So how on earth did I decide to write a post on pedophilia? It's not exactly a comfortable topic for me, as a child molestation survivor, but I don't imagine it's an easy topic for anybody.
There is a self-described Christian on Twitter called @MissRaissa who sees it as her mission to spout hateful, ignorant, homophobic, anti-choice nonsense on the #atheist and #prochoice hashtags. She and I had a bit of a phone "debate" awhile back on my friend Synthaetica's podcast show. You can listen here or you can see where fellow-atheist GodsDontExist put the entire podcast into 3 YouTube videos on his channel.
In this conversation, in regards to her desire to force all pregnant rape victims to carry to term, she claimed she "understands" how a rape victim feels. So, I asked her if she was a rape victim herself. Answer? No. MissRaissa imagines she possesses a great deal of empathy I just don't see the evidence for.
Then on the afternoon of April 3rd, she tweeted something that made me sick to my stomach.
Head-spinning, isn't it? But it goes on. See, MissRaissa doesn't think this was an awful thing to say, because she thinks pedophilia is wrong - just like homosexuality, adultery and fornication. Ah yes, because adults having consensual sex with each other is just *exactly* like an adult abusing and violating a child, incapable of giving consent.
But I think I can see where (some) of her confusion stems from. Pedophilia - the adult sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children - is a sexual orientation. That statement from scientists may have her genuinely worried (after watching far too many Gathering Storm videos and not nearly enough parodies) that there will soon be a movement for "pedophile rights" in western society. This is because to @MissRaissa all sex is sin, and all sin is equal, but relax: The rest of us aren't as delusional. We can tell the difference between consensual sex with mature parties and child abuse.
A pedophile is not necessarily a child rapist. If a pedophile never acts on their defective desires, no child is harmed. If they do, the harm is permanent and will stay with that child (or children) for their entire lives. I think it's better for society, and safer for our children, to talk about this.
People with the sexual orientation of pedophilia need help. There is no consensual sex in store for them, because children are not capable of giving true informed consent to sex. The prefrontal cortex of the brain, responsible for long-term goal planning and decision making, doesn't finish forming until we hit our early 20s. The sexual features and organs of children are not fully developed, and are often seriously harmed by sexual activity as a result. (I myself have extensive scarring leftover from my childhood.)
I'm not sure what retrogenic therapies or prenatal preventions scientists will develop over the next several years to prevent pedophiles from becoming child rapists. But I know they will have more success and more funding for research if there is public support for these studies.
I was molested by a man in his 70s, a twice divorced father of 5 and grandfather of 2. I do not forgive him for what he did, but I do not hate him either. I think he was a very sick man, who had absolutely no one to turn to. Perhaps if he'd had a support group, a sexual therapist, or some as yet un-thought of solution, he might not have harmed me the way that he did. For both our sakes, but mostly for mine, I wish he could have gotten some kind of help.
Until then, I'm waiting for MissRaissa to apologize, and to admit that children under the age of 10 CANNOT give consent to sex, and therefore all sexual activity done to a child of that age is necessarily rape. She refuses. The conversation on Twitter has been scathing and at times downright juvenile. If that sounds entertaining, I invite you to join the conversation!
Well, today I'm going to talk about something my mom only jokingly threatened me with, but that many Christian teenagers are forced into: Courtship. I'll be using writings by Bill Gothard. Before anyone gets upset that this isn't *their* version of Christianity & therefore I'm unfairly judging all Christians, here is my brand spanking new Angie the Anti-Theist General Christian Disclaimer.
There is no universal consensus among Christians on the life and teachings of Jesus, the primary message of the Gospel, the role of Old Testament laws in today's society, or the proper way to live a "Christian life." Therefore, I will address the multitudes of differing beliefs within Christianity. If you feel that your particular ideology, sect, denomination, or version of Christianity has been unfairly excluded, please let me know and I'll be sure to cover why I don't share your beliefs either.
Are we good now?
What is Courtship? Courtship is experiencing the blessing of God by loving the Lord Jesus Christ and honoring both sets of parents. The purpose of courtship is to determine a couple’s readiness for marriage and to discern the will of God for a covenant marriage that will benefit the world.
While the actual manifestation of a courtship relationship will vary because no two couples are alike, one of the primary motivations behind courtship (as opposed to dating) is the protection of the emotions of those involved until the time when it is clearly God’s will to proceed into marriage.
Okay, I've got a problem from the opening clause, "Courtship is experiencing." That is an active verb. It's an action - "experiencing." But that's really a broad verb, when you think about it. I mean, we have sensory experiences and means of experiencing the world around us. We don't seem to have any measurable way of "experiencing" blessing, however. What exactly does "experiencing the blessing of God" mean in practical, measurable terms? My brother the physicist (oh yay! the only other atheist) has this quote as his email tagline -
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - Lord Kelvin
You can see why he's the other atheist, can't you? Okay, so courtship is something that frankly hasn't really been defined. We know it's about "honoring both sets of parents" though...
I have to ask, how are emotions protected by going through your parents? If one person doesn't want to move forward, there's still gonna be rejection. Besides, minimizing the risk of dating also minimizes some of the rewards. I learned a LOT about myself over the years, and some of that I learned from men and women I dated. I'm still in friendly contact with ex-boyfriends from as far back as seventh grade. (Hi, Micah!) Even though there's pain and loss in dating, I don't think that's a reason to completely forgo the exercise. Alright, let's get into the meat of this.
Foundational Principles of Courtship
I'm intrigued already. Foundational principles of "experiencing God's blessing"? I can hardly wait.
1. Ensure the blessing of God
The greatest asset of any person or marriage is God’s blessing. “The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it” (Proverbs 10:22).
Since the Bible isn't nearly as pro-marriage as most contemporary Christians (I was gonna type modern, but then realized that might not be the best description for some of these people), I'm going to look up that verse in context. This is a passage about wisdom, like many of the proverbs are. It is not about marriage, marital love, male-female love, or procreation or children. There are early verses in the passage comparing a wise and foolish son, bringing joy and shame to parents, but they're a good ten verses before the one Bill Gothard quoted. Here's a little context for you,
20The tongue of the just is as choice silver: the heart of the wicked is little worth. 21The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom. 22The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it. 23It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom. 24The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.
That's just not about marriage. Nice try, Bill. But let's see how Bill thinks a couple can "ensure" the Lord's blessing for their marriage.
No couple will have a happy or prosperous marriage without the blessing of the Lord. If God does not bless them, the devourer will damage and destroy their present and future joy and potential.
Wow, I guess we can blame "the devourer" for all those failed Christian marriages. Or maybe we're supposed to blame the Lord for not blessing their marriages, and allowing the devourer to wreak so much havoc? Oh wait, silly me. This is Christianity! People are to blame for everything bad, and God gets credit for everything good. It's simple, really. Okay, so no getting married until you have God's blessing. Of course, that hasn't been defined yet and we're still not sure how to "ensure" you get it.
A blessed marriage is described in the following passage: “Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table” (Psalm 128).
I don't want to be a vine - fruitful or otherwise! I don't want to live in another man's house. I want to live in my house. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't see my son as an olive plant or any other possession.
It sounds like a man gets blessed by fearing the Lord and walking in his ways. Again, dating isn't mentioned. There is no verse saying, "Thou shalt not watch a movie with a member of the opposite sex without appropriate Christian chaperones" but that's the message I got as a Christian teen. From youth group to Brio to that stupid hated "Worth Waiting For" necklace of my sister's, the idea that dating was somehow wrong was clearly communicated. Somehow it's "unChristian" or "worldly" to date, but really, this isn't territory that's covered in the Bible.
In the Old Testament, if you liked a girl you just bought her from her dad, or raped her first and then bought her. In the New Testament, well, Jesus never married and neither did Paul, Paul was pretty adamantly against marriage. I'll get into that more later, but for now let me just say, the Bible isn't particularly pro-marriage. The gross assumption on the part of many conservative Christians that marriage is somehow "sacred" or "holy" in God's eyes simply isn't supported by the text (which is why good old Bill here will use verses completley out of context.)
Now let's address this assertion that "No couple will have a happy or prosperous marriage" unless they did it Bill Gothard's way. Divorce statistics for Christians and non-Christians in the US are fairly stable. Born-again Christians and Baptists get divorced at the highest rate (according to an Associated Press survey) and atheists at the lowest rate. Conservative states like Oklahoma and Alabama have a 50% higher incidence of divorce than liberal states like Maine and Washington. Apparently, the Bill Gothard style of marriage fails more often. Now, if you think that at least some of these Christian marriages that succeed are doing so because of the Lord's blessing, how do you account for the successful non-Christian marriages? Surely Bill doesn't think the Lord has bestowed his blessing on heathens. Clearly, there are happy (or at least in tact) marriages among non-Christians. The "destroyer" has not had his merry way with them. How does Bill account for this, I wonder?
We'll just have to wait until tomorrow to find out. Part 2 coming soon, Anteaters. I may as well let you in on my decreased posting. I've been having really awful and frequent periods, and they're taking a toll on me. I've had four since I moved to Denver two months ago. I've basically been half-zombie, but I talked with a midwife friend who told me what I can do and take to feel better, so I hope to be more alert and active soon. Till then, be well and have great and godless days.
And when much people were gathered together, and were come to him out of every city, he spake by a parable: a sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it. And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. - Luke 8:4-7
Al-Anon's self defeatist message found fertile ground with me. There were so many of this cult's ideas I'd already absorbed from mainstream and fundamentalist Christianity.
Inherently Defective Al-Anon taught me, like Christianity, that I am inherently flawed and defective, and only my Higher Power can fix this. No amount of effort, learning, therapy, wisdom, or charity I do can make up for the flaws I was born with - a sinful nature or codependency. However, confessing my powerlessness, my sinfulness is only the first step. In the case of both religions, this creates the need for the group or church to fill. I must attend meetings (or services) at least once a week if I expect God to fix me. After all, I must do my own part of my salvation too, even though my part will never be sufficient. I am fallen and I am powerless. It's up to God (as I understand him) to come save me now. Learned Helplessness "All have fallen short of the glory of God" and "We admitted we were powerless." Both of these messages, from Christianity and Al-Anon, take away our impetus to create positive change in our own lives. In Al-Anon I was told repeatedly to "Let go and let God" and to just leave other people to their own devices and character defects. I needed to keep "my side of the street clean" and not worry about that mote in my brother's eye (or bottle in my husband's hand.) At a time when I needed help and empowerment the most, I had my legs kicked out from under me by a bunch of bitter people who probably would have been far happier if they'd just left their alcoholic spouses and bypassed the Steps completely.
Acceptable Abuse
They had stayed, so I should stay. I "shouldn't make any major decisions for the first six months" - really the first year, but I had it wrong at the time. I found out, after telling my sponsor I'd finally broken things off with my husband who belittled, raped, and abused me, that I was really supposed to stick in there another six months before making that choice, since I hadn't yet completed the steps or attained Serenity. I remember feeling profound relief that no one had told me that before hand, because i didn't think I could take another six months of torture, but I was glad I didn't have to knowingly choose to go against one of Al-Anon's principles in order to escape it.
As a Christian child, I knew it was right and godly of my parents to abuse me physically and emotionally. After all, they were following the Bible and Focus on the Family, so they must be right. It simply wasn't safe enough to question authority for me to even consider it. My brother tried that, and he'd been kicked out of the house at 12. But the idea that I should take a certain amount of abuse as my lot in life, and what's more that I'd somehow earned the abuse through my own actions, was an idea I learned early and it took decades to break. My family treated me horribly, and I was fighting an uphill battle to become a person and not just a cult clone. I married badly.
But Al-Anon would have me believe that my fledgling, ill-conceived and frankly never willingly consummated marriage (spousal rape doesn't count) held the weight of my entire integrity, my word, my vow. They made it more serious than it was. I mean yes, I wanted to have a family with him. I married him. But I quickly learned that he was an absolutely horrible human being. He got so drunk one night, he peed out the living room window screen because he thought it was the bathroom toilet. And that wasn't the first time he'd made an error of that kind. (There was also, for instance, his ex-roommate's vacuum cleaner.)
Al-Anon told me I needed to take the focus off of him and his actions, and instead I needed to look for my part in his drinking. Bear in mind, we'd been married all of 10 weeks when I separated from him, taking my son and moving into my mother's. That's when I started going to Al-Anon. I wasn't even with him for three months before leaving, but because I thought Al-Anon told me to wait six months (really a year), I spent twice as long separated from him and trying to work things out as I did living with him as man and wife.
God Micro-Manages
I had been taught to believe in the power of prayer before I'd been taught to read. I believed that I had both free will and a sinful nature, and that the god who gave me free will would intervene in my life and others. Even though God had some overarching multi-millenial Divine Plan, he would fiddle around with the daily minutiae like lost keys, insufficient funds, or bad traffic, if I asked him to.
Bill Wilson's Higher Power is a meddling god. Free will is talked about much less often in 12 Step programs than traditional Sunday morning churches (sorry Adventists.) "Self will" is considered a sin in Al-Anon, the way that the "Adam nature" or "flesh" was sinful in my childhood brand of learned helplessness.
Perpetual Confession In Christianity I was taught that when I "sinned", the real problem wasn't the people I may have hurt. No, no. The great offense of course was that I'd sinned against God. He was the one who I had hurt the most. Remember, he died for my sins, so the least I could do is make his death meaningless by never sinning again. Since that was bound to be impossible (as Christianity generally is), my only alternative was confession for each and every offense.
At deliverance camp the pastor had us write down a detailed list of all our sins, past and present, great and small. In Al-Anon this would be known as a "fearless and searching moral inventory" or the 4th Step. Christianity had already taught me that I have been judged, and found wanting in the balance. Al-Anon just continued the lesson.
Christianity was fundamentally destructive to my self-esteem as a child, teenager, and young woman. Original sin is a terrible weight to assign every newborn on the planet, and I don't see how I worshiped a god for so long who I believed did exactly that.
Marriage is Sacred (Except When it's Not)
My mother was divorced. My father was not a good husband so, well and good. He was feckless and unfaithful and on one occasion - and one only - he struck her. I could understand and at least some other Christians could as well. My mother had to write a letter to the Christian school we attended, justifying her divorce, in order to get a job teaching computer classes to the high school students. But they had given her the position, and treated her well once she was hired.
My grandmother had been divorced twice. She absolutely should have left her second husband, a darker version of my father's same sins, much sooner than she did. But my grandfather, her first husband, was a good man. She left him because their daughter died at 10 weeks old of a congenital heart defect, and she couldn't be in that house a day longer. Marriage is sacred, unless you've got a good excuse.
In Al-Anon it was the same. The pressure to stay was subtle but constant. The greatest success story couple at my home meeting had been married for 50 years - 27 of them abusive, 23 in 12 step groups. These were the role models of everyone in the room, and so all advice I got was tinged with this poison of the mind - that if you just followed the steps, even the worst marriage could become enviable. Yet if an old-timer, automatically respected for their longevity in the cult, had been divorced three times or more, it was none of my concern and I needed to focus on my self, and work a selfish program, and not try to control people and situations in my life. (Because after all, doing that makes your life unmanageable.)
Some Feelings are Wrong
As a child, I was taught it was a sin to fear, since fear meant not trusting God. Al-Anon told me the same thing. FEAR was nothing more than "false evidence appearing real" and I really needed to just focus on working my Steps and turning my will over to my Higher Power. There was no sense in recognizing fear as a useful warning emotion, and investigating why I had the fears I did (including fears of my husband's possible behavior.)
I was also told "in the rooms" that resentment was always, always, without exception or fail WRONG. The "defilements" of my demon-haunted childhood were replaced with the "resentments" of my 20s. These were the things (almost without fail, just as in Christianity, done by others or merely by environment) holding me back from my "spiritual awakening" and serenity. Resentments were so bad and so inherently self-destructive that I should not only get rid of all current ones, but should do everything in my (powerless) power to prevent them. I remember the day I first heard this sentence and thought it was brilliant.
"Expectations are premeditated resentments."
If I didn't place expectations on people, like the alcoholic, then I wouldn't be so disappointed. Al-Anon taught me, like Christianity, to lower my standards for how well I should be treated. After all, I was a sinner. I was sick - just as sick as the alcoholic, even though my "disease" of codependency had no physical effects at all.
It Will Never Get Better
Even though I was saved by the grace of Jesus (and certainly not by works, so that no man may boast!) I would still always struggle with sin. Being a Christian doesn't make you perfect, just forgiven, and so I would constantly fail at perfection. Al-Anon told me that I had a spiritual disease of codependency, that I was sick and that I would always be sick, and that the best I could hope for was to let go and let god, and hope he did a better job of running my life than I did. After all, my "best thinking got me here" so it was obvious I was not an empowered person capable of making good decisions for myself.
Al-Anon is not a self-help group. It is a self-annihilation group. And it needs to be stopped.
More soon. This post took a lot out of me. Writing about my ex-husband is always extremely difficult. I have a whole mixture of emotions like betrayal, and fear, and humiliation (what the fuck was I thinking marrying that creep?) But I know writing will make me feel better, and I'm at least more emotionally capable of approaching those dark and scary stories now than I was a few months ago. Hopefully the writing flow continues and improves. Much love to all my Anteaters!
* Throughout the 12 Step posts I'll use certain slogans and phrases that were spoken a lot "in the rooms" (like "in the rooms" which refers to 12 Step meetings collectively.) Sometimes I'll remember to put air quotes around them, but sometimes I won't. Cults use buzzwords and slogans as thought-stopping devices, and it's only by recognizing them as such that we can strip them of power over us. So I will use the cult-speak of those days, in the hopes that current and former 12 Steppers who find these posts will be able to recognize in their own meetings and literature the things I'm saying.
I swayed to the music, my hands raised skyward, singing and crying out to God, with tears streaming down my face. Hallelujah, hallelujah. Oh, I needed to turn back to him. My chest ached and I felt the weight of my betrayal.
I was doing things a good Christian girl shouldn't. I was skipping school, smoking pot and cigarettes, and worst of all, flirting with witchcraft. But not right here in this moment, in a wood frame room with hundreds of other convicted and crying teens at a Vineyard Christian Fellowship teen Bible camp in Georgia. Here, it was just me and Jesus - a time to get right with God.
At the far end of the open room, the band played and sang out prayers into the warm June night, as fireflies lit up past the four corners or the open-walled building frame. I could feel the Holy Spirit moving through the crowd, and I was overcome with emotion. Outside, rain began to pour.
"Oh, please Jesus, forgive me," I begged. "You are holy, holy, holy," I said aloud. It didn't seem strange at all to speak out loud to God; everyone around me was doing the same.
I focused on all the ways I wasn't pleasing God. My mind ran over a litany of my sins and transgressions, and I felt polluted by my sinful nature. I considered my recent interest in the occult. I believed witchcraft was real, even if most people who dabbled in it were total amateurs. That didn't mean Satan couldn't use the occasion, that open door, to infest them with demons. Yet, I sometimes read my horoscope, which I knew was wrong.
I looked down at my left hand. On my middle finger I wore a wrong that I thought God might not like. It was a silver band with a raised moon and stars, and a clear blue lacquer slapped over the top. It came from Claire's and probably sold for about $8. I can't remember if I bought it or stole it. I did quite a bit of that at 15.
I confessed my treachery to Jesus, sobbing anew. I found myself face down on the pine floor, prostrate before my God and my youth group. Compelled, I rose up and walked to one side of the open air room, toward the benches that lined the edges between the thick wood beams keeping up the roof. Leaning out into the wind and the rain, I chucked the ring with all my might, and as it arced into the air, a stroke of lightning lit the sky. He forgave me.
Over the course of that opening night worship service, kicking off a week's long Christian summer camp program, I tried desperately to get back to the comfortable feeling of closeness with Jesus I'd once known. Kids from my youth group, and from a group in Greensboro, North Carolina laid hands on me and prayed for me. Prayed that God would be the father I'd never known, prayed that I would follow His will, prayed that he would shower me with His love and His grace.
I spent three solid hours crying on the hard wood floor that night.
I think this is the kind of experience most Christians don't realize I've had, when I say I don't believe in their god. I did believe. Every element of a "relationship" you believe you have with Jesus, I thought I had. And it's not because I really was overcome with some holy ghost. I just believed it. I believed in Jesus and in repentance and in conviction and in the Rules. I believed in the holy ghost and that God tried to talk to me through both music and the weather. I believed the things I needed to believe to create an emotional experience like the one I had "with Jesus" that summer night in Georgia. Without those beliefs though, there's really no chance of a holy spirit "moving" through any crowd. You never see Christians "slain in the spirit" at the checkout, or else overcome by the Holy Spirit in their cubicle. No. Experiences like this are almost always confined to highly stressful or highly religious situations. Because the ghost isn't real, but the memory of it is.Read more!
Oh yes, it's time for another installment of Catholic anti-gay bigotry. So far we've learned that homosexuality is a plot to persecute Christians in the workplace, there's no single gay gene (therefore sexuality isn't genetic?), poor hand-eye coordination causes The Gay, being selfish makes people gay, and that having gay sex will give you anal cancer. Let's see what Susan has in store for us today.
Treatment and Prevention part 4 of 6
One of the two great pioneers of the irreversibility of same-sex attraction, Robert L. Spitzer, officially reversed his position. The release of his October, 2003 study (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417) revealed that therapy not only changed sexual orientation in a significant percentage of cases, but it also proved helpful in other areas of the person's life. He concluded that the mental health profession should not prevent people from this kind of therapy, should they desire it.
We went over this earlier. (Has anyone else noticed how repetitive this ebook is?) Of course, earlier our author Susan at least had the decency to say he "seemed to suggest" he'd changed his mind. Now she's claiming he "officially reversed his position." In actuality, here's what Spitzer said about people like Susan quote-mining him this way.
"It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right..." He calls as "totally absurd" the beliefs that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
That's not really the reversal she's inferring or claiming (or making up) now is it?
The other pioneer, the Salk Institute's Simon LeVay, had already reversed his position in another under-publicized event in the year 2000, in a Spanish homosexual publication, Reverso.
Again, Susan is exaggerating at best, lying at most likely. In the Reverso interview, LeVay said, "Science cannot tell us what constitutes core identity." Susan gave us no reason to believe he meant "Science cannot tell us why some people are gay." She just hasn't.
Even if both these men personally believed homosexuality was reversible, like NARTH does and claims they do, that would not mean they were right.
If a person does want to explore the possibility of a change in their sexual orientation, what kind of therapy is available and what are the success rates?
Therapy is for mental health, not for sexual orientation. To quote the APA again, "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has practiced child and adult psychiatry for 27 years, reports that when people with same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD) are treated, a number of studies have found that one-third get better, one-third get mixed results and one-third do not get better.
Which studies have found this? For those of you just joining us, Fitzgibbons has been practicing psychiatry (not therapy) since homosexuality was considered a mental health disorder, in a town of about 1400 people. He remains Susan's sole interviewee for the entire ebook. This is the best she could do (which may say something on its own.)
"Frequently, young men come into treatment because they are troubled by the lifestyle and a fear of AIDS," Fitzgibbons writes in Origins and Therapy for Same Sex Attraction Disorder, "an inability to establish healthy committed relationships, sadness, weak confidence and the fear of an early death. They are tired of the lack of commitment they have found in the homosexual lifestyle and they do not want to continue to be used as sexual objects."
Remember folks, SSAD is (so far as I can tell) something Fitz here made up. It's not in the DSM-IV. It's not a recognized condition. It's just what he calls homosexuality, so he can pretend to have a cure.
Furthermore, I wonder how many lesbians seek orientation-reassignment therapy because they're afraid of getting AIDS from their partners? Throughout this book, homosexuals are really just gay men, and homosexuality is really just anal penetration. Lesbians have been little more than an afterthought.
A lot of people have what I like to call "the slutty years" - straight people, gay people, bisexual people. And again, if all these horny homosexuals want nothing more than a little butt pirating, why are they trying so hard to get married?
Fitzgibbons' practice has been in the nature and treatment of excessive anger. Because a large percentage of gay men, and a somewhat smaller number of lesbian women, suffer from the sadness and pain associated with either a father or peer rejection, which often results in anger, he found himself treating more and more people with SSAD.
Wait a second - Fitz is an anger management doc? And he's decided that, because everyone he sees is angry, including his homosexual patients, anger is the cause of homosexuality? I don't even think confirmation bias begins to cover the fallacies in this guy's thinking. It'd be funny, if he wasn't teaching people to hate an integral part of themselves.
"Many of the emotional conflicts that lead to SSAD begin very early and this may explain why some homosexuals feel they were born that way. . . .When a person is hurt in a relationship, a series of reactions occur. First, sadness develops, then anger accompanied by low self-esteem, and finally a loss of trust. It is essential to resolve the anger associated with all these types of betrayal pain. . . . The work of therapy is, in part, to understand and resolve the betrayal pain."
This second part isn't even universally true. Being hurt by someone does not always or necessarily cause a person to have low self-esteem. Sometimes there's far more hurt than anger. Yoda had this better.
Hey, maybe fear is the real problem here, and not anger. Fear of an early death or of AIDS (flamed by anti-gay crusaders bent on keeping HIV labeled as a gay disease); fear of being alone; fear of being ostracized by family, community, or god. Yoda might be onto something, when it comes to why people would go to Dr. Fitzgibbons to have their sexual orientation changed.
His goal is not so much to change their sexual orientation but to help them overcome their emotional pain. He does this by helping his patients let go of their anger through three levels of forgiveness: intellectual, emotional, and spiritual. As a result, many are helped in resolving their homosexual attractions and behaviors.
If his goal wasn't to change his patients' sexual orientation, why is that what you're writing about Susan? Oh yeah, I forgot. You're not very honest. I do have one more question though. How does on spiritually let go of anger? Anger is an emotion, not a spiritual condition. Oh, and anger has nothing to do with homosexuality. Notice how Susan didn't even try to cite any real studies to back this up? We're just supposed to take her word and Fitz's.
When he adds a spiritual component, the recovery rates are much higher. "My approach is very similar to the one used in addictive disorders," he writes. "Significant healing rarely occurs unless some form of spirituality is brought into the healing process by turning the emotional pain and compulsive behaviors over to the Lord."
Aw, how cute. He modeled his practice after Bill W*! Fitz here seems to think that involving god-belief in addiction recovery helps. Well, let's look at the evidence. In reality, Alcoholics Anonymous has a "success rate" equal to or less than the spontaneous remission rate (people who just give up drinking, with no intervention or treatment program.) According to the Harvard Mental Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, Octor 1995, p. 3,
There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a disease or an addiction, and has no "spontaneous recovery".
Some of these compulsive behaviors are difficult to overcome, such as sexual addiction, which is a major problem with many in the homosexual lifestyle. This is especially true when the addiction is accompanied by extreme narcissism. "Sexual addiction with extreme narcissism causes serious illnesses and early deaths in many young men and we must take some steps to change a very dangerous trend," writes Fitzgibbons. "Prozac or other anti-depressants can help to a degree. They will cut down sexually compulsive behaviors, but they will not resolve the emotional pain leading to the attractions."
Homosexuality is not a compulsion. I've got OCD; I'm also bisexual. None of my compulsions - NONE - are sexual in nature. They all have to do with germs, and counting, and checking things. There's nothing "compulsive" about me being attracted to beautiful women. And Dan Savage doesn't love his husband and son because he's a narcissist, or a sex addict, or in emotional pain. He's gay and he loves his family. It really is that simple people.
Children subjected to sexual abuse may often be predisposed to homosexual behavior and are difficult — but not impossible — to treat. "One can work at trying to help the client understand and resolve the anger against the abuser, if for no other reason than to alleviate the abusers negative influence," Fitzgibbons said. "We need to help those who have been abused before they become sexually addicted or involved in sado-masochistic practices. Only when, through forgiveness and God's grace and healing, they are free from the dark side of abuse will they be able to develop a healthy identity."
Sorry, but where's the evidence for a causal relationship between child sexual abuse and adult sexual orientation? Oh that's right - there isn't any. Susan quoted earlier some statistics about the prevalence of child sexual abuse among homosexual adults, but that's not the same as showing a causal link. The old man who licked and touched beneath my dress did not make me bi. I liked girls before that, and can remember being romantically attracted to another little girl on my block. (I think she liked me, too.)
And you know what? I'm not actually mad at him any more. Yes, he hurt me. He confused me. He took advantage of my vulnerability, that my parents had instilled in me. He was a very sick man, and he is probably dead by now. I do not need a hell for him to suffer in forever. He can't harm anymore.
I'm not a sex addict, and I'm not into BDSM. It was only when I escaped "God's forgiveness and healing" (and what on earth does an abuse victim need forgiveness for?!) that I was able to form a healthy identity. It's only free of the clutches of religion, free of the perfectionism and rebellion cycle, free of your god and his abominations that I am able to stop hurting. I am not somehow sullied by not being a virgin, and I am not still under the influence of a man I haven't seen in nearly 20 years. I own myself, and myself is bisexual.
This is one of the reasons why Fitzgibbons and many other doctors who treat this condition warn against the dangerous practice some schools are taking in referring at-risk children and teens to groups that will lead them even further into the homosexual lifestyle. Many of these children are experiencing same-sex attractions because of serious emotional problems in their lives, problems that should be dealt with, not pushed aside at the urging of homosexual activists.
Lots to take apart here, so let's be thorough. We'll start with "doctors who treat this condition." What condition is that again? Would this be more of the made up SSAD? And I have to wonder who these many doctors are. Much in the same way that reputable scientists accept (and understand) evolution, reputable psychiatrists accept sexual orientation. So, I'm guessing what Susan really means is "the mailing list of NARTH."
Second, what does Susan mean when she refers to "at-risk children and teens?" Usually that phrase applies to children who are in poverty, or are otherwise at risk of becoming criminals, drug addicts, or similar. Yet, I suspect Susan is using this loaded phrase to instead refer to children who are homosexual, and she sees as being "at risk" of adopting a "homosexual lifestyle." I admit, this is just what I'm reading into it, but I'm basing it on the last five posts of her drivel I've had to wade through.
Okay, these "groups that will them further into the homosexual lifestyle" she's talking about? Yeah, I have a feeling that's groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance and the Human Rights Campaign. I was part of the GSA at two of my high schools. Nobody ever said anything about getting me involved in some "homosexual lifestyle" of bareback sex and casual sex. Mostly we talked about things like coming out, if our parents knew and how they were handling it, and just regular teenage life. Certainly no one was suggesting I brush aside my emotional problems. The GSA was a great place of support. It was not what Susan paints. And these "homosexual activists" she mentions are of course gay rights activists. In school environments they're involved in implementation of Safe School programs and other anti-bullying techniques. Better watch out for those homosexual activists! They'll tell your kid he's fine just the way is. And we can't have that now, can we?
If you recall, a few posts ago Susan was talking about the correlation between homosexuality and suicide. Groups like the GSA work to reduce those suicides, and they don't do it by "curing" homosexuality, but by embracing it. Your attempt at playing the Concerned Citizen card has failed due to lack of sincerity.
Prevention of same-sex attraction disorder remains largely with parents because the roots of this condition are laid early in life. Father John Harvey, the founder of Courage, a support group for people with same-sex attraction who are striving to live chaste lives, published a new book especially for parents entitled, Same-Sex Attraction: A Parents Guide.
So a priest and a bunch of gay men get together for meeting on how to be celibate? Sounds like something Catholics would do. In all seriousness, yes the roots of sexuality almost certainly are laid down early in life, in fact, before we're born. In 2003, researchers found difference in the involuntary blinking startle response of participants. Gay men responded in a manner more similar to heterosexual women, and lesbians responded in a manner more similar to heterosexual men. The startle response is controlled by the limbic system, which also controls sexuality. One of the researchers, Dr. Qazi Rahman, said, "The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned...This is very strong evidence that sexual orientation may be 'hard-wired' in this region" of the brain." Want more? Okay.
Okay, researchers at the University of Texas of all places found differences in the spontaneous otoacousitc emissions (tiny noises our ears make) between the ears of heterosexual and homosexual women. A Swedish experiment in 2005 involving pheremones and PET scans revealed that heterosexual women and gay men responded to the smell of male pheromones with activity in the part of the brain that deals with sexual response, while heterosexual men had no such response. Heterosexual men did, however, respond to female pheromones, while homosexual men did not. Then there's sweat. Lesbians, straight women, and straight men are all turned off by the smell of a gay man's sweat. Gay men are not. From the Associated Press, "In particular, [lead researcher] said finding differences in body odor between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference> It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said." Parents, you are not making your kids gay or straight (at least not in a postnatal sense.)
Let me leave you with a parting song on "the Lord's" views of sex - a song about anal sex and God. I'll get into the rest of this tomorrow. Ciao!
* Bill Wilson & Dr. Bob Smith were cofounders of Alcoholics Anonymous. Their group was modeled off of the cult both men were members of, the Oxford Group, which had 6 steps. Bill W. broke each step into two parts. Those were slightly edited over the years (ie, to changed God to Higher Power) and the resulting steps are the infamous 12 Steps of today. Within AA, the founders are called simply Bill W. and Dr. Bob.
Hey Anteaters! So I've been thinking about it and I really should have a page listing all the counter-apologetics I've done, with links and titles and other helpful things. So here's a quick link location for anyone wanting to share my analyses with others :)
Messin' with Mormons This is a series of live-chats with LDS missionaries, complete with snarky italicized commentary from me.
Chat 1 How do you know that's really revelation and not just thoughts in your head? Chat 2 How do you know your god is the right one? Chat 3 Why can't girls be prophets? Chat 4 What do you mean by "restored church?" Chat 5 Why did God make the devil? Chat 6 What happened to the big miracles? Chat 7 Marriage and family life in the LDS Church Chat 8 Can you really *choose* what you believe? Chat 9 I know it's true because god told me in my head. Chat 10 All the good stuff is God's doing.
Every Student (EveryStudent.com)
Why Pick the God of the Bible? Cause wouldn't it be better if it was true? WPGB part 2 He was human for you and died for you. Why are you so mean you won't believe in him? WPGB part 3 - Cause he's the best god ever, you know.
Is There a God? - Complexity of life proves a complex creator (or something like that) ITAG part 2 - First cause argument ITAG part 3 - Jesus claimed to be god, so he must be (lunatic, liar, lord)
Slick Apologetic 2 - It's your fault your going to hell for denying God's existence.
Christian Women Today If God is in Control... - He's just building character in all those starving and sexually abused kids around the globe. Thin Within - Someone refers me to a "spiritual" fat camp after I fill out a survey on eating disorders Thin Without - Email exchange with my computer-appointed Christian mentor
The Story The Story is a Lie - My response to an evangelical creationist Flash summary of the Bible The Story Continues Email exchange between me and one of the Story authors
Mercy Ministries - NOTE: You should check out Sean the Blogonaut. He's done more to take this group down than anyone I know of. Great guy, too. :) Merciless Ministries - Why I think it's a cult
I hate to be crass, but this is some vomit-worthy material. It is filled with debunked myths, misconstrued data, and lies. And, at its core, it is hateful and intolerant. So, it is with a heavy heart I turn to Susan Brinkmann's article for CatholicEducation.org (gag) "Homosexuality: The Untold Story - The phantom gene (part 1 of 6 for her.)
Professor Janis Price of DePauw University, Indiana, placed issues of a magazine on a table in the back of her classroom. One of her students was offended by an article that was critical of how homosexuality was being handled in public schools and complained to the administration. Price was accused of providing her students with intolerant material. She was suspended and her salary cut by 25 percent.
Let's see what we can dig up on this with a quick Google search (for example, when this happened.) Okay, so this was in the early 2000s. In 2002, Price filed a lawsuit claiming her freedoms of speech and freedom of religion were violated when the Methodist (private) university she worked part-time for told her she couldn't keep the evangelical magazine Teachers in Focus (brought to you by those fine homophobic, child beating Focus on the Family types) in the back of her classroom for students to read. Methodists are a liberal denomination of Christianity, and most Methodists would probably find Focus on the Family as detestable as I do. Oh, and while a judge smacked down the idea that Price's rights had been violated, a later jury awarded her $10,401 in 2003 for lost wages (you know, the same one's our author is about to get all indignant about.)
Albert Buonanno, a Christian employee of AT&T Broadband, was fired in February 2004 for refusing to go along with a mandatory company policy demanding acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.
Well you know what? Violating mandatory company policies rarely improves one's career. Let's fire up the old Google machine and see what we can find, shall we? Well, it looks like once again we've got a poor beleaguered Christian bigot who... gets paid! Alberto here made off with $146,000 for lost wages and "emotional damages." (Aw, did the poor little bigot not like how it felt?) From NoDNC.com (hardly a liberal website, to put it mildly - this place puts quotes around the phrase "hate crimes")
The judge found that although there was no direct religious discrimination against Mr. Buonanno, AT&T Broadband failed to show it could not have accommodated Mr. Buonanno's beliefs "without undue hardship" to the company he had been with for nearly two year.
Wow, so his refusal to sign a statement in the company handbook to "accept the diversity among us" got him paid even though he faced no religious discrimination! (I'm just pointing these details out because you know Susan won't.)
Rolf Szabo lost his job at Eastman Kodak after he refused to go along with the company's "diversity" program, which required he give support to homosexuals in the work place who wanted to come out.
Yeah, how dare Kodak try to make Szabo treat people like people? He should totally be allowed to devalue his coworkers and torment them when they try to live honestly. In 2002, Kodak sent about 1,000 employees an email regarding National Coming Out Day, giving suggestions on ways someone could be supportive of an out coworker or employee. (Way to go, Kodak!) Szabo fired back a reply-all email saying, "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive." A Kodak division manager quickly shot back with
As you all know, our strategic thrust to build a Winning & Inclusive Culture drives us to behave in ways that value everyone regardless of differences. While I understand that we are all free to have our own personal beliefs, when we come to the Kodak workplace, our behaviors must align with the Kodak Values. I apologize for the e-mail sent to all of you from Rolf Szabo this morning. Rolf's comments are hurtful to our employees, friends, and family members who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. This behavior is not aligned with the Kodak Values and, therefore, is not acceptable.
Szabo was fired and did not pursue a lawsuit (because seriously, what grounds would you use for a spouting off reply all?) Again, way to go Kodak. So far in the More Tolerant Than Susan category we've got Kodak, AT&T and Methodists. Add Motorola to that list now.
Motorola actively promotes a similar agenda through mandatory "homophobia" workshops and homosexual sex-ed courses. One employee told author David Limbaugh that "this push is causing a great deal of tension among employees and the 'quiet anger' of some who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs."
I gotta say, even though the phone sucked royally, I don't regret having been a Motorola customer, now that I know this. (Maybe I should read Christian websites "black lists" more often, to find out which companies to support?) And let me just say this: Work is not about religion. If you need your workplace to be totally in line with your religious views, join the clergy. You have every right to hold your views, and to express them in church, online, and even on street corners. But your employer also has the right (and even the obligation, if ENDA goes through,) to say, "We won't tolerate bigotry here."
Aren't conservatives all about letting private industry do what it wants? (Hell, Rand Paul even thinks private businesses shouldn't be compelled to serve black customers, but he totally hates bigotry and racism. Honest.) A company cannot fire you because you are a Christian, but they can fire you if you choose to be a jerk at the office. You can attribute your assholery to your religion all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that private employers get to decide if they want assholes in the company, and what kind of cultural values they are going to promote.
Episodes such as these are happening by the hundreds across America, every day of the week.
Citation please?
According to medical, social science and especially legal experts, what is being called "diversity" is actually a dangerous new movement by a small group of activists to make the homosexual lifestyle appear as normal and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle, even if that means deliberately hiding any information to the contrary.
Okay so we have a few claims here. One is that everybody knows diversity is bad (see all those experts? They know!) A second lie premise is that Only a "small group of activists" want acceptance for gays and lesbians. (I'll admit it is a smaller number of people who support full rights and acceptance for trans persons, however, most polls indicate the US population as a whole, and the military, are overwhelmingly in support of, for example, repealing DADT.) Her third claim is that people are intentionally hiding information (which she somehow knows) about the "dangers" of being born gay. Oh wait, silly me, she thinks people choose to be gay and hated!
"The media or major health organizations communicate none of the serious medical and psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality," said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist from West Conshohocken, who has practiced child and adult psychiatry for more than 20 years.
Where the hell is West Conshohocken? Ah, it's a borough in Pennsylvania with a population of 1,446 according to the 2000 census. (See what we can do when we Google? It's better than prayer!) Okay, so Fitzgibbons isn't working at some of the most esteemed mental health institutions or universities in the US - he's a private practice guy in a small town (less than 2,000 people is a small town to me) and his medical education is 20 years out of date. Got it. Fitzgibbons is gonna be Susan's go-to guy for most of her "data" so I thought it was important to check out his credentials (as her "expert witness.")
Maybe if none of the media and mental health organizations are reporting on these things, it's because they don't exist or aren't relevant?
For instance, a 1997 Canadian study done in Vancouver shows the life span of gay men to be similar to what it was in 1871. The study estimates that one-half of all gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday.
A study in Vancouver - well that certainly narrows it down! Who conducted it? How large was the sample size? What data was examined to reach these conclusions? Is the study credible? We aren't given any of that information, or enough details to adequately Google. We're being given a study to trust, without being given good reason. Even if the results were true, and gay men do not live as long as straight men, how is this relevant? African-American women in the US have a four times higher maternal mortality rate. Does this mean we should urge black people to convert to whiteness? Of course not. For one thing, it would be impossible, just as it is impossible for a gay person to "convert" to heterosexuality. (For another, it's offensive as hell.)
Two recent studies published in the American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirm the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems. Forty percent of people with same-sex attraction were sexually abused as children. Relationship violence is as high as 44 percent among gay men and 55 percent among lesbian couples.
Again, we're just told that there are "two recent studies published" and not given sufficient information to know which studies (ya know, something like a citation!) Now let's examine Susan's points individually.
The rate of teen suicide is four times higher for gay, lesbian, bi, and trans gendered youth. That's a serious concern, but I have a feeling the solution isn't to make people feel worse about their orientation - it's to reduce bigotry. Gay teens aren't suicidal because they're gay; they're suicidal because of how they are treated for being gay (or by their own thoughts on religion and homosexuality.)
Lambda.org has information on domestic violence in same sex relationships, including the additional difficulties victims of abuse may face when attempting to leave a situation, such as isolation from other LGBT individuals, and homophobia from social workers and shelter operators. I don't know if Susan's numbers are true, or how they compare with heterosexuals and I don't care.
Even if there are certain risks associated with homosexuality (as causation or correlation), why does that mean we should be bigoted toward homosexuals? That's like saying, "Having cystic fibrosis significantly decreases lifespan! Warn your children about the dangers of having cystic fibrosis, and if they know anyone who has it, teach your children to despise that person for being open and honest about their CF!" How dare all those queers get abused as kids!
"This is the truth that no one will speak," said Fitzgibbons, "This is the truth that is not spoken in any of the diversity weeks they have in colleges or high schools. Students are made to think the homosexual lifestyle is exactly the same as the heterosexual lifestyle and all the major research coming out today shows that it's not the same. ? But they are specifically choosing to ignore this research because the issue is political correctness, not science."
Fitzgibbons is now claiming that "all" the major research says being gay is... what? Bad for your health? So is sickle cell anemia, but you don't try to cure people of that through guilt and shame and quack theories about hand-eye coordination now, do you? No, because you find sickle cell anemia morally acceptable, and this isn't about science or medicine. It's about religion. (I love how the writer included a question mark typo in there, like ORLY?)
Fitzgibbons recently served as an expert witnesses in a case involving an Ann Arbor Michigan high school student whose Christian viewpoint was deliberately excluded from the schools "Diversity Week" celebration. Part of the week's festivities involved a panel of six clerics from different denominations who were assembled for a discussion about "Homosexuality and Religion." No one on the panel represented the Judeo-Christian view of homosexual relations.
Now does that mean there were no Jews or Christians on the panel? No. It means there were no anti-gay Jews or Christians on the 6 person panel organized by the student group Gay/Straight Alliance. Miss Betty here first attempted to get a Roman Catholic priest on the panel, then the school offered her 2 minutes to read a prepared speech. The school edited (she claims censored) her speech to remove a statement which read, "I completely and whole-heartedly support racial diversity, but I can't accept religious and sexual ideas or actions that are wrong."
Here's a thing you see a lot - the equating of homosexuality with homosexual sex acts. The focus seems to be wrapped up in genitalia* and at times it's as if we (the media, this writer, straight people) forget that gay, lesbian, and trans gendered people want what we all want - love. Sex is just one part of that, for most of us, and to varying degrees. Loving a woman does not mean loving a vagina - it means loving a woman.
Betsy Hanson, an 18-year-old Roman Catholic student, requested that a representative of the Catholic Church be part of the panel. Her request was denied by school officials who claimed her religious views would convey a negative message and would "water-down" the positive religious message that they wanted to convey.
Now remember, it's the GSA who put together this panel, not the school themselves, so I'm not sure who exactly said "No" to the bigot priest idea. Regardless, while I can understand why liberal clergy members and students in the GSA might both wish to have such a panel, I think religion on school grounds is always extremely tricky business. It's not the school's place to promote any religious ideas over others. Being fully in support of LGBTQ students is wonderful; saying god is also supportive isn't.
Hanson and her mother decided to sue and Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen ruled in their favor. "Isn't this cultural hegemony, where you're only going to present one view to the exclusion of others?" the judge demanded of the school's attorneys. "Don't you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism? Isn't that how we got to book-burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?"
Nice to see we got in a Godwin! And hot damn, what a mouth foamer Federal Judge Rosen sounds like.
Fitzgibbons believes schools and school psychologists should be held liable when they actively promote the homosexual lifestyle while withholding vital information about mental and physical risks.
Banning bullying of students is not "promoting" anything but tolerance and decent civil behavior. Should students also be informed of the mental and physical risks associated with being born a person of color? Are schools to be held financially responsible if they promote or tolerate black children, despite the fact that black children face higher risks of violence, joblessness, and poverty? No, but we should see what we can do to eliminate or reduce those risks - not strive to defend some arcane right to be a bigot.
"I've dealt with parents whose children were ushered into the gay lifestyle in college who are determined that if their child acquires AIDS, they plan to bring litigation against those universities. If a child was ushered into the lifestyle by the faculty at a school, and were never presented with the truth about the medical and psychological dangers associated with homosexuality, then they should be held liable."
There is no homosexual lifestyle, just homosexual people. Gay people aren't Martians, you know, and they aren't straight people who got "ushered into a lifestyle" either. They're GAY.
Although doctors are obligated to provide informed consent to their patients, educators are not, he said.
Teachers are not making your kids gay! There is no "consent" because homosexuality is not a treatment option you choose. It's genetic, and natural, and normal (although not as common as heterosexuality, like blue eyes aren't as common as brown ones.)
However, in schools where a school psychologist is involved in these groups, then Fitzgibbons said they have the requirement to provide informed consent about the dangers of the lifestyle.
Oh well, if Fitzgibbons says it, then we must take it at face value! I mean, after all, this is the .... guy? Susan is going with the Expert propaganda technique we learned in advertising studies in 6th grade, and she's not even doing it well. This is not a renowned, respected, highly-educated man, or at least, nothing from my Google search of him led me to believe those things, and neither did Susan. He's just one psychologist, spouting his conspiracy theories about how everybody else is keeping the dangerous truth about homosexuals out of the light because they all want to be so politically correct. He's nuts! And by the way, straight people get HIV, too. Everybody is at risk.
"If they don't, and a child experiences some of the medical illnesses that are so highly prevalent, particularly among men involved in same-sex relationships, that school psychologist is liable, the principal is liable and the school superintendent is liable. Just as when a doctor makes a mistake at a hospital, the hospital is also liable."
Um, Fitz is on the fritz. Schools aren't hospitals, and teachers aren't doctors. Also? The school isn't making anybody gay, just by saying that bullying of gay students will not be allowed. And that's what we're really talking about here - whether or not you have a right to be a bigot. That's why this article didn't start out by being concerned about the poor suicidal gay teenagers maybe getting AIDS. It started off with stories of "persecuted Christians" who were prohibited from spouting anti-gay bigotry, by (in all cases but one) privately owned businesses!
Having a faith panel organized by the GSA at a school diversity week was questionable, but the GSA is under no compulsion to offer an anti-gay viewpoint! Just as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes would never be required to make an anti-Christian statement, or provide accommodation for anti-Christian viewpoints. It's absurd to say that in order to protect your right to be a religious bigot, everyone else must lie about who they are, or give you a platform to call them abnormal and immoral. It's absurd and conceited.
Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, has been sending out letters to 2,500 schools across the country who are relying on the "safe-school" programs devised by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network warning them of potential legal liabilities for the tort of negligence "if it is proven that homosexual activist organizations were granted access to students under the school's responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm. Under the right circumstances, state authorities could also bring criminal proceedings," he writes, citing Ohio Revised Code 2907.04, 2919.22 and 2919.24.
Okay, Google, here we go! Citizens for Community Values "exists to promote Judeo-Christian moral values, and to reduce destructive behaviors contrary to those values." Well that's not at all creepy and horrifying. Not! CCV started in the 1980s as an anti-porn moral panic group. They were all "concerned" about how pictures of naked women were destroying the moral fiber of America. All their prayer and moral outrage doesn't seem to have done much good. Not only is porn still around, it's now free. No more black bag packaging for you! Just clear the browser history and you're free to find whatever kink or hink tickles you pink. Here's hoping they're just as spectacularly unsuccessful when it comes to harassing gay Americans as part of their "religious" beliefs.
Onto this - "Homosexual activists" being granted "access to students" who then supposedly "suffered physical or mental harm"... Am I the only one feeling the bad after-school-special vibe?
GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network "is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students." Not quite the fevered dreams of "homosexual activists" Fitz was presenting now, is it? What kind of world would this be if we tried to make sure students were safe from physical harm?! Won't someone please think of the (gay) children?
Beginning here, The Catholic Standard & Times will publish a six-part series that will focus exclusively on the untold side of this issue. We will explore what is known to the medical, social, scientific and religious communities about homosexuality, giving our readers and their loved ones an opportunity to make an intelligent and fully informed choice about their lifestyle.
While you're at it, can you let me know about all those well known totally proven but secretly withheld natural cures THEY don't want me to know about?
She's got a six part series? I've got a six part series. I'll also be continuing with Vision Forum. I'm not well enough to really have my creative juices flowing, but being sick in bed and sarcastic suits me just fine for the moment.
Be well, everyone.
* How's that for a mental image?
**About all the Google love in today's post: First, I'll always be grateful that I was able to use such a simple search engine tool to find out the truth about my childhood. I will never forget that night. Second, I'm trying to show just how simple it is to do a very minimal level of research, and how our atuhor failed to inlcude information negative of her view, while simultaneously accusing non-bigots of somehow stifling her free speech if they did the same.
For friends and readers: I have altitude sickness. I've spent my life at sea level, and now I'm in the mile high city. Kid doesn't seem to be having too many troubles, fortunately. He's got a stuffy nose but that's about all. I, on the other hand, feel like my very bones are tired, and getting out of bed takes a lot of energy. On the plus side, I'm much better off emotionally here in Denver, so what's a little altitude sickness?
Viking is over a lot, and he plays video games for the Kid (who loves to watch but keeps saying, "My turn? My turn?" till he gets the controller, and then just makes the guy run around in circles.) Once I'm feeling better, I'll return to making YouTube videos (though probably not at quite the same rate, since Kid is out of school till he starts Kindergarten in the fall.) [Edit: I made one today.] With all that said, let's move on to an apologetic. (Once I'm feeling better, and once the Kid is in school, I'll go back to writing childhood trauma stories.)
Separation of Christianity and State by Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis
Almost all Americans have heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” It has been used as something of a club to “beat down” and eliminate Christianity from public places, including symbols (like crosses), disallow Bible reading and prayer in public schools, and stop the teaching of creation in science classes.
When dealing with Ken Ham, it's important to remember that he won't let one lie per sentence suffice. Separation of church and state is beneficial both to the state and to the church. It has in no way been used as a club to "beat down" Christianity. Its purpose is to stop Christianity (or whatever other religion like Islam becomes dominant) from beating down the rest of us and our free and civil society. The church doesn't step in and tell government what to do, and the government doesn't step in and tell church what to do. It's a win-win situation, but not to Ken Ham.
Christianity has hardly been "eliminated" from public spaces. Tim Tebow's running around the football field with John 3:16 in his eye black. There are street preachers in every college town in the country, railing against the sins of getting an education and having a good time. There are Christian prayer meetings in the Pentagon (something which would make our founding fathers turn in their graves, if their bodies were still animate.)
Bible reading and prayer in public schools have not (and never will be) disallowed. State mandated prayers that everyone in school must say, directed to the Christian god and violating the freedom of religion for every child in the school, are no longer allowed. But individual students and groups of students can pray - at lunch, before an athletic event, or at the flagpole. I was in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I attended public school, and we met on school grounds during school hours on club days.
Crosses and other religious displays are permitted on any private property, just not on government property, because that's space we all share (and we don't all share your religion.) And creation isn't taught in science class because it isn't science. The fact that you consider this an element of a Christian "beat down" betrays the whole "Intelligent Design isn't *religious!*" outrage your own side tries so desperately to drum up. You cannot claim it is science, supported on its own merits, and simultaneously claim that it is religious persecution to not allow you to lie to children in government funded schools.
Now, where does the phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It is not a part of the original U.S. Constitution of 1787, as most people falsely believe, or in any of its amendments. In reality, the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state came from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson, and it has sadly been misused to slowly, but surely, eliminate Christianity from the public sector—and replace it with an anti-God religion.
The phrase "separation of church and state" did indeed appear in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. James Madison also wrote, "Strongly guarded... is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." (Since these guys basically wrote the thing, I think it's safe to believe them on what their intentions were.) Here's more from Americans United for a Separation of Church and State:
At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."
Now that we've cleared up the history and its relevance, we need to address Ken Ham's fear-mongering deceit. There is no anti-God religion powerfully taking over the nation. This is not Soviet Russia and secular humanists are not the "militant atheists" you imagine - not even as anti-theist humanists. Humanism: it's a good thing.
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment was intended to protect the church from the (federal) government, not the government from the church. Therefore, no “national” church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.
Here we're talking about intention. Intention is not the same as interpretation, and if we want to know what the authors of the Constitution thought, we have only to look at their public and private statements on the matter about their intentions. (Yes, people sometimes lie about intentions, but it's extremely doubtful the founding fathers would have lied about their intentions for the Constitution.) Ken here has no evidence of the founders intentions - just assertions. So allow me to provide the relevant data points.
Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. - President John Adams "A Defense of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)
The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; - James Madison; Letter to Edward Everett, March 18, 1823
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -- President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
There are many more, with a good sampling here. What was that again Ken?
I will highlight key words of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .
You can see that the “separation of church and state” phrase is nowhere in the Amendment (or the rest of the Constitution).
God is also nowhere in the Constitution. Neither are Jesus or Christianity. It's a secular document, composed by liberal Enlightenmnet era Christians and Deists (and possibly a few atheists.) And as for the words themselves not appearing in the Constitution, I turn once again to the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State.
As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."
And now let's see Ken's version...
The 1802 letter from Jefferson was sent to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut in response to the group’s letter to him. Jefferson was trying to assure the Baptists that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with the church. In fact, in his letter, Jefferson states:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
And what about this aren't you getting, Ken? Jefferson was saying that you can't stop gay marriage because your Bible calls it an abomination - that the government should only legislate on actions which are deleterious, and not on beliefs which are held. He's talking about the kind of government I want.
Today, secular scholars have lifted the Danbury letter out of its entire historical context and have turned the so-called “wall” metaphor completely on its head. “Separation of church and state” is now used to protect the government from the influence of the church—establishing a policy of freedom “from” religion, which in reality has become “separation of Christianity and state.” This would have been an entirely foreign and unintended concept to the Founding Fathers.
No, that would not have been foreign or unintended. To wit,
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797
Yeah, this isn't a Christian nation, and our laws aren't based on the Bible or on Christianity (which might be why they make no reference to either!) Let's see what Thomas Jefferson, coiner of the phrase, had to say about separation of church and state in a speech he gave to Virginia Baptists in 1808.
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
I think I've demonstrated good evidence for my case - that the founders intended for this to be a nation of no government religion, separation of church and state, and free exercise of religion for those who choose it. Let's see what Ham-bone has to support his case.
This misrepresentation of the Constitution was witnessed once again as I attended a debate in March, in which Rev. Barry Lynn, a liberal minister, lawyer, and the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, spoke. Not only did he argue for separation, but claimed that government “neutrality” towards Christianity was his group’s aim. Sadly, most Americans (Christians included) have also been duped into believing that the so-called “separation of church and state” requires eliminating the Christian God and creating a neutral situation. But there is no such position as neutrality. Indeed, one is either for Christ or against Him (Matthew 12:30)!
Even the other Christians are against me! I'm in the minority, so I must be right! Ahem. We've amped up the pressure here now, haven't we? Suddenly Reverend Barry Lynn is against Him? Now Ken Ham has determined that the only way to be for Jesus is to be for a government run by churches (and you know clergy, like him.) Never mind, for the moment, what the Constitution has to say about such things. I don't remember JESUS ever saying anything about running the government! Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, pretty unconcerned with earthly things. He was all "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "sell all that you have, give the money to the poor." That's not the same as "elect Sarah Palin" and "keep people ignorant of science, fight life saving medical advancements, and deny women the right to bodily autonomy." It certainly isn't, "Go shoot up the brown people for their oil."
The religion of naturalism (atheism) has been imposed on the public education system, and on the culture as a whole. For instance, science textbooks in the public schools now typically define science as naturalism (atheism):
Science requires repeatable observations and testable hypotheses. These standards restrict science to a search for natural causes for natural phenomena . . . . Supernatural explanations of natural events are simply outside the bounds of science.
This is the "non overlapping magisteria" argument, which Richard Dawkins discusses at length in "The God Delusion" (which I am just now finally reading. Thanks again to Lee from St. Louis for the atheist library!) I think what it is saying, very politely, is that the supernatural is not observable, repeatable, or testable because there is no evidence any of it actually exists. And of course, the way you would verify if something supernatural did exist would be through science. It's a very good way of determining whether or not a claim is true, and religion just folds.
Getting back to Ken's original lies: Atheism is not a religion. I did a whole video on it. Atheism is not naturalism, at least not in any religious worship sense. (Although I do like nature quite a lot, I don't worship anything.) He's trying to say that a competing religion is being imposed on our youth, so that he can cry unfair that he isn't being allowed to do the same. He's not looking out for children - he's jealous because he's being deprived of valuable brain washing opportunities. But here's the thing, not only is atheism not a religion, it isn't a philosophy either. Atheists don't universally agree on anything that I'm aware of. There are anti-choice atheists, conservative atheists, atheists in fox holes, pole dancing atheists, anti-porn crusader atheists... We come in all flavors. We have no unifying dogma we are trying to impose on anyone, even if some of us would really, really like it if you would just put down the holy book and take a couple of deep breaths.
In keeping with this pronouncement, these books teach molecules-to-man evolution, based only on unproven natural processes, as fact! In other words, they have eliminated the supernatural and replaced it with naturalism. In reality, they have eliminated the Christian worldview and replaced it with a secular, atheistic one!
Dude, calm down. You made so many false equations in that mini rant, I'm a bit concerned about the state of your heart. Chill. There is nothing nefarious about the teaching of science in science class (nor history in history class, despite what the Texas State Board of Education may claim.) The theory of evolution - what Ken here is really concerned with - is true. That's why it gets taught in science class and goddidit doesn't. It's not religious persecution, and it's not government sponsored atheist religion. It's just a matter of which one is science and which one is bullshit.
Sadly, because many Christians have falsely believed that there can be a neutral position, and have also been duped regarding the so-called “separation of church and state,” they are not prepared to boldly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God as they confront issues like abortion, “gay” marriage, racism, etc. By shrinking back, believers have allowed the secularists to impose their anti-God atheistic religion on the public schools—and the culture as a whole.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did he just say racism? He wants to stand on the Word of God? (I guess he means the Bible, but I've already explained why I don't think Christians should call it that.) The Bible says you can kill and enslave anyone who's not a fellow Jew! The Bible is immoral and outdated and false! And you want to use this book to control my uterus, tell my friends they can't be a family, and be bigoted and racist? Well, fuck you!
Answers in Genesis has launched its “I am Not Ashamed” campaign to challenge Christians to publicly and unashamedly stand on the Word of God. Only then, from the basis of the Bible’s absolute authority, will Christians be able to effectively combat the immorality that plagues our nation.
Wow. Imagine how big of a prick you can be, if you think you have absolute authority in your hand? Case in point: Ken Ham.
URGENT: If you do nothing else today, sign and share this petition on HR 3200: Prayer is Not Medical Care. Protect children and elderly from federally funded medical neglect.
Sign this petition asking Senators to move forward with the House-passed HR 911 bill to end Institutionalized Child Abuse in residential youth facilities, wilderness "experiences", and "boot camps".
So how on earth did I decide to write a post on pedophilia? It's not exactly a comfortable topic for me, as a child molestation survivor, but I don't imagine it's an easy topic for anybody. 
