http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/slaggie-gilamonster-gay-marriage-will.html
The above, and you'll forgive me being frank, is a ridiculous argument. When a professional organization denies membership to someone it deems outside the ideological viewpoint of the profession its not out of line to reject them. Case in point; Matt Hale, the founder of the Church of the Creator failed to pass the Bar for these reasons alone. His missives about racial superiority were (shockingly) opposed to those of the law board. And now he's doing time for trying to murder a federal judge... yes, its a shame he's not a big and powerful lawyer who had viewpoints would have debased the profession (further) as its against his "freedoms" for the professional body to reject people that don't adhere to their standards professionally. The idea that religious intolerance is somehow put on the line when a profession sets ideological standards for its patently ridiculous. Ethical and ideological standards are an important part of professions like law, medicine and science in order to maintain a level of quality and ensure uniformity amongst the profession. It in fact does harm to both the profession and persons they’ll potentially come into contact with to have, say, a therapist who goes against the school of organized thought regarding treatment regarding sexual orientation, or doctors who ignore standard procedure regarding common medical practice. None of this would work for the greater good.
Nevermind that the entirety of Galligher’s argument is based on conjecture and, thus cannot be empirically proven. Fearmongering and pear clutching at its most histrionic. Professional standards ensure the fair and ethical treatment of organizations providing important services to the public. If one cannot actually BE professional and apply their religious beliefs in their personal lives alone, then perhaps they’re being discouraged from these positions for exactly the right reasons.
The above, and you'll forgive me being frank, is a ridiculous argument. When a professional organization denies membership to someone it deems outside the ideological viewpoint of the profession its not out of line to reject them. Case in point; Matt Hale, the founder of the Church of the Creator failed to pass the Bar for these reasons alone. His missives about racial superiority were (shockingly) opposed to those of the law board. And now he's doing time for trying to murder a federal judge... yes, its a shame he's not a big and powerful lawyer who had viewpoints would have debased the profession (further) as its against his "freedoms" for the professional body to reject people that don't adhere to their standards professionally. The idea that religious intolerance is somehow put on the line when a profession sets ideological standards for its patently ridiculous. Ethical and ideological standards are an important part of professions like law, medicine and science in order to maintain a level of quality and ensure uniformity amongst the profession. It in fact does harm to both the profession and persons they’ll potentially come into contact with to have, say, a therapist who goes against the school of organized thought regarding treatment regarding sexual orientation, or doctors who ignore standard procedure regarding common medical practice. None of this would work for the greater good.
Nevermind that the entirety of Galligher’s argument is based on conjecture and, thus cannot be empirically proven. Fearmongering and pear clutching at its most histrionic. Professional standards ensure the fair and ethical treatment of organizations providing important services to the public. If one cannot actually BE professional and apply their religious beliefs in their personal lives alone, then perhaps they’re being discouraged from these positions for exactly the right reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment