Where NARTH Stands and What Must Be Done: "Gay," Homosexual Culture

Update: NARTH's Stance: Answer/Solution Homosexuality

At the risk of appearing to some to be immodest (not my intention), I believe that the following article constitutes one of the most important articles on homosexuality I have seen to date.

Background

First of all, what is NARTH? NARTH is an association of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental-health counselors or therapists. NARTH stands for "National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." Primarily, NARTH members offer treatment for what has come to be referred to as unwanted same-sex attraction.

(Please note that all links in this post should open in a new tab/window so you won't have to repeatedly find your way back here.)

Here's the current Introduction in the Wikipedia:

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a nonprofit organization that offers conversion therapy and other regimens that purport to change the sexual orientation of individuals who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. NARTH's leaders describe their organization as "dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality." NARTH was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and Charles Socarides. [links added] Its headquarters are in Encino, California, at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic. Julie Hamilton is the current president of NARTH. NARTH's leaders disagree with the mainstream scientific consensus and the holding of the world's major mental health organizations that homosexuality is not a disorder. (last accessed December 23, 2012)

Clarifications: NARTH doesn't treat anyone. It's members do. It's members don't offer "other regimens" for the treatment of homosexuality. They offer therapy for changing and/or diminishing same-sex attraction. Some methods are more efficacious than are others, but some methods have proven highly effective. The term "purport" in the Intro above is suggestive of the idea that it is possible that no treatment works and that NARTH members may run the range from 1) innocent but simply mistaken that it works to 2) deliberate liars that it works. In addition, it is the therapists and a high percentage of client/patients who report that the treatments are effective; and it is client self-reporting upon which much research and reporting on homosexuality is based on both the pro- and anti-homosexuality sides of the issue of homosex. Also, Julie Hamilton is not the current president. Lastly, we do not know whether or not NARTH's public and official position is that homosexuality is a disorder. That last statement is one of the main reasons for my article here. Some people I know are very afraid of obtaining a public pronouncement from NARTH one way or the other on it. I am not, far from it.

Introduction

Here's what I currently see concerning NARTH. Based upon what has been and remains on the NARTH website and from other sources and which NARTH officially has endorsed at one time or another, it is my strong impression that the three cofounders of NARTH were at the time, among other things, clearly opposed to the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removing homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM). It is also my strong impression that the current or budding leadership of NARTH, whether formal leadership or simply the face of NARTH to the general public via mass media and social networking, etc., is now very fuzzy, to say the least, on the issue of whether homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder and whether or not whichever is the case, NARTH any longer has an official position on the subject. It is also my contention that, that new fuzziness is highly detrimental to all concerned, including all homosexuals, and that NARTH ought to return to the clear position that homosexuality is a mental disorder {deserving (if anything is) of having remained in the DSM when it was removed and deserving of being in all subsequent DSM's; more on this below}.

NARTH clearly appears to be buying more and more into the false position that if any person is outwardly seemingly functioning and is personally comfortable with his or her feelings, thoughts, and behaviors regarding the given subject (such as pro-homosexuality) and regardless of the plain negatives for individuals and society, then those feelings, thoughts, and behaviors cannot constitute a mental illness. It is as if no sociopaths (who are clearly mentally deficient and ill) can fit that description but magically can be rendered perfectly healthy just because the mainstream psychological and psychiatric associations are themselves greatly confused and blind to their own obvious errors in logic having, frankly, been taken over by homosexuals.

This article lays out why I am seeing what I am. Please note from the outset that it is not an exhaustive treatment of the issue of homosexuality; however, there is a great deal of supporting and substantiating material here. You may need more than one session to cover it.

Also, please do not expect me to have addressed every conceivable objection of the homosexuals and whether seemingly civil and reasonable/understandable or what constitutes purely deliberate false propaganda on the part of their most active and vocal political activists and supporters. Furthermore, civil and reasonable/understandable questions and comments will be entertained and hopefully (time permitting) answered/addressed. What constitutes purely deliberate false propaganda on the part of homosexual political activists and their supporters will not even be approved at my sole discretion. I am the sole comment-moderator. I can often take on average 24-48 hours before comments are even reviewed depending upon a whole host of things I won't go into here. Suffice it to say, I am not a professional political activist. I have other time-commitments.

Understand that any comment that is bitter will not be met by me with sweet, syrupy language. Also note that statements that God does not exist, and the like, will be treated as irrelevant for the purposes of the discussion and not approved. Whether members of NARTH are, or are not, believers in my God, it would behoove them all openly, honestly, and directly to reclaim the position and original intent of NARTH rather than continually moving the boundary allowing greater and greater encroachment by the amoral, the hedonists, displacing the objective and absolute truth that homosexuality is disordered with that homosexuality is (politically correctly) to be solely designated as not intrinsically disordered by the mainstream and NARTH and rather designated as being a completely healthy alternative lifestyle to the heterosexual design and whether errors enter into that heterosexual design or not (errors such as physical diseases, as with for one example, cancer caused by mutations and regardless of when said mutations occur vis-a-vis the just conceived or newly born).

Why am I interested in this subject? Basically, my concern is two-fold. First, if people are given the misimpression that they are unable to change sexually, then that sort of wrong thinking will carry forward and spread concerning other behaviors and mentalities as well. Can a person desire to do something wrong and change into a person who no longer has that desire? The answer is clearly yes, but where is the line drawn between voluntary and totally fixed, involuntary mental states such that the individual can never change a certain category of desire? Second, does homosexuality fit that later category (unchangeable) if it even exists?

Why do I care? This question is common from homosexual activists. By the question, they mean why don't I just leave the homosexuals alone by way of my stopping speaking or writing on the subject. After all they say, homosexuality isn't harming you (me). Of course, I can see it from that perspective, but that perspective is far from all there is to it and is also fundamentally in error concerning harm to others (and me). It harms the world, mine, theirs, and yours.

Also, I am certainly not concerned just with myself but with the whole of humanity and each individual who is a part of it. I don't have an interest in this because I am either a homosexual or even former homosexual. I am neither of those things. My concerns are solely as represented above.

Fundamentals

Let's get some fundamentals out of the way. Homosexuality is fluid. You may have heard that it is genetically and/or epigenetically and/or hormonally fixed. The statement that it is fixed is categorically false. The epigenetic aspect is newer; but concerning genetics, it's been common knowledge amongst those educated in the field (not your typical pro-homosexuality individual) that genetics is not determinant ("Is There a 'Gay Gene'?"; "My Genes Made Me Do It! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence"). Epigenetics is also not determinant, but the science to more directly back up that statement has not been published yet. It will be. ("Is epigenetics a critical factor in homosexuality?") I can say that it is not determinant. People have and do and will continue to change. ("Silent No More: Ex-Gays Speak Up") It has been widely known and more than generally accepted in both the mainstream and alternative science-based associations that sexual fluidity is a fact: that a very significant percentage of the population of humans change sexual orientation over the course of their lives.

Exactly where the line is drawn concerning when someone was a homosexual, per se, is a subjective matter, a relative matter. Not all people even experience homosexual temptation during their lives. The exact meaning of homosexual temptation is also a subject for semantics. The hair may be split until there is nothing left of the hair, and one might still not have arrived at a definitive position on the subject. I have been both tempted and not tempted depending upon the connotations/context. I'll give a quick example and then move on. Jesus, it is written in the Gospel, was tempted by the devil. Jesus did not succumb. However, was he tempted? One might say, "May I tempt you to have a cookie?" The other might say, "No, thank you," and have not been tempted at all to eat the cookie. Another person might debate and weigh alleged positives and negatives. After all, the cookie itself might be extremely healthy and the person might actually be hungry and not on some chosen fast. I believe you should see the point. I have debated homosexuality in my mind, as I believe the vast majority of people have been compelled to do if only for the very reason that they didn't understand the concept and wanted to know whether it is right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, moral or immoral, light or darkness, good or evil, ultimately positive or ultimately negative, and should be supported or opposed, etc. (Note: The American Psychological Association falsely states "that homosexuality ... is a ... positive variation of human sexual orientation"; they falsely claim that "Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder.") I have weighed the supposed positives and what has turned out to be the very real negatives.

Usually, the researcher for the sake of the study and report, will define homosexuality in fairly narrow terms: strength of the feelings; persistence of feelings/behavior. etc.; feelings and behaviors that even constitute same-sex attraction.

Genetics and epigenetics will predispose all individuals singularly uniquely. No two individuals are identical, not even identical twins are truly identical. To be identical is to not be two or more. I will spare you the theological paradox and how it is reconciled. The genes and epi-forms, along with other factors, create the form and function of the person. Throughout the formation, environmental factors are constantly influencing the development for better or worse.

It also appears that we are conceived as a clean mental slate. Furthermore, I don't consciously (versus subconsciously) remember anything before my second birthday and don't think anyone else does either.

At the moment of conception, I do not believe that the genes and epi-forms have determined the sexual-orientation outcome. When factoring in hormonal influences in the womb, I also don't believe sexual-orientation outcome has been fixed before birth.

There is though the case of hermaphrodism. Even in that case though, sexual orientation is still not fixed, immutable, unchangeable.

What is the case is that individuals are susceptible to environmental factors, and that is science-based.

Homosexual-Activist Deliberate Lies

There are though a number of hard-core homosexual activists who are still maintaining publicly, misleading hundreds of millions, that homosexuality is fixed at least at birth: the "Born that way" falsehood. Many are still even pushing the false propaganda that it is fixed at conception. Those are what need to be fixed first. Those false propagandists (and they do know that they are desperately still spewing what is utter falsehood) must be shut down, meaning the truth about their falsehood must become the common knowledge and the general population must turn to tell those homosexualists that they have lost their gambit to dupe the world into falsely believing that homosex cannot be changed, that one is born that way. One is not born that way, period.

How can I say that it isn't fixed for anyone? I can say it because it has been known for decades that conditioning has and can still change people from being what those people believe is purely homosexual to heterosexual. Please read my article: "Vindication continued: "The Neuro Transformers," by Robin Phillips."

Alfred Kinsey

A few more salient facts: The homosexual activists cite Alfred Kinsey as a scientific source backing up their claims. They do that by citing the American Psychological Association (APA), which cites Kinsey as authoritative. Here's what's important about that. The homosexual activists have falsely claimed (based upon Kinsey) that homosexuals comprised 10% of the population. They knew it was false but did it nevertheless in order to convince the masses that homosex was and is normative behavior. Please understand that Kinsey was an ideologue pushing sexual amorality (no sexual morals, as if there is no evil sexual activity) on the entire planet. ("Kinsey, Sex, and Lies: What They Didn't Teach You in Sex-Ed Class") Here's the second twist by the homosexual activists, both inside and outside the APA's (American Psychological Association; American Psychiatric Association). Kinsey also made clear that homosexuality is fluid. That part, which was correct on Kinsey's part, the homosexual activists conveniently left out of what they told the public via their huge false-propaganda campaign.

Health and Harm: The Slippery Slope

VICTIM'S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE

The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:

·  The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: "One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender."[70] [emphasis added]

·  A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: "More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years."[71]

·  Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences."[72]

·  A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:"In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged 'very often' in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred 'sometimes'"[73]

·  A National Institute of Justice report states that "the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children."[74]

·  A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been "victim of contact sexual abuse as a child."[75]

·  The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that "there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim."[76]

The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions—including those wrapped in scholastic garb—of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.

[...]

70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.

72. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.

73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, "Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.

74. Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences," Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.

75. Elliott, p. 582.

76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.

("Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse")

That's more than mere correlation. That's causation.

California SB 1172

That's California Senate Bill 1172 that was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown and will take effect on January 1, 2013 unless blocked by the courts. (It has been blocked):

During my investigations into the issue of homosexuality, the homosexual activists took it upon themselves to introduce legislation in the California state senate to block all Sexual Orientation Change Efforts for minors in California undertaken by California licensed mental-health practitioners. The claims of that legislation are based upon a great deal of misinformation, and that law blocks even children who were homosexually raped and then as a direct consequence developed unwanted same-sex attraction from obtaining help to be rid of that unwanted attraction. The law is truly reprehensible and fascistic on its face.

It is disappointing, to say the least, that California (and much of the United States and world) has slid down so far into amorality, hedonism, libertinism, and protecting clearly mentally-ill sexual predators who prey on innocent and vulnerable, gullible, naive children while wrapping themselves in the rainbow flag of having been bullied and such themselves (victim-perpetrators). The hypocrisy is astounding. I have defended those children, their caring parents and relatives, the therapists who do not engage in abuse or coercion but rather sympathy, empathy, compassion, etc. I have done so very firmly across the Internet and been heavily censored and banned as a result, not for being less "civil" than others, who have been allowed to continue wittingly spewing lies, but because I cited hard facts disputing the lies.

Official NARTH Positions

That said, I have found it exceedingly difficult to find out exactly where NARTH stands right now on a number of pressing issues for society. I was banned by NARTH for asking. This is critically important information that you will not find anywhere else unless others follow in my footsteps.

Please note the irony in this:

During this entire process, I learned a major principle about the power and strength of an organization, as opposed to an individual. It became very clear that there is a need for an objective, non-politicized group to address medical issues without fear of reprisal from special-interest activism.

I also became firmly convinced that the safe-sex measures that were being advocated in the early stages of the epidemic were going to be ineffectual. With the continuing popularity of the bathhouses and alarming rate of promiscuous, high-risk sexual practices, it became clear to me that the drive for unlimited sexual expression actually outweighs the fear of suffering and death for many gay men. Yet we live in an era in which homosexuality is promoted as a natural and normal equivalent of heterosexuality.

Because of their claim to victimhood—as victims of both social discrimination and a health crisis—gay activism has made tremendous strides through the ravages of the AIDS epidemic. Activists have been able to win support for measures that overhaul school curricula, housing laws, employment, and even religious doctrine.

As mental-health professionals, we need a full and complete understanding of homosexuality. To understand anything about the AIDS epidemic, and the underlying psychological factors causing the spread of the disease, we must fully understand the homosexual condition and the factors which drive this self-destructive behavior. This will require much dialogue, and as I soon discovered, there is a lot of resistance to such an open discussion.

I saw that I could not turn to the American Psychiatric Association, or any other such professional organizations. All had totally stifled the scientific inquiry that would be necessary to stimulate such a discussion. It remains very politically incorrect—very marginalizing—to even make the suggestion of a dialogue that opens up the question of the normality of homosexuality.

In recent years, religious groups have been the only organizations which have had the courage to undertake this kind of discussion, but they have not been assisted in any way by psychiatric professionals. And so NARTH was founded; [emphasis added] it became clear that we must have a credible secular organization which could move beyond the strife and misinformation. — Benjamin Kaufman, M.D., co-founder and a current board member of NARTH

Seeming NARTH Secrecy/Fear

The following will lead you through why I found, and still find, it exceedingly difficult to find out exactly where NARTH now stands on a number of pressing issues for society. Please read each of the following linked articles. My hope is that by the time you are done, it will be largely self-explanatory.

1. "Setting the Record Straight: What You Did Not Hear on a Recent Television Show Featuring NARTH," by Julie Hamilton, Ph.D. {former President, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)}

Before reading the next article, please understand that I do not endorse every type of therapy that comes under the broad heading of SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts). For instance, I see nothing good coming from swatting a pillow with a tennis racket while yelling "Mom." However, I won't go into here everything I agree with versus disagree with. That's beyond the intended scope of this post. I don't want it to become a distraction from what needs globally to be front and center.

2. "Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: What Does Mainstream Mean?" by Warren Throckmorton ("Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College")

3. "Mankind Project & New Warriors Training Adventure"

Concerning this next article, its author, Wayne Besen, goes way beyond the point of Throckmorton's article. Besen lumps all SOCE into one category that is nothing but harmful, despite what you read in Julie Hamilton's post on the NARTH site. Thousands of people who've undergone various forms of NARTH approved SOCE are, in Dr. Joseph Nicolosi's practice, satisfied (some 60+%) or very satisfied (some 30+%). If it were so bad, so harmful, etc., over and above other therapies, hundreds and hundreds of people would have filed complaints. I won't go into detail on this issue either, as there's a great deal that I could say on the matter and have, in fact, posted enough about it elsewhere on this site.

Some people just weren't interested in change. Some people just quit prematurely. Others just were the extreme, and the given treatment didn't help them with their SSA (Same-Sex Attraction) that they could tell anyway.

4. "Evangelical Professor Warns Christians Not To Blindly Support NARTH's Reparative Therapy," by Wayne Besen (homosexual activist)

The next link is long and fairly detailed. It will require patient reading. If you really want to know what's going on, you'll have to read the whole thing.

5. "Complaint against NARTH," by Tom Usher

Please note that concerning that last link, Mr. David Pruden did not know what homosexual affirmation means. However, Dr. Julie Hamilton's article says the following:

Sadly, we see much higher levels of depression and suicide among homosexuals than among the non-homosexual population. Some will claim that these higher rates of suicide and depression are the result of homophobia (or therapy, as claimed on the show). HOWEVER, we know that the suicide rates are not simply due to homophobia because we see the same rates of depression and suicide in gay-affirming [emphasis added] cultures such as New Zealand, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Norway.

Here's some additional back-up for that:

Other and more recent studies have found similar correlations, including studies from the Netherlands, one of the most gay-affirming [emphasis added] social contexts in the world. Depression and substance abuse are found to be on average 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexual persons. Teens manifesting same-sex attraction report suicidal thoughts and attempts at double to triple the rate of other teens. Similar indicators of diminished physical health emerge in this literature. ("Same-Sex Science: The social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality," by Stanton L. Jones)

That's important for several reasons. It's important for the obvious reasons that David Pruden certainly should have known exactly what I was asking. It's also important because the more Warren Throckmorton and others press NARTH, the more NARTH is becoming just that: homosexuality affirming. More telling though is that while this appears to be the case, while NARTH appears to be bending to political correctness and not simply trying to avoid the criticisms by Throckmorton that NARTH is fringe, NARTH is actually turning its back, at least somewhat, on the very point of Julie Hamilton's statement above, which and whether she knows it or not, and I'm assuming she does, is that it is clear that homosexual depression and suicide are symptoms of homosexuality itself, meaning homosex (contrary to the APA's and Julie Hamilton's claim) is a disorder.

From my "Complaint," the official nature of which is no longer in force (meaning I have no intention at this point of pressing the matter formally and officially with NARTH), you may see that NARTH, via all of its official representatives with whom I've directly interacted on this issue, is straddling the fence.

Decidedly Anti-Homosexuality

So, why do I post this? Well, as you also may see from my "Complaint," I am decidedly anti-homosexuality. I always have been to varying degrees depending upon how much I was looking into the question, though there have been times when I was seriously considering the impact that any genetic discovery would hold. By that I mean to say that had genetics proven definitive, I would have felt it more necessary for society to show more sympathy for the more involuntary nature of the disease (host of symptoms). However, it is not involuntary. It is changeable. One need only undergo proper treatment to be rid of homosexuality. There is no such thing as an unchangeable homosexual. There is only good and workable therapy and then bad and ineffective therapy given the particular severity of the client/patient's homosexuality. I base that upon my findings stated in my article: "Vindication continued: "The Neuro Transformers," by Robin Phillips." Understand that, that research was conducted long ago and newer, less invasive methods could surely be adapted to the need and with the same or better outcome.

From the "Complaint," you will also see that David Pruden said that if his interpretation of homosexual affirmation being a redundant question is wrong, I would need to elaborate to clarify. However, at the same time, Pruden also stated that he would answer no further questions. My view is that Mr. Pruden was being more than a bit scatterbrained throughout my interaction with him. I don't know how else to view his reply. I wish him well. I harbor no grudge against him. I harbor no grudge against any member of NARTH with whom I've had contact.

Please also note that Pruden would not re-state the (prior?) official position of NARTH: "The truth...
Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality
."

Homosexual Political Gains Not Irreversible

What I'm concerned about is that anti-homosexuality forces have been failing to see that the Wayne Besens of the world, the hyper-homosexual activists of the world, simply want to wear down their opposition with false propaganda and non-science and that the worst move that anti-homosexuality can make is to buy into what the Wayne Besens claim: Homosexuality's political gains the world over are irreversible. It is not over. Those gains are certainly not irreversible. Of course they can be and should be reversed. That is not a call to stoning them to death or anything of the like but rather to return to the honest truth that homosex is mental confusion and that all homosexuals need help to overcome the plague that is homosexuality.

It does not matter that some medical and psychological and other associations have deemed homosexuality beyond having shown symptoms of itself. It does show forth those symptoms and whether Wayne Besen or anyone else claims the contrary.

Anti-Homosexuality Truth Task

Therefore, the task of anti-homosexuality armed with this truth is to overturn the mistaken decisions of the self-styled mainstream concerning homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that the American Psychiatric Association was in error when it removed homosexuality from its DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as a mental illness. It is a mental illness. Just because people can function with it for a time does not render it a mentally healthy condition. It is not healthy! It is unhealthy. The fact that 10% of the population was never homosexual, the fact that sexual orientation is fluid, the fact that conditioning can overcome and remake the very structure and function of the brain–the very brain matter itself—are all becoming common knowledge. That trend will continue if anti-homosexuality forces will stand up with the truth and not be silenced even under pain of death of the flesh!

Libertarianism

I include this segment under the heading of "Libertarianism" because I see many libertarians as very direct obstacles. Many of them are actually sexual anarchists (for "Free Love" of the so-called counterculture and more; libertinism; immature and counter-productive). NARTH's traditional support has come from social conservatives. Original social conservatives and sexual-anarchist libertarians couldn't be more different on the subject of homosexuality. I come from a civil libertarian background but never unbridled. My parents raised me as a moralist. I somewhat strayed (due to ignorance and for other and complex reasons I won't go into), but I finally returned, thank God, literally.

Social Conservatism

I will clarify here just a bit between civil libertarianism and social conservatism and what that should hold for the issue of homosexuality. Generally speaking in the United States (this article is intentionally written to include an international audience), civil libertarianism is considered as supporting the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which ten amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights in the US, and supportive of other rights enshrined (albeit often ostensibly) in the US Constitution. Social conservatism is more difficult to express. Opinions vary more concerning its meaning. Much of the differentiation hinges upon the degree of coercion that is called for concerning the enforcement of morality. For the purposes of this article, I am using sanity and morality as synonyms. Making sanity, morality, and civil rights jibe in the minds of the people is no small challenge, particularly because others must be convinced for the results sufficiently to work their consciences. Most Americans will typically agree that upholding the Bill of Rights to a reasonable level is a moral agreement, that it is the sane thing to do, that doing so is what is best, etc., that the people have natural rights that ought not be infringed by the people's government. It comes down then to what constitutes "reasonable" at any given time, as the notions of the people change with the times as to what is or isn't worthy of protection and the degree to which and how laws should be enforced via threats or violence to force compliance and/or to end unacceptable disorder trampling the rights of others to be free of the given level of chaos, unruliness, disturbances of the peace, and whether the offenders like it or not. The general view of the people as to what is reasonable can change for the better or worse. The different sides of the given issue will argue against each other as to what is better or worse. So, one has heard the repeated refrain from the homosexual activists, "What's it to you what others do with those they love?" Of course given the current state of affairs (confusion), that is a proper question. Is there no overriding, damaging ripple effect negatively impacting society such that homosex clearly should be forbidden? Are the homosexuals properly applying the term "love" as it is applied to a perfect heterosexual bond between husband and wife? I say there is plain and compelling evidence that homosex is a grievous error that is rotting and will continue to rot the social fabric so long as it is tolerated (I use "tolerated" advisedly there) and that no human should be a homosexual, whether by choice or otherwise. I also say that they have and do miss apply that term "love," that they have an emotion toward one another that is other than the same love between husband and wife, male and female, such that homosexuality is unhealthy and bad enough that society ought not allow it. However, where I differ with other "social conservatives" concerns the manner of enforcement and treatment, and this goes to the point concerning tolerance. It is my desire that each human have the divine law written on his or her heart so that everyone will refuse homosexuality without society having to step in with coercion. Others, who do not represent a high percentage of those in the US, want homosexuals eliminated by any means, including by state executions if those "conservatives" deem necessary, meaning if the homosexuals cannot be changed or will not change or perhaps that they cannot be kept away from public society or that the "conservatives" in that case don't wish to pay additional taxes to fund the places of incarceration/separation or more so to help with education and compassionate, intelligent, ethical, effective treatment, etc., to rehabilitate the homosexuals. My desire is for humanity to be openly re-educated concerning homosexuality so that all may know the truth, the facts, on the subject. The homosexual activists do not want that because they know that the truth will wear down and eliminate the gains they've made via false propaganda. That alone should inform you that they are mentally ill. It has ever been so. That said, I will always agree with the most coercive people (such as Moses) that homosex is wrong before I will agree with the homosexuals that it is not. First things first is my point. Absent conversion by the homosexuals, I also seek separation. However, I know conversion is doable while adhering to the standards I've just set forth in this paragraph.

I hesitated to include the video below because it introduces many huge issues. However, I believe it will do a good job by making my case in the negative. While there is a great deal of truth in the video, it should be understood that it is the extreme libertarian viewpoint, not that there oughtn't be liberty but that the video treats all human emotion and behavior either by ignoring it or by deeming it all acceptable, healthy, sane. Also, because it begins from the radical-libertarian extreme, the video's creators deliberately chose to stop on the word homosexuality and then immediately make the statement that the DSM was therefore ridiculous for ever having had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder. Mind you, many with this same libertarian mind-set or worldview won't hesitate to pull out their guns to shoot down the "mad dog" humans clearly doing insane acts, such as mass murder of school children. Those same libertarians will, however, point the finger at psychiatry for giving people drugs the effects of which include causing people to go crazier than they already are, which is a fair point. That said, it is inescapable that mass murder existed before psychiatric medications, not that such medications haven't on balance made matters worse or that there are not better ways of dealing with many severe, debilitating mental disturbances.

There were people before the "meds," as they are called, existed who were doing horrendously cruel and inhumane things to each other that rightly should have been and still are judged insane, even if only temporary in some cases.

Furthermore, the idea that all behavior simply because it occurs renders it somehow "normal" is an abuse of the term via a most narrow connotation of that term normal. Normal and normative are closely associated terms. They are often used and meant interchangeably. However, the normal that is normative when it is actually being lived by the majority in a given area, is the moral standard of that majority, which majority can be very extensive up to 100% of that population. Changing the norms (normative change) is a psychological event subject to all the vagaries thereof and especially when the voices of libertarians, amoralists, hedonists, and materialists, take sway and dominate.

Let me make clear that the term "libertarian" covers a spectrum of connotations. Not all people self-identifying as libertarians are amoralists, hedonists, and/or materialists. They can be though. They can be selectively, as I believe is the case concerning the video.

There are mentally ill people. There are mental disorders. There are people who are literally tortured in their minds, plagued with unbearable pain and suffering, that is not the result of psychiatric medications. The brain is definitely a system of chemical actions and reactions, and the lack or oversupply of various chemicals can cause less than optimal functioning all the way to extremely severe illnesses. The libertarians in general want to rely upon natural means to correct problems, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with relying first and foremost on proper nutrition and such before attempting to introduce psychiatric medications with so many often overwhelming negative effects, drugs ostensibly introduced to help alleviate one problem while introducing others many times more severe and leading, for example, to much violence, murder, and suicide where it would not have occurred otherwise.

There is debilitating depression that extends way beyond into the range where the person does not function for years on end and without any medications. The same is the case with anxiety. The list of different manifestations is very long. That the DSM has hundreds of things listed does not in itself render those things non-disorders, non-illnesses. There are real mental illnesses/disordered and there is statistical evidence to back up that claim. The video makes out as if that is not the case. It does so by completely ignoring it. It does so because it has ulterior motives (perhaps subconscious).

In my mind, it is very possible that the authors and financial backers of that fairly slick video full of psychological tricks are people deeply involved in "alternative" medicine in the form of very expensive nutritional supplements who are under attack by the pharmaceutical industry, which industry clearly has been unethical. The video does rightly point that out. Let's not jump from the frying pan into the fire though. Let's discern the whole truth.

Who created the video? The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International created it. What do they say? Their About page says that they take "a stance against the biological...model of 'disease'" (mental disease). It was "co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology." Please understand the Church of Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, ironically held, at least in his writings, that homosexuality was a mental illness/disorder: "Scientology and sexual orientation."

You will note that Citizens Commission on Human Rights International claim of psychiatrists that they "do not accurately inform patients of the nature of the diagnoses, which would require informing the patient that psychiatric diagnoses are completely subjective (based on behaviors only) and have no scientific/medical validity (no X-rays, brain scans, chemical imbalance tests to prove anyone has a mental disorder)." However, "no scientific/medical validity" is a sweepingly incorrect statement because it isn't aimed at more than each diagnoses one at a time but at the entire idea that mental disorders are connected to brain chemistry. Of course brain chemistry is involved in mental disorders, and of course mental disorders exist. To suggest otherwise, to imply otherwise, to ignore it, is ridiculous. That said, many of the calls for change made by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International are very reasonable and should be implemented.

Also, the video suggests that because the diagnoses are voted upon, they are then necessarily always "political" and incorrect. That is a logical fallacy. A true mental illness can be voted as such.

Making My Case In the Negative

I include the video here solely to show that the reliance by the homosexual activists upon the fact that homosexuality is no longer in the DSM is misplaced. The point is that just because it is no longer listed is by no means proof that homosexuality is not the true mental disorder it is. Obviously though, since the DSM has continually grown and since the object is ever more profitable psychiatric/medical practices for the doctors and also greater and greater drug sales for the pharmaceutical industry, one wonders how it can be missed by anyone that homosexuality was removed not because it was never a mental disorder but because the homosexual activists lobbied, invaded, and even threatened the APA (all of which happened). Were there no anti-homosexuality brain-chemistry-balancing drugs the pharmaceutical industry could have manufactured? They certainly could have come up with something, as they have with nearly every other mental state, which homosexuality is, and whether or not the drug as numerous negative "side-effects." It never stopped them before. Why didn't they? What scared them so much to drop homosexuality from the DSM? It was not because there was no scientific evidence for homosexuality being an illness or disorder. There was and still is a great deal of totally valid statistics properly interpreted pointing exactly to that homosexuality is a disorder/illness. It must have been a very powerful political force, very well organized, ready with a major and relentless psychological campaign waged on all fronts, and certainly didn't have to be science-based at all, which it was not. The video was completely correct in that homosex was removed for purely political reasons: ideological pressure and threats.

I happen to like Mike Adams, who is listed on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International's "NON-DRUG APPROACHES TO MENTAL HEALTH" as "Naturalnews.com — Independent news on natural health, nutrition and more
http://www.naturalnews.com." I don't believe that he is in it just for the money. I don't for a moment suggest that Mike is amoral. He is, however, nevertheless very nearly what may rightly be described as an extreme libertarian, at least runs in those circles. So read his article and watch the video with everything I've said in mind. "Psychiatry goes insane: Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5," by Mike Adams, Editor, NaturalNews.com. Thursday, December 13, 2012.

Watch the video and take note of the presence of the prevalent libertarian preconception that men performing anal intercourse on each other is not an illness.

To be sure, there's always a range of response to diseases. Just as no two people have identical finger prints, no two people react identically to any disease. There are always variations, some very subtle, but nevertheless variations. There are always the extreme outliers. While someone will completely "lose it" due to homosexuality and including in the most homosexual affirming societies and families, someone else will appear rugged and manage/function without a blip in the most anti-homosexuality societies and families (barring violence, that sort of thing, which I stand against in any case).

Cover For NARTH or Address This Head On

I've taken heat over this episode, which is not over. In the eyes of some, I was to shut up about it all so as to not damage NARTH. I don't see it that way, obviously. I see it as my duty, my obligation to truth, to seek out the truth and to disseminate it. If that means finding out that NARTH and I cannot walk the same path together, then so be it. However, only God knows whether NARTH proper or its individual current members and others will come to see the error of caving into the homosexual onslaught rather than backing up to see that some of the places where the cave-ins occurred can be repaired. Mistakes can be and should be admitted, and right-minded, moral people should re-stake the claim to the ground lost over homosexuality being a disease. They should reclaim it and hold it and then advance to take back the whole field. That's the right thing to do.

All the while, there should be compassion, there should be love, there should be help, there should not be bullying, there should not be violence, etc., on either side. The facts, the truth, alone should rule in every heart and mind and soul.

More Unanswered Questions

NARTH: "Furthermore we do not wish to diminish the rights of homosexually oriented people in society."

What does that mean? Does it mean they do not wish to diminish the rights of homosexually oriented people to demand laws banning therapies offered by NARTH members? Clearly it does not. However, where does NARTH draw the line on the "rights" to which NARTH was referring? Is it to remain a secret? Do the homosexuals have a "right" to have public schools affirm homosexuality while opposing views are censored and banned? Remember that according to at least how NARTH used to be:

The truth...
Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality
.

Please note the obvious contradiction/blurring: "NARTH and Civil Rights." We must have greater clarity! NARTH's current approach has not been working. NARTH must change or fail.

2. Gay Advocacy in Public Schools
When schools offer information on sexual orientation, the facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner.

Groups such as the American Psychological Association currently recommend that schools censor all "ex-gay" materials, and prohibit discussion about those who have chosen to change their orientation. Respect for diversity, however, requires teaching about all principled positions.

[...]

5. Same-Sex Marriage
Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development. ("NARTH Position Statements")

The issue of same-sex marriage, however, is disallowed on the NARTH Facebook group wall/timeline. You should also note that NARTH's statement there, as with other NARTH statements, officially states that homosexuality is not the healthy but unhealthy choice. So, why didn't NARTH simply reaffirm to me in the group NARTH's positions and allow the group to discuss them?

Those charged with guiding students during [the clinical training] process have a responsibility to ensure that they do not impose their own worldview on students...It is critical that students be able to honestly express their feelings and concerns without fear of ridicule, sanction, or retribution by those in power.

That statement wasn't good enough for NARTH in terms of it's treatment toward me (and those who agreed with me that NARTH should have allowed NARTH Facebook group members to discuss whatever is discussed on NARTH's own site).

"No philosophical position—ours or the A.P.A.'s—is, or can be, scientifically 'neutral.'" However, NARTH's official response to me was just the contrary. NARTH is inconsistent. See this:

Today, children from kindergarten through college are being taught that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle option with no disadvantages other than society's disapproval. Sexually confused teenagers are encouraged to investigate homosexual relationships when they are too young to make critical lifestyle decisions. If they seek counseling, they are told that change from homosexuality is impossible.

Gender-disturbed children are no longer helped to become more comfortable with their own biological sex, or with the same-sex peers they have been avoiding. Instead, counselors tell their parents, "Your child is fine—the only problem is with society."

It is NARTH's aim to provide a different perspective. Particularly, we want to clarify that homosexuality is not "inborn," and that gays are not "a people," in the same sense that an ethnic group is "a people"—but instead, they are (like all of us) simply individuals who exhibit particular patterns of feelings and behavior.

When gay advocates reframed the public debate as a discussion about "who one is" rather than "what one does," they successfully intimidated dissenters by casting them as personally bigoted and hateful. As a result, most people who defend the reality of male-female design have been embarrassed into public silence.

Bigots and Haters

NARTH is Not Anti-gay, nor is NARTH a Hate-Based Organization

Critics and antagonists have labeled NARTH, its leaders, and members as "bigots" and having "hatred" against homosexuality. Simply stated, these accusations are completely false. NARTH's leaders value and esteem both those who have embraced homosexual identities as well as those who seek change of orientation or identity. ("Anti-Gay?! NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH," by Julie Hamilton)

I had this "debate" with David Pickup in the Facebook group, with David Pruden in my Complaint and his answer, and now I will have it with Julie Hamilton.

Look, "gay" (as used by the homosexuals) and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are at once the same and different. NARTH was clearly anti-homosexuality. NARTH's current position is muddy, clouded, unclear, equivocal. One can be anti-homosexuality while remaining "civil" towards homosexuals and while certainly not esteeming them in their plainly wrong moral choice to be and remain homosexual.

I also had the theological "debate" concerning the terms "hate" and "bigotry," etc., in that Facebook group. I've also explained these things on this website.

Without going into great detail here, let me simply quote Jesus Christ. (Please don't attempt to water Jesus down. Just understand that hate is a spectrum and bigotry is not always wrong.)

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." — Jesus Christ (Luke 14:26) At the very same time, one is also to love all of those same people. Reconcile it.

"For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." — Jesus Christ (Luke 6:44) A homosexual is known by his or her results. If the result be evil, the person is evil. Evil is known by producing evil (as I said above: right or wrong, healthy or unhealthy, moral or immoral, light or darkness, good or evil, ultimately positive or ultimately negative, and should be supported or opposed). The false idea of "hate the sin, love the sinner" came from Billy Graham I believe. The problem with it is that while there is truth to it, it has been reduced to the also incorrect blanket term "unconditional love." Such expressions and terms have been incorrectly taken as exclusive of the other aspect of the true paradoxes presented by Jesus Christ for our greater edification. God does hate the sin and love the sinner, but there is damnation. There is on God's part both unconditional and conditional love at the same time and concerning the same individual. The failure of the churches and ministers, etc., to understand and teach this has been conducive to the very problems we now face concerning sexual depravity and other confusions permeating the world.

Jesus is hardly a "straw man," Julie.

Respect

"NARTH acknowledges that some people are comfortable claiming a homosexual identity, and we respect their freedom to do so..." Why? Why respect what one believes is unhealthy for all individuals and the whole of society/humanity? What does "respect" there mean? Do I respect the homosexuals because I don't advocate or carry out violence against them? No.

Unbounded Right of Self-Determination Concerning All Paraphilias

"NARTH believes that people have the freedom to pursue a homosexual identity or adapt in any way they desire for their lives." Does that include pedophilia and all the other paraphilias? If not, then why take offense at my detailed questions? What about incest, bestiality, necrophilia, coprophilia, sadism, masochism...? Does anything go? It sounds amoral and even immoral.

In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose what they consider may be a better way of understanding pedophilia: that it may only be "abuse" if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized. In its first step toward removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic Manual, the A.P.A. said the condition was normal as long as the person did not feel bad about it.

Few laymen are aware that the American Psychiatric Association recently redefined the criteria for pedophilia. According to the latest diagnostic manual (DSM—IV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children. To be diagnosed as disordered, now he must also feel anxious about the molestation, or be impaired in his work or social relationships. Thus the A.P.A. has left room for the "psychologically normal" pedophile. [emphasis added]

[...]

Dutch psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg points out that "non-coerced" sex is a misnomer because there is always an element of coercion — involving a misuse of adult authority, and a misuse of the child's need for affection. If a researcher sees no harm, "it may be because he is using the wrong glasses...not because there is nothing to see."

[...]

"Ultimately," says Dr. Finkelhor, "I do continue to believe that the prohibition on adult-child sexual contact is primarily a moral issue. While empirical findings have some relevance, they are not [to be] the final arbiter."

Some slaves, he says, experienced slavery as good; likewise, many child sweatshop workers said their work was beneficial. Despite this, we know better than to conclude that either slavery or child labor are ultimately good, he argues. ("The Problem of Pedophilia")

NARTH: Homosexuality Not a Mental Illness Anymore

"NARTH does not view homosexuality as mental illness...." Then why does NARTH bemoan that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM? Also, there's this:

Homosexuality is not formally recognized as a mental disorder in the DSM. However, some mental health professionals disagree: a few years following the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, the majority of psychiatrists in America viewed homosexuality as a pathology, and the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue[d] to see same-sex attraction as signaling a mental illness. ("Normality or Disorder: Answering the Question")

It is well known that many full-blown sociopaths don't suffer distress. They also appear on the outside to have "adapted" quite well but via no working consciences, no compassion or sympathy or empathy, which things they view as weaknesses. Therefore, the criteria of adaptiveness or functionality are wholly inadequate.

After writing that, I found this on the NARTH website:

The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:

1. regularly cause distress, or
2. interfere with social effectiveness.

The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not, Dr. Bieber countered, exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder. ("The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber")

If that article doesn't convince you that NARTH held the better position then than it does now under Julie Hamilton, David Pickup, Christopher Doyle, and David Pruden's more PC (politically correct) statements, I don't know what will convince you.

One more: "Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems," by N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D. (Author of "My Genes Made Me Do It"); Please note that concerning that article, it has already been pointed out that the appeal to stigmatization of homosexuals is not the answer! Stigmatization as the cause is false propaganda: baseless. Also, the homosexual activists are fond of pointing to the age of various studies as rendering those invalid for not containing the "findings" of newer, pro-homosexual studies/reports. However, those same activists do not fail to point to even older studies/reports when doing so serves their false-propagandistic purposes. I already pointed to Kinsey's 1948 book as a prime example. Furthermore, the findings of N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., have not been overturned by so-called newer pro-homosexuality findings. Those "newer" findings still rely upon the exact same mistakes pointed out by Whitehead. Lastly, Whitehead's work has been heavily censored and banned by the mainstream, misleading "medical and scientific" associations, and mass media. That is not the case because Whitehead's findings and observations are invalid but rather because they are valid.

NARTH Must Reconsider and Revert to Truth

Surely Julie Hamilton, David Pickup, Christopher Doyle, and David Pruden should reconsider their distancing themselves from N.E. Whitehead and Charles Socarides (a co-founder of NARTH). If not, then surely many people who now categorically support NARTH should heavily qualify their support since Hamilton, Pickup, Doyle, and Pruden would then appear to be representing a "new" but stale and rather visionless face of NARTH. I would suggest that such a "new" generation of NARTH leadership would represent the obvious dumbing-down of NARTH.

If smokers are blocked from smoking in public to protect the non-smokers from secondhand smoke, is that bigoted? It is, but it's right. If homosexuals were blocked (as they once were) from corrupting the public with ill-health to protect the public from that disease, would that be bigoted? It would be, but it would also be as right as preventing secondhand smoke, in fact, more so, as the disease of homosex is worse than that caused by secondhand smoke. Here's a twist on that, that does show that NARTH is not incapable of making the connections and analyzing and evaluating based upon a hierarchy of harm: "The Real Comparison of Harm from Smoking vs. Possible Harm of Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE)."

Holy Spirit of Truth Calling

I have no exact plan for this article other than to try to draw to it the attention of those who hopefully can and will influence NARTH and its members to return to NARTH's better roots.

Sexual anarchy is becoming a plague. It will decay the moral fabric of humanity. Depravity will end up running rampant, as if things aren't already there in many respects. The same license the homosexual activists take are taken concerning greed and violence too. It's all the lust of the flesh.

So, I'm calling you all openly to stand with me and to do what you are able to spread the truth without fear. They can kill your body but not your soul, not if you love God and act like it.

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14 KJV) Can the chosen possibly turn their backs? Can they possibly remain silent? I know they cannot and remain the chosen of Jesus Christ. The chosen will stand together on this. The chosen will speak out, come what may.

When other people stand erectly against homosexuality, I back them openly. What do you do? I am standing erectly here against homosexuality. What will you do now regarding me about that? If you think what you do or don't do won't signify for or against you in the Kingdom of Heaven, you are in error. Whatever you do, I will be able to face my maker concerning the straight-up, not crooked, stand I took here.

Your secret, proper prayers will be heard and answered.

May God bless everyone with the truth!

Tom Usher

Related Links

  1. Dupe: Chemerinsky, dean, UC Irvine School of Law, on SB 1172
  2. Living in Harmony with One's Biological Design - Joseph Nicolosi
  3. US Federal Judge Blocks CA SB 1172 (Anti-Reparative Therapy for Homosexuality Law)
  4. District Judge Kimberly Mueller's Flawed Ruling On SB 1172, Anti-Reparative Therapy for Minors
  5. "Sandusky Laws": California SB 1172 & Other Evil Homosexual Plans
  6. CA SB 1172, Conversion-Therapy Ban: Welch, Duk, Bitzer v. Brown, et al., Full Body-Text
  7. Free to Choose: A Journey With Same-Sex-Attraction - YouTube
  8. Re: CA SB 1172 banning SOCE for minors: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Rebuttal Declaration
  9. Re: CA SB 1172 banning SOCE for minors: Dr. Christopher Rosik Rebuttal Declaration
  10. Monsters: "Sex therapists" want to legalize virtual child porn for pedophiles
  11. About the Video: "Russell Brand Interviews Westboro Baptist Church"
  12. What's Homosexual Love? Is It Gay or Darkness?
  13. Jesus called all homosexuals sinners. He called all homosexual behavior a sin.
  14. How Male Homosexuality Might (Highly Likely) Start and Increase
  15. Homosexual-Activist Fools, Ignoramuses, and Epigenetics
  16. Homosexual-Activist Fools, Ignoramuses, and Epigenetics: Part 2
  17. Watch Dr. Gagnon Dismantle False-Christian Teachings of Homosexual Episcopal Bishop Robinson

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.