When Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman, and Joseph Nicolosi co-founded NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), all three of them believed that the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
Charles Socarides is dead, but both Benjamin Kaufman and Joseph Nicolosi are still board members of NARTH and still believe that the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM.
However, at its founding, it was not NARTH's official position that the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM "because the focus of NARTH was in providing services to those who were unhappy with their same sex attractions," writes Joseph Nicolosi. Joe continues, "In addition to this essential need, we viewed NARTH as carrying on the tradition of scientific investigation that the APA had abandoned."
Now, to be fair, that is not impossible to comprehend when one considers that at the time, NARTH officially and expressly stating that the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM would have been stating the obvious but more so that the focus was not trained on the political battle, strategy, and tactics but on the clients'/patients' immediate desires and needs. Socarides, Kaufman, and Nicolosi were not focused nationally and globally politically on public policies and practices.
However, it is still not NARTH's official position that the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM.
Given the national and global homosexual political agenda to reshape public policies and practices to 1) preclude NARTH from continuing its work and 2) prevent human beings from even entertaining the possibility of changing sexual orientation, would it be wise of NARTH to continue without officially stating A) homosexuality is a disorder and B) the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM?
Joe Nicolosi writes:
Our concern is not with the diagnosis so much as the continued research on the causes and treatment of homosexuality. We believe the APA abandoned its commitment to science and professional assistance to those seeking sexual orientation change. A third aspect of our concern is how the APA's (and we now mean both APA's [American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association]) public policy statements -which are intended to provide health information to the general public, does not follow from scientific research. The commitment to science has been severely compromised by political forces and special interests groups within these organizations.
Therefore, it is my open contention that immediately and prominently NARTH should state in writing that it is NARTH's official position that A) homosexuality is a disorder and B) the American Psychiatric Association should not have removed homosexuality from the DSM.
Doing so would add great clarity where there is now cloudiness. Doing so would reframe the debate back where it belongs: Is homosexuality a disorder?
Winning that debate, which is eminently winnable, would completely preclude the impact of the homosexual activists' false-propaganda activities to shut down NARTH and to prevent humans from changing from the disordered, demonstrably harmful mentality and behavior that is homosexuality.
To see the background concerning why I've delved into this issue, please see my article: "Where NARTH Stands and What Must Be Done: "Gay," Homosexual Culture."
The Good Samaritan Tells You Homosex is Sin
Homosexual Activists Openly Admit Change
Washington Cathedral: Same-Sex Satanism
Obama To Be Sworn In On Queen James Bible?
Homosexualization Of the Gullible
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)