Anti-Gay Doctor, Fired from Medical Journal, Uses Final Article to Promote God

Did you read the article? This is from the statement of the AHA:

“The American Heart Association has a zero tolerance policy with respect to personal conduct that conflicts with its guiding values and its commitment to an environment that embraces diversity and inclusion and values cultural, racial, gender and other differences to help it succeed in achieving its mission and goals.”

“Personal conduct”. Pretty clear, no?

Besides which, he was fired from his job as a magazine editor. The owners of a magazine can fire its editors for pretty well any reason it wants to. If he is subjecting the magazine to bad publicity by being a raging and unhinged bigot in public, it is perfectly acceptable, not to mention legal, to fire him.

1 Like

Duh. Of course.

Religion is not a “get out of jail free” card that excuses reprehensible behavior.

When a member of ISIS commits an act of mass murder because of his religion, it is still mass murder and therefore wrong. No?

Yes, I figured that out from @Jonathan_Burke comments…
Thanks for the name calling.
You made my point well.

No. Asking me, as a non-homosexual, how I would define homophobia, is a red flag. Who cares how I would define it? My opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant since I don’t belong to the vulnerable group in question. If you care, go ask them.

2 Likes

This reminds of an episode in the church I grew up in. For context, this was in the early 80’s during an era where divorces were becoming much more common, both within the church and in society in general. There was a woman who wanted to work as a secretary in the church office, but she was a divorcee. The elders of church didn’t look too fondly on people who had gone through divorce, being a sin and all. In the end, it was decided that a person’s sin was between them and God and she was hired as a secretary. Not only that, but my parent’s generation didn’t have the same views on divorce as their parents did. They were able to figure out how to separate sin and the sinner.

3 Likes

So you are imposing your views on morality on everyone else?
How is this different from Saudi Arabia forcing people to stay Muslims(atleast in public) even when they don’t want to?

So calling homosexuality a Sin is like an act of “mass murder”?
Both of us agree that mass murder is morally wrong. We don’t agree about the moral quality of a homosexual act.
Do you think, everyone should give up their views on morality where they don’t agree with yours?

Easy. Not being a Muslim is moral. Being a homophobic bigot is not.

Might as well ask “How is Saudi Arabia forcing people to stay Muslim different than some other country banning murder?”

Is that a difficult question for you to answer?

Not as bad, but still an immoral act, yes.

There are also people who do not agree it is immoral to rape little children. Disagreeing that something is immoral does not make it moral. Right?

People should not behave immorally. Being a homophobic bigot is immoral.

That’s your opinion. You must realise that many people disagree with you including many practising Muslims.
Why should your opinions on morality be worth enforcing on others?

Again, your opinion.

No, it just shows there are other opinions and why should your opinions be superior?

Again, this is a strong moral opinion you hold.why should your opinion be superior to someone who believes it’s a sin?
It should be left to individuals to conclude which is right or wrong and people should be free to hold opinions on morality and speak on them strongly…
Just like you calling all people who think the homosexual act is a sin Bigots

Would AHA’s ethical principles of promoting diversity compell them to sack people like you who call a large part of the population bigots?

I think it’s obvious that a particular moral viewpoint is being enforced through name calling, loss of jobs etc.

So you do not believe there are moral values that should be observed within a society? That we should not have laws against things like murder, rape and theft?

“Gender” and “diversity”. Basically, the American Heart Association has the right to remove editors from its journals on the basis of conduct. I think it was the content of the letter (see here) that pretty much guaranteed the AHA response. To be clear, for native US English speakers, the terms he specifically chose were quite derogatory and highly offensive.

6 Likes

Yep, homophobic. No question about it.

Edit: I was not being sarcastic.

Well, doesn’t look like there is one so far.

Inflammatory language of any kind is forbidden. That’s about it, for all I know.

Laws are something like a common minimum programme on which most of the people in a community can agree on.
All morality cannot be controlled by legislation and it should not be.

I never said it should be.

Your comments are suggesting it should never by, that morality is a purely individual matter.

Absolutely. It was the equivalent of calling a black person the “N” word. That is absolutely intolerable.

1 Like

I wasn’t talking about language used on this forum, or in this thread, but the PS attitude to the issue in general. On some hot issues (such as racism), PS makes a strong, clear statement. On other hot issues (such as anthropogenic climate change), there’s no comment.

So you intend to use terms like “homophobia” and “homophobic language” (as you have done several times on this page) without being willing to explain what you mean by them? You are calling for clarification of PS’s stance on these things without first explaining the meaning of the thing you are calling for a stance on?

Ashwin has quite reasonably asked the people who are using these terms to define them. That has been the basis of rational Western discourse since the time of Socrates. And assigning “red flags” to people who ask questions you don’t like shows a totalitarian mentality that should have no place on Peaceful Science, which purports to be a place where people can discuss issues freely. This is one of the problems with the modern university, that increasingly, ideological faculty and students are throwing down “red flags” and telling colleagues and students what they can or cannot say. It’s also a problem in the wider society as well. We have not learned the lesson George Orwell tried to teach us about the dangers of policing language (and hence thought).

I note that the frequent de facto meaning of “homophobia” is “hatred of homosexuals”, despite the fact that this meaning is not warranted by the Greek roots. In the light of this semantic-etymological muddle, Ashwin’s request is quite reasonable, and helpful.

No. You are avoiding my point. The question was not about what I mean by them, the question was about how I define these terms. I am using them as other people have defined them.

No. But thanks for making your own personal stance on this issue abundantly cleary.

Which other people, and where can I find these other people’s formal definitions of these terms? That’s what Ashwin is asking for.

The only thing I’ve made clear is that people should define terms when someone ask for how they are using a word. Undefined terms, uttered in a heated tone, are too often used demagogically. The act of slowing down and defining a term, being a rational act, helps to cool down passions and create a momentary pause for reflection. It’s a civilized thing to do.