Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum

Uyr

Ex Member

Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Jan 20^th, 2012 at 1:31pm

This story originally was set in motion in October of 2011, but was carried to its dénouement just a few days ago.

Lesbian Marine vet files complaints against employee at Dallas hospital

Quote:

A wounded lesbian Marine veteran who sought mental health treatment at the Dallas VA Medical Center claims she was subjected to an extended anti-gay tirade by a nurse practitioner.

Esther Garatie, 28, a former Marine lance corporal who lives in Dallas, has filed complaints against the nurse practitioner, Lincy Pandithurai of Cedar Hill, with both the VA Medical Center and the Texas Board of Nursing. ...

Garatie, a native of New Orleans who moved to Dallas earlier this year, said she was honorably discharged from the Marines in 2006 after severely injuring her leg while on active duty.

She said she went to the Dallas VA Medical Center on Oct. 12 to seek treatment for severe depression and possible post-traumatic stress disorder — including thoughts of suicide.

In a three-page written statement about the incident, Garatie alleges that Pandithurai inquired about her sexual orientation at the outset of their meeting. After Garatie responded that she was a lesbian, Pandithurai told Garatie she was living in sin and said that was the reason for her mental health issues, according to the statement.

“She sat down and looked at me, and her first question was, ‘Are you a lesbian?’” Garatie wrote in the statement. “Her second question to me was, ‘Have you asked God into your heart? Have you been saved by Jesus Christ?’ This is when I realized that I was no longer a United States veteran in her eyes, I was just a homosexual.”

The session lasted for more than three hours, with Pandithurai citing the Bible and repeatedly telling Garatie she was living in darkness and would be doomed to hell if she didn’t “come back to ‘the light,’” according to the statement.

Pandithurai told Garatie she could change her sexual orientation. Pandithurai also told Garatie homosexuality was a diagnosable condition until President Barack Obama changed that, the statement alleges.

Penny Kerby, a spokeswoman for the VA Medical Center, confirmed that Garatie’s complaint is under investigation.

“VA North Texas Health Care System does not tolerate discrimination on any level and takes any allegation of such behavior seriously,” Kerby said in a statement. “Each employee who interacts with every veteran patient is expected to demonstrate our core values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence. This allegation is being investigated and if substantiated, appropriate measures will be taken to address the issue.” ...

Garatie said she’s not the type of person who would normally try to get someone fired, but she wants to prevent the same thing from happening to other gay veterans — particularly after the recent repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The post-script to the story is that after being placed on adminstrative leave following the charge and investigation, Nurse Pandithurai has been fired.

Here's the observation: there are people on this board, like cc lezel (Seawolf) who will insist that Nurse Pandithurai was simply exercising her constitutional right to the free expression of her religion, and was well within those rights to spend three hours haranguing a suicidally depressed veteran under her care as "a sinner" because of her sexual orientation, insisting that because she was a lesbian she was in need of "saving" by Jesus.

The question: Is that the case?

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All LNF Moderator The Writer's Croft LNF Bunker Offline Be completely alive until you're completely dead. Posts: 36,908 Gender:	Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise? Reply #1 - Jan 20^th, 2012 at 5:15pm This is outside her job. If she really feels God instructing her to share her faith, she can do so in less than three hours and certainly without this kind of harangue. I say harassment.
Back to top	IP Logged

Uyr

Ex Member

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #2 - Jan 20^th, 2012 at 5:21pm

Mercy For All wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:

This is outside her job. If she really feels God instructing her to share her faith, she can do so in less than three hours and certainly without this kind of harangue. I say harassment.

Opening the door to the question, is religious instruction (which is quite possibly all this nurse thought she was rendering, regardless of the length of time taken) outside the job of politicians? ...For example, as coming from this news story? ...

Clerk's School Prayer Sparks Controversy

Quote:

A new battle is brewing in New Haven in the debate over the separation of church and state.

The New Haven Register reports that the story is coming under fire.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a national watchdog for the separation of church and state, sent a letter to Mayor John DeStefano that condemns Smith for calling for school prayer as a way to fight crime.

In his speech, Smith declared, "You want crime to go away? Put prayer back in schools.”

"Mr. Smith's comment is offensive, incorrect, and would be unconstitutional if put into practice," Annie Laurie Gaylor, of the Wisconsin-based group wrote in a letter to the mayor. “In claiming that prayer would lower crime, Mr. Smith is implying that non-believers are criminals — an idea that is at once insulting and ignorant."

Smith, however is standing by his comments that prayer will help restore peace in the streets.

“We have to let God in, instead of keeping him out. When we put prayer back in school I believe you will see a change,” Smith told the Register.

He said students of different religions should be able to pray in their own way.

In a statement, Mayor DeStefano said the city has no plans to incorporate prayer into public schools, the Day said.

“That being said, I do believe the religious community can play a positive role in engaging young people and in providing positive outlets and support for students outside of school,” he said.

When Gaylor learned of the mayors comments, she said, “I’m just goin’ to say ‘amen’ to that.”

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Church-vs-State-Debate-in-New-Haven-137...

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All

LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,908
Gender: male

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #3 - Jan 20^th, 2012 at 7:36pm

Quote:

Opening the door to the question, is religious instruction (which is quite possibly all this nurse thought she was rendering, regardless of the length of time taken) outside the job of politicians? ...For example, as coming from this news story? ...

As far as my opinion goes, when someone doesn't want to listen, it's time to stop talking.

Quote:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a national watchdog for the separation of church and state, sent a letter to Mayor John DeStefano that condemns Smith for calling for school prayer as a way to fight crime.

Freedom from religion is not the point of separation of church and state, especially when it comes to "what you should be free to hear about."

Quote:

In his speech, Smith declared, "You want crime to go away? Put prayer back in schools.”

That's obviously an opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but believe he has the right to say it.

Quote:

"Mr. Smith's comment is offensive, incorrect, and would be unconstitutional if put into practice," Annie Laurie Gaylor, of the Wisconsin-based group wrote in a letter to the mayor. “In claiming that prayer would lower crime, Mr. Smith is implying that non-believers are criminals — an idea that is at once insulting and ignorant."

Seeing in his statement the implication that non-believers are criminals is over-sensitive to the point of ridiculousness.

Quote:

Smith, however is standing by his comments that prayer will help restore peace in the streets.

I agree that prayer can help restore peace in the streets; I disagree that making students say the words of prayer will do that. Reciting a prayer isn't necessarily praying, especially when someone is only reciting (i.e., is not really praying).

Quote:

“We have to let God in, instead of keeping him out. When we put prayer back in school I believe you will see a change,” Smith told the Register.

Again, that's an opinion he should be free to share, although I disagree with him--on two levels: one, as I said above, making students recite the words of a pray is not "putting prayer back in school," and two, you can't take prayer out of school. To imply that people are currently not allowed to pray in school or that people will only pray "once they are allowed" is about as ridiculous as claiming that Smith's opinion implies that non-believers are criminals.

Quote:

He said students of different religions should be able to pray in their own way.

And the "non-believer"? Can he "pray in his own way" (i.e., not at all)? Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Quote:

In a statement, Mayor DeStefano said the city has no plans to incorporate prayer into public schools, the Day said.

No surprise there.

Quote:

“That being said, I do believe the religious community can play a positive role in engaging young people and in providing positive outlets and support for students outside of school,” he said.

But not in school?

Quote:

When Gaylor learned of the mayors comments, she said, “I’m just goin’ to say ‘amen’ to that.”

Odd that she wouldn't perceive some kind of insult in that statement--maybe that the mayor's statement implies that non-believers have nothing to offer...

Back to top

IP Logged

Writers_Block

LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker

Offline

Posts: 18,344
Florida
Gender: male

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #4 - Jan 21^st, 2012 at 4:28am

Quote:

This story originally was set in motion in October of 2011, but was carried to its dénouement just a few days ago.

Lesbian Marine vet files complaints against employee at Dallas hospital

This was hardly religious exercise. This was pure harassment. The nurse-practitioner had no right to ask about her sexual preference nor proselytize while on the job. She was totally out of line and deserved to be fired.

The post-script to the story is that after being placed on adminstrative leave following the charge and investigation, Nurse Pandithurai has been fired.

Here's the observation: there are people on this board, like cc lezel (Seawolf) who will insist that Nurse Pandithurai was simply exercising her constitutional right to the free expression of her religion, and was well within those rights to spend three hours haranguing a suicidally depressed veteran under her care as "a sinner" because of her sexual orientation, insisting that because she was a lesbian she was in need of "saving" by Jesus.

The question: Is that the case?

The nurse practitioner was out of line. She had no right to ask about the woman's sexuality and she had no right to proselytize on the job. She deserved to be fired.

Back to top

IP Logged

Uyr

Ex Member

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #5 - Jan 21^st, 2012 at 10:54am

Mercy For All wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 7:36pm:

As far as my opinion goes, when someone doesn't want to listen, it's time to stop talking.

Of course that doesn't quite answer the question about religion-talk being outside the job description of a politician. In fact, it's no answer at all because every politician can bet his career on the fact that each time he opens his mouth on the subject of religion, someone within earshot of his microphone will not want to listen to it. Therefore I ask again: Is religious instruction a thing outside the job of politicians?

Quote:

Freedom from religion is not the point of separation of church and state, especially when it comes to "what you should be free to hear about."

Right. The state's position re dealings with religion should be one of studied indifference, even benign neglect, unless religion does something to cross forbidden lines - like preachers telling their congregations who to vote for. However, this position does place a sort of "freedom from religion" stamp on government activities, and necessarily that means the people working and operating within government to the extent government reaches, which is far and deeply. Then too each private citizen has the right to be free from religion as a function of his basic right to privacy, which provides one of the foundation stones for the point that the right to practice one's religion freely does not and never will extend to practicing it in your neighbor's living room without receiving permission to do so. (Private property rights also apply, but are not the whole story. For example, the landlord of a property you rent can't give permission to allow religious ceremonies in your living room if you don't want them there.)

Quote:

That's obviously an opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but believe he has the right to say it.

But does he from his capacity as an elected official? If he's speaking as Citizen Smith, then of course he has every right to express pretty much anything he wants to say. But if he's speaking as County Clerk Smith, concerning religion, is that the same?

Quote:

Seeing in his statement the implication that non-believers are criminals is over-sensitive to the point of ridiculousness.

I happen to agree with that, although the implication is there. But it is also, as you correctly observe, quite a stretch to get there.

Quote:

I agree that prayer can help restore peace in the streets

And I disagree with that simply based on crime figures kept by the FBI. There are several calsses of crime the incidence of which have dropped as American society has become more secularized. There may not be a real correlation, true; I simply note that the unexamined overlay indicates America was a more violent place, and more rife with criminal activity, when prayer and other forms of religious observance were commoner in our public spaces.

Quote:

I disagree that making students say the words of prayer will do that. Reciting a prayer isn't necessarily praying, especially when someone is only reciting (i.e., is not really praying).

Right. A prayer recited by rote isn't any more of a prayer that mathematical tables recited by rote represent an understanding of math.

Quote:

Again, that's an opinion he should be free to share

Again, I waver, not being convinced that "God talk" is proper coming from an elected politician performing in the capacity of his office.

Quote:

although I disagree with him--on two levels: one, as I said above, making students recite the words of a pray is not "putting prayer back in school," and two, you can't take prayer out of school. To imply that people are currently not allowed to pray in school or that people will only pray "once they are allowed" is about as ridiculous as claiming that Smith's opinion implies that non-believers are criminals.

Yes, because people pray in schools all the time. No one can control or stop what another is doing in the privacy of their own mind, is the point. Can it really be that people like Clerk Smith object to the fact that it's prayers organized by school officials, said aloud, in unison, or collectively listened to over an intercom system, which have been curtailed - as if those external factors make a prayer more pleasing to God , and so increase the likelihood of favorable response therefrom?

Quote:

And the "non-believer"? Can he "pray in his own way" (i.e., not at all)? Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Obviously there is no problem as long as any and all such prayers don't turn athwart of the Constitution.

Quote:

But not in school?

No. Not as something organized by school officials, anyway.

Back to top

IP Logged

Luckyman Ex Member	Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise? Reply #6 - Jan 21^st, 2012 at 11:35am It's a shame that one has to be a vet to get any heed in outrageous cases like these.
Back to top	IP Logged

Goose

LNF Representative2

Offline

There is no Try...Only
Do or Do Not

Posts: 2,473
Gender: male

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #7 - Jan 21^st, 2012 at 9:59pm

Quote:

Right. The state's position re dealings with religion should be one of studied indifference, even benign neglect, unless religion does something to cross forbidden lines - like preachers telling their congregations who to vote for.

There is no such forbidden line as the one you mentioned. Churches are subject to the same first amendment protections as you and I and they can and do recommend candidates. It is no different in the eyes of the law and the constitution as AARP or the Teamsters sending out a voting guide. There is no requirement to use the guides either.

Back to top

I have never seen a wild thing feel sorry for itself. A little bird will fall dead, frozen from a bough, without ever having felt sorry for itself.--D.H. Lawrence

IP Logged

Uyr

Ex Member

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #8 - Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 9:29am

Goose wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 9:59pm:

There is no such forbidden line as the one you mentioned. Churches are subject to the same first amendment protections as you and I and they can and do recommend candidates. It is no different in the eyes of the law and the constitution as AARP or the Teamsters sending out a voting guide. There is no requirement to use the guides either.

Actually, if a church allows itself to be used as a political rallying point for a particular candidate or party, and especially if it features speakers who stump for particular candidates, it runs a very real risk of losing its tax-exempt status, if reported and found to have been in violation.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mercy For All

LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker

Offline

Be completely alive until
you're completely dead.

Posts: 36,908
Gender: male

Re: Harrassment, or Religious Exercise?
Reply #9 - Jan 22^nd, 2012 at 2:49pm

Quote:

Of course that doesn't quite answer the question about religion-talk being outside the job description of a politician. In fact, it's no answer at all because every politician can bet his career on the fact that each time he opens his mouth on the subject of religion, someone within earshot of his microphone will not want to listen to it. Therefore I ask again: Is religious instruction a thing outside the job of politicians?

Generally speaking, yes. Sharing an opinion is not "religious instruction."

Quote:

Right. The state's position re dealings with religion should be one of studied indifference, even benign neglect, unless religion does something to cross forbidden lines - like preachers telling their congregations who to vote for. However, this position does place a sort of "freedom from religion" stamp on government activities, and necessarily that means the people working and operating within government to the extent government reaches, which is far and deeply. Then too each private citizen has the right to be free from religion as a function of his basic right to privacy, which provides one of the foundation stones for the point that the right to practice one's religion freely does not and never will extend to practicing it in your neighbor's living room without receiving permission to do so. (Private property rights also apply, but are not the whole story. For example, the landlord of a property you rent can't give permission to allow religious ceremonies in your living room if you don't want them there.)

The problem is that the state representative is also an individual citizen with a right to his own opinions--and a right to voice his opinions.

Quote:

But does he from his capacity as an elected official? If he's speaking as Citizen Smith, then of course he has every right to express pretty much anything he wants to say. But if he's speaking as County Clerk Smith, concerning religion, is that the same?

Gray area. In what capacity is someone shoving a microphone in his face. Many times a reporter wants to know what an individual thinks--and individual opinions are not determined by political position.

Quote:

And I disagree with that simply based on crime figures kept by the FBI. There are several calsses of crime the incidence of which have dropped as American society has become more secularized. There may not be a real correlation, true; I simply note that the unexamined overlay indicates America was a more violent place, and more rife with criminal activity, when prayer and other forms of religious observance were commoner in our public spaces.

Right. A prayer recited by rote isn't any more of a prayer that mathematical tables recited by rote represent an understanding of math.

Exactly. In fact, I would argue that, while biblical instruction might be a good thing, rote prayer actually diminishes the value of prayer.

Quote:

Again, I waver, not being convinced that "God talk" is proper coming from an elected politician performing in the capacity of his office.

The question again comes down to what is being asked by the reporter. Is the reporter asking for personal opinion? Or official statement?

Quote:

No. Not as something organized by school officials, anyway.

What if school officials have free time? Again, a gray area. In Canada, almost any group of kids is allowed to have an official, school-recognized club (whether it's a D&D group or a Christian prayer group) as long as the group has a teacher willing to be a sponsor. No sponsor, no group.

Back to top

IP Logged