April 2012 – Warren Throckmorton

Scott Lively’s defense of Holocaust revision

Scott Lively has a new blog. His first post of substance is a defense of his revision of events surrounding the Nazi’s treatment of gays during WWII.

There isn’t much new there or of any real defense. He essentially says he’s right with no response to the claims raised against him. His defense boils down to this:

7. The Pink Swastika has not been “discredited” except by homosexualist reviewers, most of whom have failed to disclose their ideological conflict of interest. The few non-homosexual critics of the book have no expertise in the history of the “gay” movement and are thus not qualified to render judgment.

From his own perspective, Lively has no “ideological conflict of interest” which of course is contradicted by the body of his work. And, despite lacking the training he demands of others, he feels qualified to render his judgment.

Of course, his defense is self-serving. A gay person is just as capable of rendering the facts correctly as he is. Ideology matters but he is just as biased as any gay reviewer. And regarding his non-gay critics (e.g,, me), they are just as qualified to read and report what they read as he is.

Lively’s blanket dismissal of his critics obscures the fact that trained historians have dismissed Lively’s theories as inconsistent with the total picture. As I documented here in 2009, trained non-gay, even Christian, historians have considered The Pink Swastika and criticized Lively’s methods and his conclusions. Perhaps Lively will use his blog to actually respond to those critics, but I doubt it.

In light of the fact that he will not respond to the substantial and scholarly criticisms of The Pink Swastika, no one should take him up on his offer to debate. The ball is already in his court.

For more on The Pink Swastika, click the link.

For coverage of Scott Lively’s visit this weekend to an Oklahoma church, see this story.

Robert Spitzer apologizes to the gay community for his ex-gay study

Truth Wins Out is reporting the text of an apology delivered to Ken Zucker, editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.

Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,

Columbia University

This statement follows up an earlier statement to Gabriel Arana and a brief follow up to me two weeks ago.

In response to Bob’s statement, I have delisted my complete interview with him on YouTube. I am considering adding this statement to it and leaving it up as a way for viewers to see the development of his thinking. What I don’t want to do is leave it up without comment. Another option is simply to remove it. While I am deciding what to do, I would like to hear opinions from readers on this one.

Don’t believe David Barton, Glenn Beck or me: Read the Jefferson Bible for yourself

Sunday and earlier today, I posted about David Barton’s recent appearance on the Glenn Beck Show where Barton made claims about The Jefferson Bible.

Barton said that Jefferson included miracles such as feeding the multitudes and raising the dead in his 1804 extraction from the Gospels (he didn’t). The best reconstruction of the 1804 extraction can be found in a 1983 book published by the Princeton University Press and edited by Dickinson Adams, titled Jefferson’s Extracts from the Gospels.

The Smithsonian Institute has provided an online way to view the 1820 extraction (Jefferson called it The Life and Morals of Jesus) which is quite user friendly. Click this link to see it.

Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Go look at it yourself.

David Barton spins the Jefferson Lies on Glenn Beck, Part 2

Sunday, I posted video of David Barton telling Glenn Beck that Jefferson’s 1804 extraction of verses from the Gospels contained miracles. Here again is the video and then the relevant transcription follows:

Continue reading “David Barton spins the Jefferson Lies on Glenn Beck, Part 2”

Barton spins the Jefferson Lies on Glenn Beck

If you have been reading here for very long, you should be able to find the problems with Barton’s narratives here about Jefferson and his extractions from the Gospels. It is almost painful to listen to the distortions and falsehoods in this clip:

Continue reading “Barton spins the Jefferson Lies on Glenn Beck”

Why is there no coverage at the Christian Post about Richard Land’s troubles?

UPDATE: Christianity Today, Religion Dispatches, and Christian Century (via Religion News Service) have stories on the SBC investigation. Nothing so far from CP.

Richard Land has been in the news a lot lately and not for reasons one would want to be in the news.

Land apologized for remarks made about the Trayvon Martin case on his radio show and then Monday apologized for his statements and for using content from a Washington Times article without verbal attribution. Wednesday, the SBC said they would investigate his remarks.

Continue reading “Why is there no coverage at the Christian Post about Richard Land’s troubles?”

Schism at Exodus International?

Apparently, Exodus President Alan Chambers’ recent comments about change of sexual orientation have not been well received by some Exodus ministry leaders. Earlier today, Andy Comiskey posted a link on his website which called for changes at Exodus in light of his disagreements with the Exodus President.

The controversy relates to Mr. Chambers recent statements that “99.9% [of people who have tried] have not experienced a change in their orientation.” Comiskey also expressed concern over the teaching about grace from Board Chair, Clark Whitten. Comiskey writes:

Whitten insists that grace alone, simply received, covers and overcomes one’s sin and renders any human effort worldly, a work of the flesh. Like many Christian authors, he overstates his case, using Scripture selectively. He is convinced that the biggest problem facing Christians is legalism, heavy-handed religion that would be overcome simply by resting in what God has done for us. He also appears to believe that this is the Truth which will usher in a new reformation. Like many in his neo-Baptist, evangelical tradition, he believes in ‘once saved, always saved’, thus Alan’s belief in the possibility of heaven for practicing gays who are ‘saved’.

In light of these concerns, Comiskey recommends more reparative therapy:

We at DSM are only indebted to the good of reparative therapy and its underpinnings in developmental psychology. How else would we understand how we become disintegrated in our gender identities, as well as gain objective markers en route to wholeness?

Continue reading “Schism at Exodus International?”

Golden Rule Pledge listed on StopBullying.gov; How about a Walk-In?

I noticed last week that the Golden Rule Pledge is now listed on the federal government’s StopBullying.gov website.

This government resource is managed by DHHS and contains a wealth of information for schools, parents and students to help curb bullying.

I like it.

Regarding the Golden Rule Pledge and the Days of Dialogue and Silence, I only know of one district where they may be observed together. All around, this year seems more quiet than any previous year.

Of course, some religious right groups want students to walk out on the Day of Silence saying that the DOS keeps students from learning. I don’t understand the logic. Some kids being silent for parts of a day interferes with learning, but skipping school is educationally sound?

Instead of a walk-out, I advise a walk-in. Kids, walk in school and promise to treat others the way you want to be treated. Not only is that educationally sound, it sounds like a pretty good moral philosophy.

Government to ministers: Preach or pay

Spoof alert – Taketh not this first part seriouslyeth.

Washington, DC (HUH) – Today, Barack Obama pledged to introduce legislation which would allow the President to set days of public prayer and thanksgiving. Obama said he had come to recognize the importance of prayer to the nation and he believes the President should set the tone.

However, a clause in the proposal has some religious leaders nervous. According to the Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving, ministers who decline to preach a sermon , “suited to the occasion,” on government appointed feast days will be fined if they cannot produce “a reasonable excuse” for the lack of sermonizing.

This has conservatives up in arms with complaints about the heavy hand of the government in religious matters. David Barton of Wallbuilders spoke out against the proposal. “I have concluded that Obama is the most Biblically hostile President ever, and this is just one more example,” Barton claimed.

Continue reading “Government to ministers: Preach or pay”

David Barton’s bad media day

No TGIF for David Barton last week.

First, the Wall Street Journal published a book review of The Jefferson Lies by Alan Pell Crawford which briefly takes apart the book. Crawford begins by agreeing with Barton that Jefferson’s connection to his slave Sally Hemming’s children has not been established. However, from there on, the review identifies problem after problem with The Jefferson Lies.

Continue reading “David Barton’s bad media day”