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.
PART 1: (here)
PART 2: (here)
The Soulforce site quotes:
The American Psychological Association warns:
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the positions espoused by NARTH [National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality] and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficient scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
Now look at that. That's the American Psychological Association saying that Alan Chambers and others don't even exist. How many people are there in the world that experimented with homosexuality and rejected it? How many took it up thinking at the time that they were resolved to it for life but still ended up giving it up? How many won't say because of fear because others don't know that they were active homosexuals?
NARTH is associated with Focus on the Family. I don't hold with all things Focus on the Family. In fact, the same issues of hypocrisy apply to them as apply to the American Psychological Association. Focus on the Family isn't consistent on matters of greed and violence either. Nevertheless, NARTH is amassing more and more evidence that the American Psychological Association is wrong about homosexuals not being able to change. NARTH is right about it, although they are way too weak in the Spirit.
The homosexuals in the American Psychological Association are scrambling to try to recapture the souls of the masses being awakened by the truth that change is possible, desirous, and beneficial.
They are going to lose this argument because they are wrong.
So, don't fall for the falsehoods being spewed out by the deviant minded. The American Psychological Association and Judith M. Glassgold and the rest of the authors of the report (Lee Beckstead, Jack Drescher, Beverly Greene, Robin Lin Miller, Roger L. Worthington) have an agenda of libertinism.
How many of the so-called healers of the American Psychological Association are homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals or want to be?
Homosexuality is never benign
Remember, homosexuality is never benign. Don't be in the dark. Tell the truth and nothing but.
Here's an interested article for thought. "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality," by Trayce Hansen, Ph.D. (Dr. Trayce Hansen's Writings. Undated.)
Competing rights prioritized
Make no mistake about it, this is where the battle line is drawn. If homosexuality is a choice, and it is, and if homosexuality is harmful, and it is, then the idea that it must be afforded the same status as race or real gender falls down. The idea of the rights of free political speech and of free religious belief is subject to the concept of harm. Competing rights come into the debate.
One is not free in the United States to yell fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire or reason to rush out. People can be harmed in a stampede.
People are given religious liberties because the debate continues. Without the ability to discuss, we aren't going to truly progress as a social species.
Right of Free Association
What we are seeing though is the homosexuals who claim to have been abused now becoming the abusers. We see that people who know that homosexuality is unhealthy are being denied the right of free association. We see the religious being denied the right to run adoption agencies that refuse to place children with homosexuals for good reason, as Trayce Hansen's article suggests. We see many moves afoot to further reduce the religious. Consequently, the debate is drawn. The homosexuals had their field day, but the momentum will reverse and rightly so.
"EU directive could open up faith schools to non-believers," Jonathan Wynne-Jones. Telegraph. April 11, 2009.
"EU equality law is an 'instrument of oppression', Roman Catholic bishops warn," by Simon Caldwell. Telegraph. August 3, 2009.
The right of free association is a competing right. Where there is real freedom of association, anti-homosexuals do not have to welcome homosexuals. They have that right because homosexuality is a choice and harmful. It's that simple. People cannot be forced (yet) to hire pedophiles. Yet, the same logic behind homosexual rights applies to the rights of pedophiles. Does such a right exist? It didn't exist for homosexuals not that long ago.
So, the battle ground for the homosexuals is along the lines of choice and harm. They have tried to say it's not a choice and that's harmless. They are wrong across-the-board and will lose on account of it.
If you think that what happens to a child doesn't matter, watch the following. Pay especially close attention at the 2.34 point in the video.
Sexual activity in childhood is not neutral. Nor should the hedonistic measure of "did it feel good" or "did you like it" be used in deciding right from wrong. Feelings can easily become confused. Getting drunk feels "good" until the sickness sets in and then the hangover occurs. Cause and effect is eternal. Reap what you sow. Learn.
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)