My "pending approval" comment on The Washington Times (pending because it contains three links):
From the article:
David Pickup, a California marriage and family therapist, told a state Senate committee hearing in April that SB 1172 is "full of factual inaccuracies," including saying that SOCE doesn't work, though some peer-reviewed studies show it does.
"I myself am a former SOCE client," said Mr. Pickup, president of the International Institute of Reorientation Therapies. "I haven't just experienced behavioral change. I have experienced in my life actual, emotional change."
Are you calling him a liar or what? He's far from the only person who takes this position about his own change.
Also, NARTH says there are "relevant peer-reviewed" studies. Have you been to their website to read their work? I have. NARTH.
Safety cuts both ways. That proposed law would leave kids stranded/helpless. That would cause harm. We know that many homosexuals become so due to not only distant fathers and mothers who want less masculine boyish behavior but due to direct homosexual abuse as well. California State Senator Ted W. Lieu's law would leave them without even their own parents being able to step in to get help for them.
Also, the supposed consensus among the various large associations of mental healthcare providers, as Dr. Cummings makes absolutely clear, is more than suspect. There has been a concerted cover-up – a conspiracy if you will – to deliberately suppress rigorous investigation into areas that might (have outside those co-opted associations, such as NARTH) show that homosexuality is not what the homosexualists have cracked it up to be. There is a large body of evidence that still stands showing that homosexual behavior is not benign relative to heterosexual behavior, all other things being equal. The fact is that physiologically speaking, the main sex endeavor of male homosexuals in particular is not conducive to good health. The anal canal just wasn't designed for it regardless of what unnatural means are used to mitigate the physical damage, not to mention the direct mental (brain matter alterations) that occur.
My view is that the proposed legislation is down right fascistic and certainly stupid.
What matters is truth.
Read the whole article: Ban urged on therapy to convert gays - Washington Times.
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)