Posted on 12/20/2010 5:27:57 AM PST by Kaslin
Over the course of the last few weeks, I’ve received numerous well-reasoned emails asking me to explain my differences with radio talk show host Neal Boortz – at least as they pertain to an ongoing controversy involving Augusta State University student Jennifer Keeton. Insofar as our present differences arise from more fundamental differences regarding human imperfection and personal redemption I am pleased to elaborate.
For those not aware, Keeton was threatened with expulsion from Augusta State University for refusing to submit to a re-education program run by state-employed university officials. The re-education program was not targeted towards the manner in which Keeton had articulated certain ideas (including private conversations outside of class with fellow students). Instead, it was focused upon the substance of those ideas.
According to state officials, the principal “problem” was Keeton’s assertion that free will plays a role in homosexual conduct. Because she is a counseling major the state was concerned that, upon graduation, she might incorporate those views into her private professional practice. The “solution” mandated by the government was forced abandonment of her belief in free will. This was stated as a condition of remaining in the state-funded university program.
Neal Boortz’ position on the matter was succinctly summarized on his privately owned website back in early August. His support for the government reeducation program appeared then, as it does now, to be based upon two premises – the first of which I believe to be accurate, the second of which I believe to be deeply flawed.
The first premise is that feelings of homosexuality, when first experienced by a young person, tend to be accompanied by rather intense feelings of confusion and anxiety – as does the decision to seek counseling regarding one’s sexuality. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation accurately.
The second premise is that hearing a counselor articulate the view that the patient has some degree of control over his sexuality would heighten, rather than attenuate, his feelings of confusion and anxiety. In this regard, Boortz has characterized the situation inaccurately.
It is unclear how Boortz arrives at the conclusion that someone would find the phrase “You can change” to be more traumatic than the phrase “You cannot change.” Human beings have always been comforted by the idea that they have some control over their fate. To suggest that homosexuals are somehow emotionally traumatized by ideas that are found comforting by others is to suggest a high degree of emotional volatility. The idea is not only condescending but lacks any basis in reality.
The idea that homosexual conduct is fully under the control of genetics has been refuted. If sexual orientation is fully genetically determined, identical twins will always have the same sexual orientation. If one is gay, the other identical twin will always be gay. If one is straight, the other identical twin will always be straight. Since this is not always the case, other factors are involved. This situation cannot be as simple as Boortz imagines it to be.
The State of Georgia is attempting to do no less than force a student to articulate a position that has been empirically falsified; namely, that the genetic influence upon homosexuality is so complete as to nullify free will. Their motivation is predicated upon a second falsehood; namely, that the first falsehood promotes self-esteem.
To date, too much has been made of the fact that the Boortz position is at odds with his professed libertarianism. Not enough has been made of the fact that his position is at odds with his professed Christianity.
Put simply, the Boortz position fails to recognize the distinction between temptation and sin. It also fails to distinguish between living an imperfect life and living a life ruled by imperfection. Those who may have given in to temptations to engage in homosexual conduct are not genetically resigned to the full indulgence of the homosexual lifestyle.
Ideas have consequences. The ideas we express have specific consequences in the course of human history. They may either produce life or they may produce death among those who hear them. In that sense, this case is not just about liberty for one individual. It is about hope for an entire generation.
Jesus did not come into the world to establish government programs that teach people there is nothing wrong with them and that they lack the ability to change. He came into this world to save sinners. But His offer is available only to those willing to acknowledge their sin and willing to change. And He gives us the power to change even when talk show hosts tell us we cannot.
We live in a world that hates God – so much so that it nailed Him to a cross. But Hope was resurrected and is there for every man today. And that is our greatest source of comfort in a world that preaches hopelessness.
Adams is always a pleasure. He “gets it”.
Bravo!
IMO, Boortz exposes his clay feet on this matter. Boortz likes to be seen as the ultimate libertarian and generally espouses those views. By supporting the use of force by a government school, it is obvious his libertarianism is nuanced rather than principled.
I do not support every position taken by Mike Adams but in this matter he seems well-grounded.
Mr. Adams hasn't read much existentialist drivel, has he? It's practically a cornerstone of the ism that freedom entails horrid anxiety. Moreover there are plenty of people in this world who are averse to anxiety and that other thing freedom entails (responsibility), to such a degree that they will consistently risk their freedom for a cot and a regular feeding.
I have known people who can't endure the sight of a one-page menu.
It's clear that Dr. Adams has not researched the field very much. This issue is not a new one to counseling.
For example, and I'm simplifying things here and am not a mental-health professional myself, when Emory University found that traumatic events of childhood could result in different brain chemistry for adults (i.e., molested girls growing into women with PTSD had different brain chemistry), it demonstrated that we're not just "blank slates" upon which our thoughts are drawn. And many psychologists were against publicizing the research, saying, "this will take away hope from women who might be able to make some progress in therapy." Meanwhile, psychiatrists said that it would be important to let these women know, because they wouldn't beat themselves up as much for slow progress in therapy.
The State of Georgia is attempting to do no less than force a student to articulate a position that has been empirically falsified; namely, that the genetic influence upon homosexuality is so complete as to nullify free will.
Dang, Dr. Adams does write some good things sometimes, but then he acts like a freshman who's never had a logic or science course.
Is he wholly unaware of things that occur in the womb?!? Does he not realize that testosterone differences to fetuses can change their development?!? And there are even post-natal environmental conditions such as parental and sibling interactions that can't be said to be free will unless we're going to hold a newborn infant responsible for his whole life.
"If it's not genetics, it has to be free will" is a most ridiculous vie, and extremely disturbing, given he's a criminology professor and should know better. Dang, UNCW is an excellent school, in my opinion, but this is highly disturbing. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his end opinion, his reasoning to get where he is...is faulty.
“I have known people who can’t endure the sight of a one-page menu.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“What are you gonna have?”
Some athletes ... very few .... are those rare creatures we call "naturals." They are just born natural athletes. Most good athletes, and even a few great ones, become that way through practice and dedication.
I tend to believe that this is the case with homosexuals. Some few may well be born that way. The rest work at it. Just as many born "naturals" do not choose to become athletes, perhaps many "born" homosexuals could choose not to become deviant.
A very level-headed and thoughtful post...! Thx.
Reliance upon government to solve social problems is never successful. Typically it results in some form of socialism in which those in authority declare a slave and a master class division. This works for the masters and for those slaves who wish to be slaves. It does not work for those who choose a third alternative. They are enemies of the state and usually get imprisoned or killed.
Before the advent of social legislation communities took care of their needy. Graphic pictures of horrid poverty under this regimen ignore the horrid poverty under government programs to alleviate poverty.
Are you seriously implying homosexuals have no free will? Do you believe it’s impossible for a homosexual to change?
Listen, we’re all tempted to do all manner of harmful, aka sinful, things. I’m heterosexual. Surprisingly enough, I somehow remain faithful to my wife in spite of my heterosexual tendencies and the general availability of other women. I have the FREE WILL to resist temptation. That’s fundamental Christian thought. Not only that, but it’s reality. No one has to act on their temptations.
Personally, I think gender is far more mutable than most people are willing to admit. Men who would probably never engage in sodomy in free life apparently enjoy buggering their cellmates in prison. Either they were all born with homosexual tendencies, or they adapted to their environment.
Free Will on action or to stop desires?
Powerful article by Mike Adams
But it is possible for our actions to be moral. We can resist temptation. And if we are not quite perfect in the resistance, we can at least say "I should not have given in; I should not have done that."
But homosexuals wallow in their sin. They are proud of it. They allow it to define them. They make no effort to break away from carnal desire and pleasure.
The problem is, it’s not clear exactly what is being required of this student. The school has contradicted her claims, so it’s hard to know what to believe.
If a mathematics student refused to learn multiplication, or a medical student insists on learning the anatomy of only one gender, is it a use of force by a government school to say the student hasn’t completed the requirements for the degree?
The state U with taxpayer dollars is not just teaching satan’s religion, it is attempting to force her to adopt it..
The idea that homosexual conduct is fully under the control of genetics has been refuted. If sexual orientation is fully genetically determined, identical twins will always have the same sexual orientation.But homosexuals wallow in their sin. They are proud of it.
You know more about it than I do, I guess. I know homosexuals who don't act that way..in fact, I'd guess that the vast majority of ones I know don't do so. But I'm not in an area known for such things so I admit it might be different elsewhere.
Augusta State University: "No student is asked to change their religious beliefs or views in order to participate in any program."
Oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.