Med Schools With "Christian Values" in their Mission Statement

[stiffany]

---

Members do not see this ad.

In many islamic groups they do not tolerate homosexuality and especially any kind of sexuality of women, what do you think about this? Are they nazis also?

Intolerance is clearly acceptable in many situations, though I think you are correct in thinking that they are intolerant and wrong for not wanting gays, but the word nazi? That's a little harsh.

Just because intolerance is acceptable among certain cultures does not, in and of itself, make such intolerance morally defensible (Although, the problem, of course, is deciding who exactly holds the right notion in regards to equality and the social acceptability of certain groups. I think it's easier for many people to say that women should have equal rights than to say that LGBT people should have equal rights since the female battle was won decades ago and since science is clear about the biological existance of womanhood as opposed to being gay, a reality of which scientists and lay people still squabble about in regards to origin). Still, the annihilation of jews, gays, and many people who were not in line with the deplorable Nazi ideal is certainly different than present day discrimination against gays in the United States. I'll agree with you there, but you won't find me accepting the subjugation of women or unequal rights for homosexuals any day regardless of other's religious or cultural beliefs to the contrary.

 

[Vvandenn]

Okay guys. I'll be honest when I say I am very socially liberal, especially with the subject of gay rights and marriage. So take the following with a grain of salt if are not. I am extremely passionate about my stance on these things, probably to the point of having a difficult time dealing with those who don't believe the same thing as I. However, I honestly try hard never to do that. But everyone has something they feel strongly about; it happens to us all. As there is really no point to my post, I just want to say that having grown up, been friends with, and spending every day of my life with people of "alternate" lifestyles it seems like...I just find it hard to tolerate those people who completely condemn homosexuals.

I am not homosexual myself but I still feel that I have the right to admit that I am utterly frustrated and disheartened with the majority of America's stance on homosexuality. These are real people; they are just like everyone else except that they are sexually attracted to the same sex instead. Do you think they act on this attraction because they simply wanted to? No. Who in their right mind would want to subject themselves to that kind of harsh and frustrating lifestyle? Not many I would presume. Some say "Well they CHOOSE to ACT on these feelings which is a choice that they make for themselves and therefore it's fine to condemn that." That's cool, condemn what you want. However, tell me why you personally "CHOSE" to initiate relations with the opposite sex? Tell me why you chose to see a girl walk down the street and say "Daaaamn!" I highly doubt you can tell me why. That is because it is NATURAL. It happens naturally; it's just that way and there really isn't much you can do about it.

Try to consciously look at the same sex for one day and try to find something truly sexually attractive about them, thus totally flip-flopping what you're naturally attracted to and "choosing" to go the other way. Hard? Yes. Could one do it? Sure, but why would the majority of homosexuals do this on purpose? Anyways, all I am saying is that schools like Loma Linda truly disgust me. How dare they condemn something that people cannot help? How dare they say to these people that if we find out you've been having homosexual relations that disciplinary action will be involved? Sure, it's a private school and can do what they want. That isn't the point; it is just sad that we are still living in such an intolerant world today. This country is supposedly based on equality and equal rights for all, correct? So why aren't homosexuals receiving this? Yes, it apparently all falls back on religious beliefs. But I am begging you to put yourself in these homosexual's shoes for a moment and truly take the time to look at these individuals as human beings; deserving the same rights you and I have and everything above.

Throw statistics at me, religious excerpts from the bible, or whatever else you have in stock. But trust me: knowing that I accept and cherish everyone regardless of their lifestyle makes me feel stronger, more humble, and fulfilled. Sure, that's most likely cliché, but it's entirely true. Call me a hippie; call me a liberal. I don't mind. Just put yourself in their shoes for once and see the difference it may or may not make.

 

[Rafa]

I'm calling this one earlier than Fox News on election night.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

It's a private school. They can do whatever they please. Many consider AA to be unfair and unequal, but private schools can do it because they're private.

exactly; if all those schools can get away with AA for years, there's no reason why schools can't be opposed to homosexuals if they believe it's immoral

 

[TexasFool]

Has anyone here applied to this school (loma linda), can someone that doesn't go to church every sunday apply?

 

[notdeadyet]

3. There are 125 accredited M.D.-granting medical schools in the US. If one is telling you that they don't agree with your "actively practicing" lifestyle, then apply to the other 124 accredited M.D.-granting medical schools.

Much as I disagree with LLU's views on homosexuality, I'm actually with doctajay on this one. I like the fact that there's a strongly Christian medical school if for no other reason than to give them a place to mix medicine and religion so that they don't have to in nonsecular medical schools.

 

[notdeadyet]

if all those schools can get away with AA for years, there's no reason why schools can't be opposed to homosexuals if they believe it's immoral

Sigh. No. Again, for any school, private or public, to be explicitly anti-homosexual would be against the law. Sexual orientation is a protected class.

LLU skirts the issue by outlawing homosexual activity, not homosexuality. There is nothing in the rules against homosexuals attending LLU. They are just not allowed to be sexually active (nor is premarital sex allowed).

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Haha...in calling being homosexual a lifestyle choice. I think most gay people state it was an orientation from birth, and not a conscious decision. But I might have misread your post, and in either case, I mean no harm... :^) I think we're drifting off topic anyway, so....

um that's the ongoing debate of whether it is a lifestyle choice or one a homosexual is born with; we all have the right to our own decision on that and we owe it to one and other to respect each other's views.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Sigh. No. Again, for any school, private or public, to be explicitly anti-homosexual would be against the law. Sexual orientation is a protected class.

LLU skirts the issue by outlawing homosexual activity, not homosexuality. There is nothing in the rules against homosexuals attending LLU. They are just not allowed to be sexually active (nor is premarital sex allowed).

ok, fine, i stand corrected; sorry, that's what i meant but i know i didn't say it correctly

 

[Rafa]

um that's the ongoing debate of whether it is a lifestyle choice or one a homosexual is born with; we all have the right to our own decision on that and we owe it to one and other to respect each other's views.

Well yeah. However, it's definitely a judgement to state something is one way, and not another. You make as much of a judgement to state homosexuality is a lifestyle choice as you do to state it's innate. That's what I was pointing out.

 

[Vvandenn]

😎

 

[SemperJeff]

Okay guys. I'll be honest when I say I am very socially liberal, especially with the subject of gay rights and marriage. So take the following with a grain of salt if are not. I am extremely passionate about my stance on these things, probably to the point of having a difficult time dealing with those who don't believe the same thing as I...
...
Call me a hippie; call me a liberal. I don't mind. Just put yourself in their shoes for once and see the difference it may or may not make.

So how about we have an official shoe-swapping day? Seems like both the hippie liberals and the conservative intolerant religious have the same attitude. Both hold tightly to their views. Both probably don't fully understand the other party....

 

[Vvandenn]

Sure, I'd give it a go.

 

[Andre04]

I am not homosexual myself but I still feel that I have the right to admit that I am utterly frustrated and disheartened with the majority of America's stance on homosexuality. These are real people; they are just like everyone else except that they are sexually attracted to the same sex instead. Do you think they act on this attraction because they simply wanted to? No.

So gay people have such uncontrollable sexual desires that they have to act on them? Like, I don't know ... animals?

I'm queer-friendly myself, so take this as a polite criticism -- I don't understand why so many pro-gay-rights folks refuse to see the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. The former may or may not be biological (no one really knows for sure), but the latter is definitely governed by human choice. There's no reason why a gay person couldn't attend Loma Linda and abstain from sex, same way a straight person could exercise the self-control required to keep their pants on for four years. No discrimination here.

You do our "side" no favors with your hysterical knee-jerk response. Worse, you add fuel to the already popular misconception that gay people are uncontrollable sex monsters who simply cannot restrain themselves when they see an attractive person ("OOH! PRETTY BOY! ME MUST HAVE!").

Who in their right mind would want to subject themselves to that kind of harsh and frustrating lifestyle? Not many I would presume. Some say "Well they CHOOSE to ACT on these feelings which is a choice that they make for themselves and therefore it's fine to condemn that." That's cool, condemn what you want. However, tell me why you personally "CHOSE" to initiate relations with the opposite sex? Tell me why you chose to see a girl walk down the street and say "Daaaamn!" I highly doubt you can tell me why. That is because it is NATURAL. It happens naturally; it's just that way and there really isn't much you can do about it.

So the leap from seeing an attractive person-->having sex with them is so "natural" and un-helpable that you can't stop it?

What if you're married?

In an otherwise committed relationship?

Abstinent or celibate, by choice?

What if the attractive person is a minor?

And more importantly, why don't we see people having sex on the streets all the time? Surely no one can wait to get home, it being so natural and urgent that we bone anyone we find attractive ...

Try to consciously look at the same sex for one day and try to find something truly sexually attractive about them, thus totally flip-flopping what you're naturally attracted to and "choosing" to go the other way. Hard? Yes. Could one do it? Sure, but why would the majority of homosexuals do this on purpose?

The point you're missing is that Loma Linda isn't telling people to turn themselves straight, but to abstain from all unmarried sex. If not being allowed to have sex is discrimination, then they're discriminating against unmarried straight people, too. This will be one gigantic class-action suit, when someone wakes up to the injustice of it all.

Anyways, all I am saying is that schools like Loma Linda truly disgust me. How dare they condemn something that people cannot help? How dare they say to these people that if we find out you've been having homosexual relations that disciplinary action will be involved? Sure, it's a private school and can do what they want. That isn't the point; it is just sad that we are still living in such an intolerant world today.

See above.

This country is supposedly based on equality and equal rights for all, correct? So why aren't homosexuals receiving this? Yes, it apparently all falls back on religious beliefs. But I am begging you to put yourself in these homosexual's shoes for a moment and truly take the time to look at these individuals as human beings; deserving the same rights you and I have and everything above.

And here I'll agree -- gay folks deserve every right that straight people have, including marriage, partner benefits & inheritance, and adoption.

Throw statistics at me, religious excerpts from the bible, or whatever else you have in stock. But trust me: knowing that I accept and cherish everyone regardless of their lifestyle makes me feel stronger, more humble, and fulfilled.

I don't understand the whole "respecting different lifestyles" thing, I really don't, because it not only sounds stupid on the surface (admit it! it does!), but it's so easy to attack. Cultural relativism be damned, there are many lifestyles out there that should not only be disrespected, they should be illegal -- any involving, for instance, pederasty, or human or animal sacrifice, just for starters. It's nice that you acknowledge (implicitly at least) that there's something of a choice involved in acting on homosexual urges, but it's a stupid term, it really is.

 

[xylem29]

holy crap - someone already posted that LLU doesn't ban homo's from admission, since this would be illegal. They simply ban homosexual sex, like premarital sex - so what? It's like enforcing boys to sleep on one floor and girls on another floor. But anyways - I'm sure that LLU is still somehow discriminating against homosexuals (I would cry discrimination if was gay) and I'm sure if someone wants to - they could take them to court if they are truly idealistic. I would personally leave LLU alone since its only one school.

 

[Guile]

Sigh. No. Again, for any school, private or public, to be explicitly anti-homosexual would be against the law. Sexual orientation is a protected class.

LLU skirts the issue by outlawing homosexual activity, not homosexuality. There is nothing in the rules against homosexuals attending LLU. They are just not allowed to be sexually active (nor is premarital sex allowed).

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that a private institution could discriminate any way it pleased since it was in fact private. For example, Augusta can bar women from membership (not from playing, just from membership) in their golf club. They get a lot of criticism for it every few years, but they can do it if they please because they're private. What's the difference?

 

[SemperJeff]

No. Private institutions cannot discriminate in any way they please. For example, companies and organizations in California, whether private or public, cannot discriminate based on gender, marital status, or pregnancy (by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act section 12900). I'm assuming other states have similar laws as well.

So just because an institution is private does not mean it can discriminate however it pleases.

BETHSAIDA ARRIAGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY is an example of a private insitution, Loma Linda University, that was sued for violating section 12900 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In this case, the courts sided with Loma Linda University not because they are a private institution, but because they are a religious institution.

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that a private institution could discriminate any way it pleased since it was in fact private. For example, Augusta can bar women from membership (not from playing, just from membership) in their golf club. They get a lot of criticism for it every few years, but they can do it if they please because they're private. What's the difference?

 

[jbrice1639]

Yeah, based on my interview experience at Georgetown, I totally agree. They seemed very liberal and open, and committed to social justice and just helping others in general. It seemed like a great environment.

yep, all four jesuit schools are heavily based in liberal ideals of service and social justice. (those four are loyola, georgetown, saint louis (slu) and creighton). as for those who believe catholic schools are all super-conservative are just typical mal-informed americans who, for some reason, have been brought up to believe that politics only involves the pro-life/pro-choice issue. therefore, all schools that don't teach abortions are crazy right wing whackjobs and all schools that do teach abortions are super-liberal.

it would be wise to check into some other policies and note that the jesuit schools have hospitals that have significant programs dedicated to the underserved, foreign medical service trips, courses dedicated to serving neglected populations, etc. – probably in greater number than the "liberal" schools.

 

[mountainhare]

I didn't actually read the whole thread, so forgive me if my remarks seem ignorant and stupid. It seems to me that a school that forbids everyone (both homosexuals and heterosexuals) to have pre-marital sex is discriminating unfairly against homosexuals: in a lot of places, homosexual couples aren't even allowed to get married, so pre-marital sex is the only kind of sex that a homosexual couple can have. Thus, a homosexual person with a committed life-partner who matriculates at LLU would have to abstain from sex with his life-partner for the four years that he is a student there, whereas a heterosexual person with a spouse would not be forbidden to have sex with said spouse. It does seem unnatural to forbid someone from having sex with a person who is, for all intents and purposes, their spouse, wouldn't you say? You don't call someone "animal-like" (as someone earlier in this thread pretty much did) just because they feel that they shouldn't be forced to abstain from sex with their husband/wife/life-partner.

I mean, what would you married straight people on SDN think if I told you to "exercise the self-control required to keep [your] pants on for four years" and just not have sex with your spouse for the next four years? Wouldn't you think I was being unreasonable?

So you can't say the rules treat homosexuals and heterosexual persons the same just because both kinds of people are forbidden to have pre-marital sex. If gay marriage were recognized in this country, things would be different, but right now LLU's rules are discriminatory due to the fact that they take advantage of a discriminatory marriage law. Back in the day, I think there was a Jim Crow law called the "grandfather clause" that forbade people to vote if their grandparents weren't U.S. citizens: even though it didn't *explicitly* single out black people to discriminate against, nobody would argue that it didn't discriminate against African-Americans unfairly. I feel that although LLU's policy is on a much smaller scale, it's still the same kind of thing: it discriminates unfairly against homosexuals even though, on the surface, it claims to treat heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. Just as it was a known fact in the late 19th century that a lot of African-Americans had grandparents who weren't U.S. citizens, it is a known fact nowadays that most homosexual couples cannot have their marriages recognized by U.S. law, and LLU's policy unfairly and disingenuously takes advantage of that fact.

At least, that's the way I read it. Please call me out if I misunderstood LLU's policies.

 

[notdeadyet]

For example, Augusta can bar women from membership (not from playing, just from membership) in their golf club. They get a lot of criticism for it every few years, but they can do it if they please because they're private.

Yeah, I always scratch my head about Augusta. Technically, though, they do not bar women from membership. When push comes to shove, they are quick to point this out. They have pointed out to the press that nothing in their bylaws or charter forbids women; they simply have not admitted one in their history.

If a big enough stink is made, I have a hunch they'll be forced to go coed.

 

[riceman04]

Georgetown is jesuit I believe and Baylor is baptist (or at least christian).

Baylor University does not have a medical school

 

[Orthodoc40]

yep, all four jesuit schools are heavily based in liberal ideals of service and social justice. (those four are loyola, georgetown, saint louis (slu) and creighton). as for those who believe catholic schools are all super-conservative are just typical mal-informed americans who, for some reason, have been brought up to believe that politics only involves the pro-life/pro-choice issue. therefore, all schools that don't teach abortions are crazy right wing whackjobs and all schools that do teach abortions are super-liberal.

it would be wise to check into some other policies and note that the jesuit schools have hospitals that have significant programs dedicated to the underserved, foreign medical service trips, courses dedicated to serving neglected populations, etc. – probably in greater number than the "liberal" schools.

Huh - these 4 schools don't teach abortions?
So you do your OB/GYN rotations and just what - skip that part if it comes up?? 😕

 

[xylem29]

I didn't actually read the whole thread, so forgive me if my remarks seem ignorant and stupid. It seems to me that a school that forbids everyone (both homosexuals and heterosexuals) to have pre-marital sex is discriminating unfairly against homosexuals: in a lot of places, homosexual couples aren't even allowed to get married, so pre-marital sex is the only kind of sex that a homosexual couple can have. Thus, a homosexual person with a committed life-partner who matriculates at LLU would have to abstain from sex with his life-partner for the four years that he is a student there, whereas a heterosexual person with a spouse would not be forbidden to have sex with said spouse. It does seem unnatural to forbid someone from having sex with a person who is, for all intents and purposes, their spouse, wouldn't you say? You don't call someone "animal-like" (as someone earlier in this thread pretty much did) just because they feel that they shouldn't be forced to abstain from sex with their husband/wife/life-partner.

I mean, what would you married straight people on SDN think if I told you to "exercise the self-control required to keep [your] pants on for four years" and just not have sex with your spouse for the next four years? Wouldn't you think I was being unreasonable?

So you can't say the rules treat homosexuals and heterosexual persons the same just because both kinds of people are forbidden to have pre-marital sex. If gay marriage were recognized in this country, things would be different, but right now LLU's rules are discriminatory due to the fact that they take advantage of a discriminatory marriage law. Back in the day, I think there was a Jim Crow law called the "grandfather clause" that forbade people to vote if their grandparents weren't U.S. citizens: even though it didn't *explicitly* single out black people to discriminate against, nobody would argue that it didn't discriminate against African-Americans unfairly. I feel that although LLU's policy is on a much smaller scale, it's still the same kind of thing: it discriminates unfairly against homosexuals even though, on the surface, it claims to treat heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. Just as it was a known fact in the late 19th century that a lot of African-Americans had grandparents who weren't U.S. citizens, it is a known fact nowadays that most homosexual couples cannot have their marriages recognized by U.S. law, and LLU's policy unfairly and disingenuously takes advantage of that fact.

At least, that's the way I read it. Please call me out if I misunderstood LLU's policies.

nah, come on - just b/c they ban homosexual sex does not mean they can really enforce it - i'm assuming that if you lived on residence, they will enforce it but if you live in your own private apartment or home, how can they tell if you are having sex or not?

 

[alwaysaangel]

Huh - these 4 schools don't teach abortions?
So you do your OB/GYN rotations and just what - skip that part if it comes up?? 😕

Well I assume all the rotations are done in local hospitals that are also religiously based and don't offer abortions. So if it comes up you give them a referral to the other hospital and thats that.

 

[Guile]

Huh - these 4 schools don't teach abortions?
So you do your OB/GYN rotations and just what - skip that part if it comes up?? 😕

Many abortions are just a D & C which is a basic OB/GYN procedure. So if you had to do one later in life for whatever reason, then you could do that. Also, I strongly doubt that anyone who wants to perform abortions (which only a small minority of OB/GYNs do, actually) would rank those schools on their match list.

FWIW, not teaching/allowing abortions is not incredibly uncommon. For example, St. Marys at the Mayo Clinic doesn't do abortions, and you cannot prescribe oral contraceptives within the hospital either.

 

[rockydoc]

Voltaire:
"Monsieur l'abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

There's some random quotes from the Enlightenment for you. I would have quoted scripture but then no one would listen, haha.

The main issue here is that every man (and by man I include woman-for the extreme political correctness police) has a God-given free will and nothing should ever impede his/her exercise thereof. There are a myriad of beliefs out there which hold to different "intolerant" truths. "But the truth is, that truth is by nature intolerant" By that I mean that if I believe with all of my heart that something is true, then I will naturally be intolerant of anything that says otherwise. I will be intolerant of the other truth, not the person who holds to that truth or to their right to exercise that belief. Some of you on this post seem to be doing otherwise.

I may hold to one belief....and I will do it with integrity....but I will always defend the right for others to believe whatever they may. HOWEVER, this doesnt mean that I will pretend that I will confess that their belief is true...because that would automatically be going against my own belief...which is pointless. I hope you all see the important distinction here. there are rights to exercise beliefs in this country...but we all believe differently and if we were honest we would realize that our truth is intolerant of other truth.

 

[LucidSplash]

You bumped a post that is a year and a half old.

 

[herewego]

SOMEWHAT BACK ON TOPIC

I'm not in Loyola's med school (yet) BUT I AM an undergrad at Loyola University of Chicago.

They also have "Christian values" in their mission statement, but in my experience the Jesuits here are quite tolerant. Not once have I felt pressured to convert here, by professors or the school as a whole. They openly embrace different religious groups and there are a few gay/lesbian student groups as well.

FROM WHAT I KNOW of Stritch (Loyola's med school), they encourage faith in general, whatever that may be.

As for their stance on specific issues, I don't have a clue.

 

[rockydoc]

You bumped a post that is a year and a half old.

Hahahahaa......sorry, I totally spaced that tiny fact...I was just surfing and didnt even think to look....

carry on