UPDATE Thursday, December 03, 2009: I had told Google Blog Search that if they stopped censoring me, I'd say so on this Blog. As of this "UPDATE," Google Blog Search is now showing 1,967 posts as indexed and linked. () That's up again from only 4 at one point. Therefore, I'm adding this update.
1,967 is not all of the posts, but it seems that perhaps they are slowly re-indexing the site. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I haven't looked to see if they are avoiding "controversial" posts.
Decide for yourself. Was the original of this post censored by Google? See: GOOGLE CENSORING BY DELAYING SEARCH RESULTS?
"Programs to change gays to straights don't work, report says," CNN. August 5, 2009.
American Psychological Association false beliefs
After reading the CNN article, I see that the American Psychological Association is still trying to foist off on the people of the world the Association's false beliefs.
American Psychological Association change is not possible lie
Lack of belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The American Psychological Association is planting mental seeds suggesting change is not possible. That logic then extends to other behaviors as well, such as greed and violence. The association's approach is a denial of transformational experiences. It is a denial that what causes behavior is mutable. They are being shallow and shortsighted.
There have been mass killers on the battlefield who have become total pacifists. There are rich people who have overcome selfishness and ended up giving over their personal wealth to the cause of sharing. Some people think pacifism and giving and sharing all are also harmful. If one fails to be peaceful and that failure brings depression, should that be taken as a sign that violence was right since the person doesn't esteem himself or herself less when being more sociopathic (having less or no working conscience) or should the person not give up and rather go deeper into his or her essence to change at the root to real harmlessness (unselfishness)?
Judith M. Glassgold doesn't preach the liberation from righteousness is enslaving
If someone is struggling to give up smoking tobacco and is suffering low self-esteem at not having what it takes to quit once and for all, then why not just smoke and accept it? The cigarette manufacturers and all those who traffic in that highly addictive behavior that does change the flesh, as does homosexual behavior, love people to take that attitude. In fact, many do. Many libertarians and others relish in lighting up as a sort of defiant statement trying to convince themselves that they are free, liberated, even have the liberality of Christ (very twisted; antinomianism). The American Psychological Association and Judith M. Glassgold are just offering more of the same as those who traffic in addictive drugs. They may not be able to see it, but then they lack vision. They are in the dark.
God detests the foregone-conclusion approach of the American Psychological Association.
The task force noted that some people attempt to change their sexual orientation because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, and recommended that their mental health care providers help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."
"In other words," said Glassgold, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."
That is dishonest. What Glassgold is really saying is that human beings need to expect average results no matter whether the individual is desirous of transcending the norm. Glassgold's approach really asks people not to rise in truth.
Homosexuality is a stigma
He approach seeks to de-stigmatize that which ought not to be de-stigmatized. Homosexual behavior is a reproach. It is caving into that which is not harmless as a dove. It is harmful. To say otherwise is to speak falsehood and to mislead into harm.
Where is the line drawn, or is it not drawn at all by the American Psychological Association?
Stigma of pedophilia and bestiality
Is pedophilia no longer a mental disease in the opinion of the American Psychological Association?
We've read recently about the man caught in the act of having sex with a horse. Is he not thereby stigmatized? Is sticking his erected penis in the vagina or anus of a horse less offensive than doing the same to a fellow male human? If so, tell us why. Tell us, American Psychological Association, the scientific, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate it in some way the may be clearly differentiated from the opinions of the American Psychological Association concerning homosexuality and bisexuality, etc.
Can the man who has sex with horses change? Would trying and failing be harmful? Would it lessen his self-esteem?
God and Jesus can heal anyone or anything
I know Jesus can heal him if he will believe. That's not what the American Psychological Association wants you to believe though.
American Psychological Association method is to misdirect the patient
Judith M. Glassgold is the chairwoman of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Look at that: "Task Force." What's the task? What are they working to force? "Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation" means what? They are trying to say that those who don't want same-sex attraction need therapy to overcome not wanting that harmful attraction. The American Psychological Association is working iniquity here. It's dark side.
American Psychological Association arrogantly attempts to make of its members the high priests and priestesses even of Christianity
Judith M. Glassgold is actually telling people in a very subtle way to some (but in very stark terms to me) that they don't have to submit to their religious beliefs. Glassgold is more than hinting to the Association's members and others that it is not only okay but actually good and healthy to tell people that their religious beliefs can be and should be compromised.
Judith M. Glassgold needs help to see the light
Here's what is going on there. Glassgold is retarding the movement and power of the Holy Spirit of God and Jesus Christ to work within to heal the soul and flesh of selfishness that is harmful even to a degree that is simultaneously infinitesimally small in Judith M. Glassgold's eyes — too small for her to see and concerning — but of which selfishness she's really aware and just in outward denial. She's suppressing. She has a hidden, personal agenda. She shares it with many: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/
The American Psychological Association has even joined forces with the totally misleading and dangerous/harmful group knows as Soulforce.
Heterosexism is the presumption that everyone is heterosexual and that opposite sex attractions and relationships are preferable and superior to those of the same sex. Heterosexism has been encoded into nearly every major social, religious, cultural, and economic institution in our society and it leads directly to discrimination and the harmful efforts by some health care providers and religious groups to change or repress the sexual orientation of those under their care.
That's a very strange seed to plant: to suggest that those who hold against homosexuality don't believe that people are homosexual. It's an indicative twist of mind that allows these people of Soulforce to think wrongly the way they do. Heterosexuality, per se, is not as confused as is homosexuality. That's obvious. Penises don't belong in anuses. They were designed for it. It's a total contrivance of twisted thinking to think otherwise. Truth is truth. Soulforce is selling bitter for sweet. Also, you see the sweeping statement that it is harmful to change from being homosexual. Is anyone really dumb enough to fall for this nonsense? How intellectually immature and dishonest can thinking be amongst adults who hold all sorts of advanced degrees? Well, it can be very, very immature and more so just plain twisted.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)