...our profession, its science and integrity have become subordinate in this particular venue to what is now considered politically correct.She went on to state:
As a practicing Catholic first and a practicing speech-language pathologist second, it is in direct opposition to my faith to support the "social platform" of those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle and its promotion.As I showed , ASHA includes support of a gay rights bill as part of its 2010 Public Policy Agenda, so the writer had valid cause to raise the issue of a possible "moral compromise" between ASHA membership and her Catholic faith. Of course, if ASHA would keep its nose out of politics and not let itself be used for political ends that have nothing to do with speech, language, and hearing, ASHA membership would not be in moral conflict with any member's faith. ASHA appears unwilling to do this.
For anyone who respects religious faith, individual moral integrity and character, and the profession, it was a painful letter to read. This is what ASHA has come to; this is the politically correct quicksand that ASHA has walked into and is now sinking deeply into, dragging every one of its 140,000 members along with it.
So does ASHA show the same respect for this Catholic ASHA member that it shows to its gay, bisexual, transsexual, and cross-dressing members?
Let's take a look:
On the very bottom of this page on ASHA's website, the Catholic reader's viewpoint is described by someone at ASHA as an "anti-gay viewpoint." Since the writer was doing no more nor less than stating the official moral position of the Roman Catholic Church, you have to wonder if this is equating the Catholic position with an "anti-gay viewpoint." Ms. Estlack's letter is also specifically referred to in a response on this page , where the phrase, "these homophobic letters" is allowed by The ASHA Leader's editors. In a second letter replying to Ms. Estlack, The ASHA Leader allows the phrase, "bigoted viewpoint."
"Anti-gay," "homophobic," "bigoted."
Would The ASHA Leader publish letters from heterosexuals, Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons that called homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers "anti-family" and "heterophobic"? And does anyone besides myself detect the subtle whiff of anti-Catholic bigotry in this whole incident? Is bigotry forbidden against one group but perfectly allowable when practiced against another? Are insults against some groups and individuals in ASHA (homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers) forbidden in the pages of The ASHA Leader, but those against Catholic women like Ms. Estlack (whose viewpoint - based on her religious beliefs and the beliefs of over one billion other Catholics - was smeared as homophobic and bigoted) welcomed?
Double standard?
Things at ASHA are getting uglier by the month.
ASHA allowed itself to get distracted from its mission in order to join the culture wars. If ASHA's leadership thinks its members are going to follow them like sheep, unquestioning, without a struggle or a bleat of protest, they are sadly deluding themselves. And before ASHA's leadership joined the culture wars, politicizing the organization to support goals having nothing to do with speech, language, and hearing, they should have heeded some good military common-sense advice:
Generals shouldn't march into battle unless they are absolutely certain their troops will follow them.
Posts
