You need to learn to separate your polital beliefs from your religeous beliefs. From your own account, he wasn't persecuted for believing in Christ.

Christianity does not equal right wing any more today, than fifty or so years ago when many conservative Christians were active members of the Ku Klux Klan. Just as back then, there are many Christians today that believe in equal rights for all, equal access to reproductive healthcare services, first amendment protection for all media, regardless of whether you like what it says (or depicts), and still believe in Christ as their savior.

Your agument becomes quite transparent when put in to the context of 50 years ago: Do you think someone fighting for civil rights in the 1960's would have a valid concern if the psychologist in charge of screening police were merely 'affiliated' with the Klan?

Posted by dw on October 2, 2006 at 10:54 AM

>>>>You need to learn to separate your polital beliefs from your religeous beliefs.> he wasn't persecuted for believing in Christ.>>>Your agument becomes quite transparent when put in to the context of 50 years ago: Do you think someone fighting for civil rights in the 1960's would have a valid concern if the psychologist in charge of screening police were merely 'affiliated' with the Klan?>>>Christianity does not equal right wing any more today, than fifty or so years ago when many conservative Christians were active members of the Ku Klux Klan.<<<

According to the NBRA, and Project 21, both black political activist organizations, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, (the Party of Lincoln you know), it was in fact Democrats that passed the black codes and Jim Crow laws (that forced segregation), and fought all civil rights legislation from the 1860s to the 1960s.

You might want to note, it was also Democrats that started the KKK. Not conservative Christian Republicans or right-wingers.

Northern Christians were abolitionists, leading the first civil rights movement on an underground railroad. I suppose you could say they too, failed to separate their religion from their politics.

Posted by Rhonda on October 4, 2006 at 8:37 AM

dw, I am curious why you think political beliefs must be separated from religious beliefs. Truly, I am curious, I want to know what you meant and what you are thinking.

Broad terms like "Christian", "left wing", or even "Black" or "White" are only good when all involved in the discusion realize that these are geralities, sometimes imbued with powerful subjective bias. If I say "All Islamic Jihadists are evil", what is that really saying? I have never personally met an Islamic Jihadist, so I have no personal experience, no way to ascertain whether an individual Islamic Jihadist is evil or good. Even if I did, I would only be in a position to say something about that individual. However, the public news media is quick to paint such pictures and attempt to coerce our thinking down a particular path.

Why did I bring that up? Two reasons. First, I agree that "Christianity does not equal right wing." Thank God for that! =) Secondly, I do not see how that fits in with your first statement. I am confused. I believe Rhonda was implying that Dr. Campion was judged because of a label, and she is pointing out how unjust that is.

As to separating beliefs, I would contend that it is impossible. From my own experience, folks tend to prioritize their beliefs, allowing some to be more important and dominate over others. But they are not independent. My own personal religious beliefs drive and focus my political beliefs.

Posted by sacrophyte on October 5, 2006 at 12:55 PM

This article serves as a very good example of a FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt. It promotes the fear that the gay activists are against all Christians or at a minimum, the ones that give psychological screening tests to police officers.

The writer states the psychologist "has been accused by activists solely on the grounds of his Christian faith," to which I agree, if one includes in the definition of his christian faith that gays should not have equal rights (to marry). But then she expands the label to include all Christians stating that "recurrent attacks from activists that are sure a Christian cant (or shouldnt be ALLOWED to) do this job".

This just isn't true, and being able to identify, or 'separate' one's political beliefs from one's religion is important to understanding the error. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. How one interprets the teachings of Christ and applies them to interact with their world can lead to a further refining of the label of Methodist, Mennonite, Catholic, or conservative christian right.

From authors words it is plain that it was his affiliation/ participation with a politically active group opposed to civil rights for gays, NOT the fact that he was a Christian that garnered the ire of the gay activists. I'm pretty sure that they would have no problem with a Christian psychologist who was openly gay, or merely not openly affiliated/ supportive of a political group opposed to gay civil rights. They were not opposed to his religion (his belief in Christ, ie that he is a Christian), but to his politics (how he chooses to express his beliefs). This is where the author errs.

When the question was posed whether a black person in the 60's struggling for civil rights protection would have a valid concern if a public servant involved in screening police officers was affiliated with a group actively opposed to the attainment of those rights, the response from 'Rhonda' leaves the question glaringly unanswered and instead continues the FUD, citing Northern Christians as strong abolitionists (led by the Quakers, social liberals of their day, and it should not come as a surprise that they have upheld the tradition of their church, leading the way blessing gay marriages since 1987) and wraps up by attacking Democrats throughout the decades while extolling the Grand Ole Party (FYI: David Almasi, the director of Project21 and their sole paid employee, one of the supposed black political activist organizations is WHITE! What exactly does Rhonda mean by the label black political activist group???).

The "Northern Christians" in the 1800's wanted to abolish slavery and grant freedoms to an oppressed minority (the right to legally marry among them), while in contrast, todays conservative christian right wishes to abolish the gays and prevent the minority from obtaining equality and freedoms.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." -- A. Lincoln

"When any church will inscribe over its altar, as its sole qualification for membership, the Savior's condensed statement of the substance of both law and Gospel, 'Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and thy neighbor as thyself' that church will I join with all my heart and all my soul." -- A. Lincoln

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"

-- A. Lincoln

Party of Lincoln. Indeed!

Posted by dw on October 6, 2006 at 2:44 AM

>>>From authors words it is plain that it was his affiliation/ participation with a politically active group opposed to civil rights for gays, NOT the fact that he was a Christian that garnered the ire of the gay activists. I'm pretty sure that they would have no problem with a Christian psychologist who was openly gay, or merely not openly affiliated/ supportive of a political group opposed to gay civil rights. They were not opposed to his religion (his belief in Christ, ie that he is a Christian), but to his politics (how he chooses to express his beliefs). This is where the author errs.>>>When the question was posed whether a black person in the 60's struggling for civil rights protection would have a valid concern if a public servant involved in screening police officers was affiliated with a group actively opposed to the attainment of those rights, the response from 'Rhonda' leaves the question glaringly unanswered and instead continues the FUD... >>todays conservative christian right wishes to abolish the gays and prevent the minority from obtaining equality and freedoms.<<<

Now theres a fine kettle of FUD.

The fact remains: Dr. Campion has had no complainant; there are no charges of discrimination against him. He was suspended solely because of his affiliations, and by the assumptions of others into his person belief system. These are not my words, but those who suspended him upon investigation.

Latest Update.

The reinstatement has been rescinded and the lawsuit is going forth. Many believe this will become a landmark case.

Posted by Rhonda on October 20, 2006 at 7:25 AM

I fail to see why dw has a problem with what Rhonda wrote in her first post, concerning Dr. Campion. She was simply stating the facts of the reason he was suspended, not her opinion of what that reason was. As she states, the fact remains, he was suspended for his affiliations. And since when must anyone separate their political beliefs from their religious beliefs? Does dw? How does a Christian form thier opinions about a person running for public office, if they do not weigh the candidates beliefs and voting record, against the Word of God?

Posted by FofR on October 21, 2006 at 1:55 PM