University course and anti-gay Facebook post.

[JamesR123 0]

You make some good points cyclone.  I still feel that education supported by the state should not be denied to someone based on a Facebook post.

 

The post didn't call to violence. As far as I know, the post just said homosexuality was a sin.  This is true, it is a sin according to the bible.

 

I don't believe in the concept of sin and judge people's sex lives on 2 criteria;

Is informed consent obtained?

Is it with my Mrs?

 

If the answer is yes and no, then I couldn5 care less.

 

I don't think the claim that homosexuality is a sin should get you removed from an educational course that you have invested time and money in.

[Cyclone 10]

1 hour ago, Nightbird said:

Its the very westernised, secular BME's that are open to progressive agendas, if they are. As for the Chinese, I'm told they generally keep themselves very much to themselves within universities, as they do in general society.

You're confusing Chinese students from China, with English Chinese.

33 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

You make some good points cyclone.  I still feel that education supported by the state should not be denied to someone based on a Facebook post.

 

The post didn't call to violence.

 

I don't believe in the concept of sin and judge people's sex lives on 2 criteria;

Is informed consent obtained?

Is it with my Mrs?

 

If the answer is yes and no, then I couldn5 care less.

 

I don't think the claim that homosexuality is a sin should get you removed from an educational course that you have invested time and money in.

Quote

As far as I know, the post just said homosexuality was a sin.  This is true, it is a sin according to the bible.

You've fallen into a trap there.  If the post said "the bible says homosexuality is a sin", then you're correct, it's true, that's what the bible says.  But what you quoted and then claimed is true, well, it's not.  Because the bible doesn't define truth.

And their feelings about that, and the way they felt they were able to express them appear to be incompatible with the course they are studying and the career for which they are studying that course, which includes being professionally accredited by the university to enter that profession.

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

we have a responsibility to look at how any concerns raised could impact a student's fitness to practise once registered."

If the university is correct that it has this responsibility, then it acted in line with it IMO.

[DnAuK 10]

4 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

Forced neutrality, when I read it, meant that Universities should be politically neutral and not for instance kick a homophobe off the course.  Freedom of speech I guess.

 

If said homophobe attacked a homosexual it would be different.

You realise that it isnt universities who allow people to become social workers don't you?

 

Universities should allow racists to train as doctors yes.  Whether hospitals should employ racists as doctors is a different question.

Npe. You're missing a fundamental point on this. Universities have a public duty to declare a student 'fit to practice' what they are teaching. In this particular circumstance the university felt that they could not. In fact the university's terms and conditions of the course specifically included lines on the very thing the person was kicked off the course for. So...

 

1) They couldn't state he was fit to practice

2) he breached terms and condition of being on the course

 

Just what should the university have done do you think?

 

(Oh, and by the way, a legal appeal upheld their decision - just in case you were wondering).

 

16 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You're confusing Chinese students from China, with English Chinese.

You've fallen into a trap there.  If the post said "the bible says homosexuality is a sin", then you're correct, it's true, that's what the bible says.  But what you quoted and then claimed is true, well, it's not.  Because the bible doesn't define truth.

And their feelings about that, and the way they felt they were able to express them appear to be incompatible with the course they are studying and the career for which they are studying that course, which includes being professionally accredited by the university to enter that profession.

If the university is correct that it has this responsibility, then it acted in line with it IMO.

You beat me to the fitness to practice thing by seconds. They are correct that they have this responsibility. It is specifically laid out to them in guidance from government. For me, the whole rest of the argumant is irrelevant.

[JamesR123 0]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

You've fallen into a trap there.  If the post said "the bible says homosexuality is a sin", then you're correct, it's true, that's what the bible says.  But what you quoted and then claimed is true, well, it's not.  Because the bible doesn't define truth.

 

Sin is transgression against divine law.  Homosexuality is a sin according to the major world religions. However I see sin as about as important as talking about fight club.  Sin does not have a secular/non-theistic meaning.

 

The bible does not get to define truth.  However it does get to define sin, just as fight club the movie gets to define what the rules of fight club is and Game of Thrones gets to define what the rules of the Nights Watch are.

I didn't know about the fitness to practice being a requirement of the University rather than the prospective employer.  If this is true then the University made the correct decision.

 

However I am not comfortable with this responsibility being given to the universities.

[Cyclone 10]

There'd have to be a single "divine law" in order for any given thing to be categorically defined as sinful then.  And I'd most definitely disagree with you on your statement that sin doesn't have a secular meaning.

 

Google gives a definition with multiple parts, the first being the religious reference you covered, the second being the more secular meaning.

 

 

Quote

 

sin¹

/sɪn/

noun

noun: sin; plural noun: sins

1. 1.

   an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

   "a sin in the eyes of God"

   synonyms:

   immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offence, misdeed, misdemeanour, error, lapse, fall from grace; More

   antonyms:

   virtue, good

   • an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission.

     "he committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews"

     synonyms:

     scandal, crime, disgrace, outrage "the way they spend money—it's a sin"

 

1.  

    

   The bible doesn't get to "define" sin, it gets to define a Christian version of it.  That doesn't somehow make it a universal truth.

    

Edited July 4, 2019 by Cyclone

[alchresearch 210]

21 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

 I still feel that education supported by the state should not be denied to someone based on a Facebook post.

 

Its sadly the way of the world now.  People are being hounded off social media or fired for incidents that end up in the paper and the employers get bombarded with angry complaints from trolls.

 

 

[Cyclone 10]

Sadly the way of the world that someone posting homophobic views on social media is held to account for those views?

[JamesR123 0]

8 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Sadly the way of the world that someone posting homophobic views on social media is held to account for those views?

Strictly speaking he wasn't being homophobic himself.  Homosexuals don't go to heaven in the world's major religions (which it is clear from the context he was talking about) unless they repent.  They only thing wrong with what he said was that it is specifically male homosexuals that suffer this.

 

It could be that he was trying to help homosexuals.

 

 

Answer me this, you get some revelation tomorrow that the bible is true and that men who have sex with men will be condemned to an eternity of hell.  I would rather be taken to Auchwitz then spend eternity in hell btw.

 

Would you not try all you can to persuade homosexuals to repent?  I would.  I would feel morally obliged to, again on the condition that I "knew" that anyone I failed to save would go to hell.

11 hours ago, Cyclone said:

There'd have to be a single "divine law" in order for any given thing to be categorically defined as sinful then.  And I'd most definitely disagree with you on your statement that sin doesn't have a secular meaning.

 

Google gives a definition with multiple parts, the first being the religious reference you covered, the second being the more secular meaning.

 

 

1.  

    

   The bible doesn't get to "define" sin, it gets to define a Christian version of it.  That doesn't somehow make it a universal truth.

    

The major world religions define homosexuality as a sin.  I did state this.  I also clearly said it wasn't a truth.  It was clear from the context he was speaking from an Abrahamic view point.

 

They are rules from a book.  What he said was akin to saying "The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club"

Edited July 5, 2019 by JamesR123

[Cyclone 10]

I disagree, he didn't say that "the bible says homosexuality is a sin".  He said "homosexuality is a sin".  He believes that.  It's likely to impact his ability to deal with homosexual patients.

[JamesR123 0]

Just now, Cyclone said:

I disagree, he didn't say that "the bible says homosexuality is a sin".  He said "homosexuality is a sin".  He believes that.  It's likely to impact his ability to deal with homosexual patients.

As i said in my edited post above, the context makes it clear he was speaking from an Abrahamic view point. 

[Cyclone 10]

Which is his viewpoint.  He was not commenting on what the bible says, he believes it.  It is directly likely to impact his ability to treat some patients.

 

Just fact checking you here as well

 

Quote

The major world religions define homosexuality as a sin

 

Is this true?  Abrahamic religions, for sure.  But Hinduism does not.  That's a billion people, 15% of the world's population.

Buddhism doesn't.  About 500 million, 7.5% of the world's population.

Sikhism doesn't.  But that's only 25 million people.

Actually, it appears to be ONLY abrahamic religions that condemn it.  And in fact in their more modern interpretations many have abandoned that position in their teachings and official line.

[Halibut 12]

I think everyone who has contributed to this thread would do well to read the following piece - particularly those who appear to be suggesting that government should interfere with Universities - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/italy-far-right-salvini-lega-league-university-bologna-fascism-a8870736.html?fbclid=IwAR2m30mNwG0NbEUYT6EMs5OUaQw_QCSsJg9Rz7Bj4PMbuc-FDa7KntDatgc