Robin Williams, Rehab, and... "...how can we allow the fraud of “rehab” to continue?"

...since some people go to rehab and still suffer relapses afterwards, rehab is clearly “ineffective.” Robin Williams actually went to rehab, and shortly thereafter took his own life. Does that not clearly indicate that rehab is not only ineffective, but downright harmful? In addition, there are surely people who consume alcohol or use illicit drugs but are still able to function and make productive contributions to society — so there is obviously nothing inherently wrong with alcohol or drugs. Allowing people who struggle with their alcohol or drug use to seek professional help to discontinue them implies there is something wrong with them — thus reinforcing the unfair social stigma which attaches to people who use alcohol and drugs. And surely “family intervention” to force someone into rehab is a violation of their personal autonomy. In light of all these concerns, how can we allow the fraud of “rehab” to continue?

Source: FRC Blog » Robin Williams, Rehab, and Reorientation.

Tom1

Tom Usher

We've been arguing for years that the standards applied against Sexual-Orientation-Change Efforts (SOCE) are not demanded of any other treatments. Why the double standard/hypocrisy? If SOCE must be subjected to standards that can be applied to any and all other treatments under the same "logic" that forces those standards on SOCE, then all other treatments must be subjected to exactly those same standards or something evil is afoot.

By the way, the following is part of the more than compelling reason that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to "marry" under the law:

Why would someone want to change their sexual orientation? ... Some have legitimate concern about the well-documented health problems associated with homosexual conduct (especially among men), such as high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is only one example.

Other reasons, among many, are the extremely high rates of infidelity and dissolution within such unions.

The point is that legally sanctioning such unions as being on par with the goal and/or right of heterosexual marriages, sends a decidedly detrimental signal to the youth of the nation that all is fine with homosex because a little tweaking here and there can readily fix whatever has been going wrong with homosexuals who want to "marry" or are "married" or don't want to marry at all. The rare exceptions, if there truly are any, make the rule. The truth though, as I've stated time and time again, is that homosexuality is itself a mental disease, just as were Robin Williams' various addictions into which he unfortunately relapsed.

I do hope that the lawyers arguing against same-sex marriage before the various federal appellate courts have the sense to raise these fundamental points. If not, the nation will have to suffer through a long and harmful learning curve. Tradition and procreation (as central as that has been to the idea/point of marriage) are not the main reasons to block same-sex marriage.

Just read how thickheaded some judges can be though: "Judges blast Ind., Wis. gay marriage bans." Pray for the nation that it doesn't continue its terrible slide further into Hell on Earth.

The lawyers and judges {for instance: Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson, Judge Richard Posner (7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fischer} didn't even argue what matters most. Heaven help us.

And of course, being raised by both father and mother together is superior, regardless of what some poorly designed "studies" attempt to suggest. See: New Australian Study Can't Tell Same-Sex Parenting Better: Mark Regnerus.

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.