Libtard Re-Education Scheme for Christian Students...

My attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund recently filed suit against Augusta State University. I’m happy, but Neal Boortz and other supporters of government-imposed thought-reform programs are spitting mad. Boortz is one of the leaders of a public smear campaign against a counseling student who was told that her Christian beliefs are unethical and incompatible with the prevailing views of the counseling profession.

The Christian student, Jennifer Keeton, has been told by Augusta State University government officials that she must stop sharing her Christian beliefs with others. She has also been told that she must change her Christian beliefs in order to graduate from the government-funded counseling program.

Neal Boortz, a libertarian, is angry at her because she believes that choice, not just sheer genetic determinism, plays a role in human sexual behavior.

Neal Boortz has often asserted that people’s circumstances are nothing more than the product of the choices they have made in life. But not when it comes to homosexuality. On that issue, Boortz just can’t see straight (please pardon the pun). And if you disagree with Boortz or his allies in the politically correct academy then you are a homophobe or, in Boortz’ on-air opinion, a “dumba**.”

Augusta State ordered Keeton to undergo the Neal Boortz-endorsed government re-education plan, which involves “diversity sensitivity training,” additional remedial reading, and additional papers to describe the re-education program’s impact on her beliefs. It also orders her to “work to increase exposure and interactions with gay populations. One such activity could be attending the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta.” The school stopped short of making her wear flannel shirts and download music by The Village People.

But if she does not change her beliefs or agree to the plan, the university says it will expel her from the Counselor Education Program. Boortz, the libertarian, agrees with the government thought-reform program. And he has labeled opponents as “homophobes.”

For the record, I don’t fear anyone, gay or straight. But I do fear my government, especially when it uses words like “re-education” in the same sentence with words like “multicultural.”

Keeton, who is 24, was peacefully pursuing her master’s degree in counseling. But, recently, her professors learned of her biblical beliefs, specifically her views on homosexual conduct, from both classroom discussions and by investigating private conversations with other students. They later decided to impose the re-education plan. There is no accusation that Keeton ever denigrated anyone in communicating her beliefs.

Some people are fearful of the implications of subscribing to the view that homosexuality is chosen. They fear that one who holds such a view must also believe that heterosexuality is a choice. But they fail to grasp the implications of subscribing to the radical view that there is no choice involved in human sexual behavior.

What if we turn the argument around? What if the homosexual is allowed to argue, without opposition, that he has no choice with regard to his sexual behavior? Must we also allow the heterosexual to argue, without opposition, that he has no choice with regard to his sexual behavior? Does anyone have a choice? Would there remain any moral basis for outlawing any form of sexual behavior? Are all expressions, once fully explained, also fully excused?

Most people are not silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is determined entirely by genetics. Nor are most people silly enough to suggest that sexual behavior is entirely a function of free will. Both factors are involved. And that is why, in a free society, both positions must be afforded constitutional protection.

In the end, reasonable people will have to decide for themselves which factors exert the greatest influence on human sexual behavior. The debate must be won by the party with the strongest argument. It cannot be “won” by the party that controls the government.

The State of Georgia seeks avoid the suggestion that gays can become ex-gays by demanding that Christians become ex-Christians. Oddly, by suggesting that Christians have free will and gays do not, they deprive only the latter of their humanity.