Should NARTH distance itself from the religious

NARTH appears to be fully aware that SB 1172 is running straight into the Bill of Rights with the Free Exercise Clause figuring very prominently in that. NARTH repeatedly mentions that it believes that losing in California will stimulate anti-NARTH type forces in other states. In fact, we've seen how "Truth Wins Out" has openly declared its intention to get legislation introduced in a number of other states and soon. If the religious are held at arm's length by NARTH, I believe NARTH realizes that it would be actually aiding "Truth Wins Out" and others like them against NARTH.

To me, it seems a simple matter that people who speak personally from a religious perspective are not speaking for NARTH, per se. For what it's worth, I've had little difficulty accepting where NARTH has been placing itself vis-a-vis religion. If I'm out and about and hearing people saying things that are in favor of the rationale behind SB 1172, I often mention NARTH on purpose. I get back the usual blanket, ignorant, false statements about NARTH. It's an opening to set people straight. I've had people attack me because I'm a professing Christian, but that just gives me more openings.

I'm thinking right now about Dr. Nicolosi as the director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. Isn't that the same Thomas Aquinas who was, and still is, the top Roman Catholic theologian? However, Dr. Nicolosi does not force religion that I've seen anyway.

I am convinced that we are up against those who would seek to split the ranks of those who believe that NARTH should be allowed to treat those under 19. If NARTH were to say, for example, that no religion may be discussed on NARTH sites, that would be slapping many of NARTH's strongest supporters and would work to the direct benefit of "Truth Wins Out," etc.

I suggest that we continue honing the points in ways that keeps this a big tent so to speak.

Lastly, I'm reminded of how Dr. Nicolosi again had made clear that his field is not the same thing as the "hard" sciences.

I'm religious, but if someone wants to support NARTH from a totally materialist position, I won't tell them that they should do that over there in that corner because it might otherwise offend big backers such as Focus on the Family or whomever.

Right now, this is about the mundane, secular, civil libertarian issues that NARTH has outlined often in its articles. It's about parental rights. It's about whether hurting children are left without help that not all parents no how to supply. It's about where "Truth Wins Out" and those like them intend to stop. We know the pedophiles have marched in their parades. Fifty years ago, where we are now would have been unthinkable. What will the next fifty bring? Not only that but change appears to have greatly accelerated just within the last five years.

So, yes, this is not a religious group, per se. It just has lots of religious members. I don't think that's an accident.


  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.