On Homosexuals Suing JONAH (Jewish SOCE center)

Here's the article describing the homosexuals' law suit against JONAH for JONAH's Sexual Orientation Change Efforts:


Gay men and their moms sue Jewish therapy center that promised to turn them straight | Mail Online.

Hey, look on the bright side: "Levin, 23,...said he was [sic] been sexually abused as a boy and that he felt confused about his sexuality." You don't say. That's why California SB 1172 needs to be overturned.

Thank you, Southern Poverty Law Center, for confirming the fact that sexual abuse (was it homosexual by the way?) causes same-sex sexual confusion. That is what Levin means, isn't it?

Why didn't the article say which sex abused him? Conveniently overlooking that detail is what I more than suspect. Of course, maybe they are playing games in some got-ya fashion, as in many will assume it was homosexual sexual abuse, say so, and then be tactically embarrassed by homosexual activists who held back the info just to be able to pounce. They do stoop to that sort of stuff.

Levin quit after only 18 months. How many people quit all sorts of therapies? Does it mean all of those treatments are a fraud just because they didn't "work" in those cases? No, of course it doesn't mean that. It proves nothing.

Goldberg (JONAH's head) is quoted in the article: "...healing is a lifelong process.... We have a lot of people who were a success and were healed.... Hundreds of the clients we serve are satisfied...." I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Arthur Goldberg on the subject. He has plenty of extremely intelligent company that is more than ready, able, and willing to debunk stupid law suits.

That's not to say that there haven't been people engaging in Sexual Orientation Change Efforts who haven't made wrong choices. One such choice is physically coercing boys to under go torturous aversion-therapy attempts (that's against the boy's will). Where a person fully understands aversion therapy and volunteers to under go it and where it is not unreasonable risky/dangerous, it's none of the secular state's business, frankly.

I don't believe that JONAH guarantees success. If it does or did in the case of Levin, that is and was an error. I also don't believe JONAH coerces people into aversion therapy. Again, if it does or did, they'll have to face the music on that.

See also:

Gay 'Conversion Therapy' Faces Tests in Courts - NYTimes.com.

Of course, there will end up being counter-suits, and it remains to be seen who will end up having to pay whose court costs and attorney's fees, etc.

The more these people fire off what they think they have, the more they will open themselves up to challenges where they aren't shielded by the mass media. They will become twisted in their own talk, as I mentioned concerning the SPLC actually aiding our side by for all practical purposes, admitting openly in the suit they are handling that homosexual sexual-abuse causes same-sex-attraction confusion.

Levin in that case could be called as a hostile witness and made to admit that in court in other suits.

You see there an utterly one-sided report on the "news."

You see again, as in other stories, that whether or not Levin was homosexually abused goes hidden:

Mr. Levin said that he was sexually abused by a relative between the ages of 6 and 10 and that Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Downing blamed the abuse for his homosexual attractions. "Saying the abuse made you gay is terrible," Mr. Levin said. "Once I accepted that I was gay, I was able to focus on the more serious problem of a history of sex abuse."

There's nothing terrible about telling that to someone if it is true, and it may be true in his case. I think it's likely.

Do you think the New York Times is loaded with Jewish homosexuals not interested in facts but spin and censorship of the opposition? I do. We shall see though whether or not the NYT can rise to the occasion and report all the facts without spinning them. If the linked article doesn't demonstrate to you an extremely lopsided report where the "journalists" and editors haven't already made up their minds, I think you're a dupe.

Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse:

· Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

· Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
· Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

· Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

· Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote "intergenerational intimacy."

Think about all of that. It is cause and effect! It is not correlation without causality.

Re: CA SB 1172 banning SOCE for minors: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Rebuttal Declaration

Re: CA SB 1172 banning SOCE for minors: Dr. Christopher Rosik Rebuttal Declaration

CA Gov. Jerry Brown ignores children's rights & Conversion-Therapy facts


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.