.  I think the requirements are wrong, and might encourage students not to look deeply at their own prejudices, because it could get them into trouble.

One comment on one of the stories was basically “her choice to go to the university was like a vegetarian walking into a steakhouse and being upset that there’s no vegetarian food”.

I suggest, rather, that they’re looking at the wrong part of this situation.  The concern is about prospective clients.  A homosexual client is like someone looking for steak walking into an unknown restaurant and finding out it’s a vegan restaurant…no animal products at all.  The waitress helpfully points out that the numerous other restaurants in the area that serve meat.

Should the culinary school deny diplomas to vegans who will refuse to serve meat in their restaurants?  Should the school have a code of ethics to prevent chefs from limiting what they will serve on their menu to only vegan fare?

Final question: is there any indication, in either of the two cases of students getting kicked out of school, either student would be unwilling or unable to counsel homosexual clients where the issues had nothing to do with their sexuality?  It seems to me that the ladies in question were fairly clear that they would not support the homosexual lifestyle, not necessarily that they couldn’t counsel homosexuals in other areas of life.  They didn’t say that they wouldn’t serve a person eggplant, merely that their beliefs prevent them from serving any clients a steak.

Let me add another point Micah might have made but didn’t against the anti-Christian counselor. Christians are generally quite capable of “meeting people where they are” and differentiating between the short- and long-term.

While homosexual acts are sins, they can obviously be aggravated or mitigated by circumstances and details, particularly in matters having to do with bodily health or the ways sins can be piled on one another. I personally don’t see why any Christian counselor wouldn’t consider it progress to have a gay client go from 10 sex partners a month to 1 or 2. The eventual goal must be zero (actually the eventual-eventual goal must be union with Christ, but work with me here, people); that doesn’t mean the immediate goal must be zero or that the long-term goal not-now-in-play might not have to be put off for the sake of shorter-term goods that are achievable. Or to be more concrete, if a man with a boyfriend is also a circuit-club tweaker, one way to discourage the latter is to appeal to whatever genuine love there may be for the boyfriend (this endangers him; it isn’t otherwise consistent with loving him; it implies dissatisfaction with him or something lacking, etc.)

I know several therapists and all of them refuse to counsel certain people for one reason or another. We all know that many, many therapists will not treat borderline patients. Therapists have their specialties as well. Her specialty may be oriented to Christian clients…or not as she may be able to separate her personal beliefs from her professional. I have a very close friend who is evangelical Christian and is a therapist. She doesn’t refuse homosexual clients nor insist that they change. This is thought control and nothing more. I have been to a Catholic therapy group headed by a clinical psychologist who had a secular education but believes in the teachings of the church regarding homosexuals. His focus is Catholic clients who are often treated as “ill” by secular therapists who assume that all Catholics are devoid of an ability to think for themselves, are burdened with excess and meaningless guilt or other “sicknesses” How does that differ?

Taxpayer (and partial tuition) supported Colleges and Universities should not be able to block DIVERSITY of beliefs from their admission or graduation of students.
This is bad for all students on campus.
Biased Educators will merely brainwash students without them being able to hear or state diverse viewpoints.
It’s discrimination, pure and simple.  Perhaps discriminating Universities like
those in CA should be not receive any taxpayer dollars or federal grants.
Who will be next in the purging of thought?

Way to go, Anne, for exposing the elephant in the room.  The attempt to oppose religious beliefs for the sake of their “discrimination against others’ beliefs” is itself a discrimination against someone’s belief.  The fact that most relativist claptrap is thus self-refuting is indeed proof of the falsity of relativism.  The claim that all truth is false results in an absurd logical feedback loop in that the claim itself cannot be true as consequence of itsef.  Logic is so much fun.

It looks like Zeus (Jupiter) and Apollo are the new father and son, as Mt. Sinai fades away and Mt. Olympus rises once again in the distance…

I’m shocked at what this country has come to.  I’m Catholic, but i would never say homosexual people were bad or treat them like they are unequal.  But it is completely immature to fire someone after they say they believe Catholicism.  Or to fire someone after they wouldn’t admit that homosexuality is wrong.  Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.  But we can’t force others to believe what we think is right, too.  I pray that those professors will find new jobs where their personal beliefs won’t affect their career.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention
http://www.christiancounselingusa.com