Facebook "NARTH" Group v. Facebook "One World Sexuality ...for all" Group

The following open reply should be fairly self-explanatory:

Patrick,

In response to your "One World Sexuality ...for all" Facebook Group invitation, let me make the following perfectly clear.

The last issue between us on the Facebook NARTH Group was California SB 1172 and children even raped and then suffering from unwanted same-sex sexual arousal as a result and whether or not those children would have the legal right under the secular law to in California, obtain professional, licensed, mental-healthcare-provider therapy for that condition. You knew that but repeatedly refused to say they should have that right. Therefore, for that reason and others (in my view, many misrepresentations on your part concerning the NARTH Group on Facebook and more), you are on the dark side on it and your new group is based upon deceptions and falsehoods.

My personal sense at this point about you is that you are highly likely looking for being accepted as a homosexual, that perhaps you want to come back out of the closet and be affirmed by the whole of society in your homosexual behavior, including being accepted in that by even me. If that's the case (perhaps it's not), it's not going to happen. I reject homosexuality, period; and it's going to stay that way.

Let me know if you turn to God, Jesus Christ's father and my father, and repent. Otherwise, unless you want help from me in doing that, I would prefer not hearing from you again in the general course of events.

May God bless you with the real truth, which you do not now have, neither are you leading anyone to it but quite the opposite.

Tom Usher
Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project

Ordinarily, I would not publish something like this in the open but rather respond privately. Patrick though writes in the About section of his new Facebook Group the following:

There is a way, there is a full form; not yet fully expanded, not having reached its maximum extents, mostly not worked-out , still ambiguously inconclusive, misleading or contradictory, confusing and contrasting... but; it is out there, somewhere in the not to distant future, impressed in the biological plausibility of our bodies and minds, to where all of today's sexual expressions among people can have their unanimously accepted and enjoyed moments by anybody, circumstantially and proportionately appropriate by everyone's natural sense of when and why.

That to me says that he is asking people to accept homosex, to not say that homosex does not belong, to not say that homosex is a fundamental error. It actually says more than that if you will consider everything that it allows: pedophilia, etc.

There is a great deal more I could say about all of this, but the NARTH Group is a closed group; and aside from explaining directly the bit above about California SB 1172, which is a homosexual fascistic bit of legislation that is extremely dangerous to the civil liberties Americans now enjoyed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, I don't wish to go into a grey area concerning the group where I would be possibly violating the desired privacy of others who wish to openly discuss and explore NARTH and Reparative Therapy, etc., without being subjected to hyperactive homosexual activists dancing all about the issues, refusing to be pinned down on anything substantive.

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. — First Amendment to the United States Constitution

NARTH MISSION STATEMENT

Must Read: Rosik, Ph.D.: No Scientific Basis to Ban Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts

North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) "tempest in a teapot"? Hardly!

Donate


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)

  • 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.
    • Tom  You really irk me with your delusionérepresentation that you are fair or liberal. Homosexuality is not the province of the pedarist, no matter how much the closet homosexuals of the Gay Old Party conflate the two in an effort to deflect criticism from their systematic abuse of children. Are you helping when inflaming resentment of dysfunction which exists independently of Scripture and adding to the fires incited by racism and sexism as an adjunct to state control.
       

      • John,

        How was I either unfair or illiberal?

        Anyway, age is irrelevant to same-sex attraction. Don't you know that? There are homosexual pedophiles, and then there are heterosexual pedophiles. Okay?

        Just because the GOP in general holds with something doesn't mean that you shouldn't hold with it too. You have to take issues one at a time and be consistent. The world isn't the GOP versus the Democratic Party. Come on.

        "Are you helping when inflaming resentment of dysfunction which exists independently of Scripture and adding to the fires incited by racism and sexism as an adjunct to state control." I don't accept your premise, "inflaming resentment of dysfunction," in the way you've couched the whole issue.

        Are you with this Patrick guy about the children? Maybe you should re-read it slowly and carefully. Take a stand on his position: for or against?

        I'm against him, and that's not unfair or illiberal. That's watching out for the kids. You know, like your grandchildren. Do you want this guy showing them the ropes? I sure don't.

        Peace, brother.

        Tom

    • I don't particularly want the state 'showing them the ropes' either....any more than I suspect you do. But to say homosex is a fundament-al error is somewhat an inadvertent jest. 
      I don't want the state in the bedroom - no matter who is in it. Nor can civil rights and their practice exist when they are denied and perverted by poverty, race, sexual orientation, immigration or any 'ism' derived therefrom. Otherwise law is inconsistent and loopholes proliferate.That's why decrying sexual orientation of same sex couples is worse than a waste - it is a greater threat not recognizing legal validity. And the common man is the victim of rich man's gamesmanship.

      • So, you're not with this Patrick guy about the children. You do not want him showing them the ropes. That parts good for sure.

        If a child is in a bedroom with a father who has that child tied down and is sodomizing that child against that child's desire, do you want the state to barge in and to free that child from that father? It's not a hard question, John. What would you want were you that child?

        There are laws intended to meet the hardness of men's hearts. Are men ready to accept the laws to soften their hearts?

        What would Jesus do? Jesus already did what he would do, but people are too hardened to even listen, let alone hear and understand and change.

        The issue is California SB 1172. Does the child have the right to be treated by the Reparative Therapist if that's what the child wants?

        Patrick was against blocking SB 1172. Are you?

        •  What the child wants. That`s rich, Tom. Nor do I have any real assurance that people treating homosexuality as a dysfunction are sufficient improvement over child molesters, however much I might be inclined to give them benefit of the doubt over being unintended jerks. We can do better.

        • You don't think seventeen-year-olds in California should have the right to under go Reparative Therapy? What's the matter with you, John? You're the one who's sounding more and more illiberal here.

          Look, if you want to discuss this on a mature level rather than with "That's rich," which is not intellectually honest, then proceed to discuss things that way (maturely). If you're offended by that, no one is twisting your arm to continue here.

          The fact is that the pending legislation in California seeks to make it against the law for even someone 17 to seek and obtain such treatment there. You are either for that law or against it.

          Which is it? Take a stand John or go away.

          If you are for SB 1172, then defend it with facts.

          "We can do better." I haven't heard you state anything better.

          I listened to Reparative Therapist for many tens of hours. Each has been vastly more convincing than you have been here. I've worked closely now with several of them, and I know from that firsthand experience that those therapists are not at all jerks but rather highly thoughtful and concerned and compassionate souls. I'm not saying they're perfect, but for you to say that you don't know whether they're better than molesters simply shows your utter preconceived and unsubstantiated position.

          Are their perhaps some who are not very good at RT or who are jerks? Sure. Now tell me that there aren't such people in every field. Tell me there are fewer jerk psychologists lined up against NARTH and SOCE, and I'll tell you to look in the mirror to see someone who is woefully ill-informed on the details of the matter.

          You don't sound like you're against homosexual child-rapers enough to me, John. Why is that? Do you have a soft spot for them? Save it for after the children are spared. I'm all for rehabilitation, but let's keep our priorities straight, shall we.

        • Child rapers are child molesters. I would not dignify them with the lie they are anything else. To call them homosexuals does not align properly with homos claims that mindwashing of the Satanists masquerading as Fundamentalists puts the aim of criticism on the wrong target does not sound less than astute to any aware of Dominionists and the use of religion as exemplified in the Jonestown experiment.
          Which is one reason I`m torn. I am well aware of the proclivity of the state to raise fine sounding issues. In this case rending parenting away from parents - again - is not my idea of stability or wisdom.
          Which has nothing to do with the dedication and expertise of practitioners. The finest tools employed improperly might as well be blunt.

        • "Child rapers are child molesters." Yes, but not all molesters are rapers or rapists in the common usage. I'm sure you will agree that the vast majority of people take rape to mean penetration via the penis. It can be vaginal or anal. I doubt most would include forced oral. Regardless, sexual molestation is evil, wrong, immoral, unhealthy, etc.

          "I would not dignify them with the lie they are anything else." I'm not sure whether you mean to attach that to rapers or homosexuals.

          "To call them homosexuals does not align properly with homos claims that mindwashing of the Satanists masquerading as Fundamentalists puts the aim of criticism on the wrong target does not sound less than astute to any aware of Dominionists and the use of religion as exemplified in the Jonestown experiment." John, apparently you are unaware that boys have developed same-sex sexual attraction/arousal due solely to homosexual molestation/rape. It's direct cause and effect. To not point directly at that, at the homosexuality, when considering California SB 1172 is less than astute. It is downright stupid.

          It is understandable that you are ignorant about the connection between molestation and SSA, as the mainstream media is primarily co-opted by the perpetrators and those who seek to cover for them while they all together make greater and greater inroads into totally controlling the nations (yes, plural).

          "Which is one reason I`m torn." In your very first comment on this site, which was one of the first comments on this site now many years ago, you said you were torn about the issue of homosexuality. I suggest you pull yourself together finally and stop thinking you have to fall on the same side all the time, as in always toeing the Democratic Party line. Agree with those aspects that are right and only those aspects that are right regardless of anything else others may or may not believe.

          Look at this that I just read: http://clashdaily.com/2012/08/gays-promote-violence-against-christians-conservs/

          I don't agree with everything that writer believes. I do though know that there are fascistic and militant homosexuals. So do you. So, you stand squarely against those homosexuals regardless of whether you agree with everything else on that site.

          Here's one on that site that I very nearly agree with 100%: http://clashdaily.com/2012/08/american-homophobe-the-parent-trap/

          It's rather consistent with much of what you've been saying here. At the same time, I can read posts on that site that I think are really, really wrong.
           
          "I am well aware of the proclivity of the state to raise fine sounding issues. In this case rending parenting away from parents - again - is not my idea of stability or wisdom." Well, there are bad parents, and sometimes the state steps in where if it did not, the children would die. I'm not going to rip the state for that. If I were the kid being beaten and locked in the closet to starve, etc., I'd have been crying for someone to save me. So would you.

          "Which has nothing to do with the dedication and expertise of practitioners. The finest tools employed improperly might as well be blunt." However, John, if you don't even know the tools or those using them, you're hardly in a position to criticize. I've heard many dozens of firsthand testimonies of people who were in the grip of homosexuality who have received excellent help from those who are called dangerous and harmful, etc., by homosexual activists who are not interested at all in the truth but rather sensationalism and false propaganda to move the masses like a stupid herd.

          Did you read the material I linked to in the post above before launching yourself into these comments? http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/08/16/must-read-rosik-ph-d-no-scientific-basis-to-ban-sexual-orientation-change-efforts.html Do you think he's lying or stupid, not knowing how to use a fine tool, etc.?

          John, don't you know the truth when you hear it?

          Why are you so worried about how your "liberal" friends are going to see you? Why do you care? Why don't you just care about the truth, first, foremost, and always?

          Sure, one has to tailor the message to the audience because there are audiences that don't have a clue such that the speaker or writer can do anything more than just barely begin the process. Then there other venues where that same speaker or writer had better really know his stuff or end up boring the audience to death rehashing everything they already know. You fall mostly into that first group. And as I said, it is not entirely your own fault but rather mostly the fault of the homosexual and pro-homosexual censors.

          If you want to be intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject, then you must get beyond the censors. It's not hard to do. It mostly requires going where you haven't and simply reading what you had been avoiding on account of the brainwashing by the homosexualists.

          If anyone is ever born homosexual, it is an extremely rare event. Homosexuals are people who have been turned into being homosexuals by what was done to them and not done to them (neglect) primarily by other human beings.

          Are you really going to leave this life having never arrived at the right position on homosexuality?

    • What I am For is for the Parents to have the ability to access what they believe to be in the best interests of their minor child. And for an adult person to seek the same relief.

      • SB 1172 denies parents in California that right. Are you specifically against SB 1172?

        Most people will think that you've said that you are; however, most of those same people would have thought the Patrick referred to in my post above was against SB 1172 based upon his statements that he made in the NARTH Group on Facebook. You are not as vague as Patrick, but you are not as clear, plain, and direct as I am, not even close; and you know it.

        If you are against SB 1172, then I suggest you broadcast that far and wide. Be prepared to be hated by those who will consider you a traitor to the liberal cause. Then explain what liberal really means. Then be prepared to be hated all the more, but also be prepared to find yourself closer to God than you have been perhaps in your whole life -- likely.