Ex-Gays Demand Something

For years, Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and the International Healing Foundation have pushed the idea that ex-gays were a minority group like gays. They have mimicked the language of civil rights movements and yet very few people have seemed to buy it.  Today, Chris Doyle’s group Voice for the Voiceless had a lobby day at the Supreme Court (even though you can’t really lobby the Supreme Court) and demanded their rights. Problem was only about 10 showed up.
CBN has more…

After all is said and done, I can’t figure out what rights ex-gays lack or why they need protection.
The CBN interview is a surreal viewing experience and a big commercial for IHF with unsubstantiated charges about “security threats.” If such threats were verifiable, I feel sure that Doyle’s group would make them public.

Nick Cummings USA Today Article on Reorientation Therapy

A couple of readers asked me to comment on Nick Cummings USA Today column on reorientation therapy. With some caution, I think it would be good to do so.
First I want to say that I have always liked and admired Nick. His work in managed behavioral health care was pioneering. In the 1980s, Nick promoted the idea that excellent clinical services could save businesses a lot of money and actually expand access to therapy. He was correct and helped create modern managed behavioral healthcare, which is essentially the dominant system today. In addition to the new business strategies that Nick’s company (American Biodyne) innovated, Nick was/is a gifted clinician and trainer. I learned a lot from Nick about therapy as a Biodyne clinician in the mid-1980s. I will always be grateful for his influence on me at that time.
Nick is an admirable gentleman in many ways. He seems to be indestructible and maintains an ambitious and rigorous schedule into his older age. He also reads and studies Greek (another area of common interest) and has developed a cooperative program with China that is helping to shape their behavioral health system.
Having declared a sincere admiration for Nick, I have to add that we disagree about his recent push to defend reorientation therapy as a modality. Nick is an endorser of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework and I have heard him promote the ideals we support.  Thus, I know that any person who sought change therapy from him would not get the usual reparative therapy explanations for homosexuality, nor would religion be used as a coercive tool. In other words, I don’t believe Nick wishes to defend any and all approaches to change therapy; I think he wishes to defend the right of clients to arrange their lives and seek help to do it. However, it is dismaying that his defense comes in the context of  the JONAH’s court case. Much of what is done in the name of reorientation cannot be defended.
One area Nick and I disagree about is how much to emphasize the role and importance of bisexuality. Nick once told me that clients who had no prior heterosexual experience were not successful in changing orientation and so over time, the Kaiser-Permanente therapists discouraged orientation change for those clients. To me, this suggests that many of those “changed” clients were bisexuals who found ways to live with or minimize their same-sex attractions. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no one was discussing “spousosexuals” from 1959-1979. Some men and women are generally attracted to the same sex but spontaneously fall in love with one person of the opposite sex. Some of those successes could easily have been people who had the potential for that kind of fluidity. Another problem with relying on Nick’s data is that follow up was lacking for many of the clients. Nick is aware that some of his clients remained changed, but he does not have systematic data on the population.
If all reorientation therapists were like Nick, I doubt we would have the conflict and polarization we have seen over the past decade or so. I also doubt there is anybody currently vocally defending reorientation who practices as Nick did. Current reorientation therapists blame parenting and masculinity deficits for same-sex attraction, some of them put people through emotionally taxing and empirically questionable human potential exercises, still others attempt to coerce people with religion. My impression is that Nick and his crew did none of that. Certainly, in all of my dealings with American Biodyne, no one ever suggested any of that. The emphasis was always on helping the client find strategies to enhance mental health and live in accord with their aspirations.
Nick’s closing paragraph makes me think that he believes that there are some, perhaps many, therapists who work empirically and ethically with “fully informed persons.” This is where we disagree. The way reorientation is practiced as I have seen it and heard it described at various conferences and by various therapists in my travels during the last decade or so gives me no confidence that he is right this time.
Given those concerns, I continue to support the APA’s distinction between sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity; the former being durable once established and the latter being more subject to modification. I am skeptical there are many current reorientation therapists fully inform their clients about that distinction.

Institute on the Constitution Supports Controversial PA Police Chief's Actions to Nullify Gun Control Legislation

UPDATE: Kessler was suspended by his city council for using borough weapons for non-borough purposes. According to local media, Kessler’s supporters showed up armed to the teeth.
Mark Kessler is the Chief of Police in Gilberton Borough, PA and is making some people nervous. Today, Change.org is promoting a petition to the mayor of Gilberton in opposition to Kessler. Kessler has garnered some national attention for his efforts to nullify any gun control legislation in his borough.
Someone who isn’t nervous about Kessler is Michael Peroutka, director of the Institute on the Constitution. Peroutka thinks Kessler’s efforts to nullify all gun control laws is just what the country needs:

On January 3rd of this year, Kessler drafted a “Second Amendment Protection Resolution” for his Pennsylvania town which, when passed by city officials a few weeks later, nullified every single gun control law in the nation.
“If you want to own a firearm,” Chief Kessler said, “the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit, period. It has nothing to do with self-defense: it has to do with freedom from tyranny.”
Police Chief Kessler went on to say: “Nullification is the key. We just have to tell them, ‘that’s it’. I drew my line in the sand back on Jan 3rd. One person can make a difference: you just need to do something about it.”
Well, Amen.
Remember, when a law enforcement officer, like Chief Kessler, refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act, he is not breaking the law, he is upholding the law.
This is because unconstitutional acts of legislatures are NOT the law.

Thus, it is up to Kessler to decide what is constitutional or not and go by his own analysis. You don’t need a permit to carry a gun, you already have one Kessler opines. Thus, he is not going to enforce any gun control laws and the IOTC is fine with that.
Peroutka recommends support for an organization of like-minded police chiefs and sheriffs which promotes nullification.

We recommend that you give your support to the Constitutional Sheriff and Police Officers Association, whose mission is to equip sheriffs, peace officers and public officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out their duties in accordance with their Oaths of Office.

Peroutka, in a speech before the neo-Confederate League of the South, extolled the virtues of nullification and interposition and says his IOTC course is helping to create a consensus around nullifying laws. At 45:49 into the video, Peroutka describes how Carroll County in MD passed an ordinance forbidding any county resources for the use of implementing a MD gun control law. The sheriff pledged not to enforce the law there. Then at 47:33, speaking about the MD law, he says:

We don’t care what the legislature passes, it’s not valid, we don’t recognize it, and it’s not going to be enforced in Carroll County. And that’s the first step of nullification. The next step and what we really need is the step of interposition. Where we need the sheriff and the police to come out and the county executive to come out and say we not only are not going to enforce that but if somebody else comes into our county and tries to enforce it, we’re going to arrest them. That’s the step we need and some counties have done that.

Peroutka then explains the actions of Kessler and Gilberton Borough as being an illustration of nullification and interposition. He added that Kessler intends to arrest anyone who attempts to enforce a gun control law of any kind.
The oath of Kessler’s “Constitutional Security Force” sounds non-violent, but his videos (note the Confederate flag in this onestrike a more confrontational tone (NSFW – profanity) .
The concepts of nullification and interposition can be traced back to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. See these two articles, first by Kevin Gutzman and the second published by the Heritage Foundation and written by Christian Fritz for conservative analyses of the concepts.
Gutzman points out that fans and opponents of nullification can use Madison as an authority because Madison took both sides at different times and for different causes. Toward the end of his life Madison noted that one state alone could not nullify federal law. Gutzman noted that at the end of his life, Madison said:

The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions, is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened, and the disguised one as the serpent creeping with deadly wiles into Paradise.

In 1835, Madison also stated his opposition to John C. Calhoun appeals to Madison’s earlier writings on nullification. About a single state nullifying a federal law, Madison wrote the following:

But it follows from no view of the subject that a nullification of a law of the United States can, as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State as one of the parties to the Constitution, the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy cannot be imagined. 

As Fritz documents, Madison did not consider nullification, in the sense Peroutka advocates, to be constitutional. In fact, I don’t know of anyone outside of the Confederates or neo-Confederates who consider nullification to be constitutional. Perhaps my readers will help out if there are others who make a constitutional case for nullification.
It remains to be seen what will develop from these nullification impulses and actions. What does seem clear is that Peroutka hopes that teaching the IOTC course will lead to more actions which Madison called “fatal inlet[s] to anarchy.”

TX Rep. Steve Stockman Joins with League of the South Board Member on Amicus Brief

And he seems happy about it…

Stockman may not know that the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) is essentially Michael Peroutka, board member of the League of the South. However, this brief is another indication of the emergence of the IOTC as a player among right leaning advocacy groups, and now with the assistance of a U.S. Congressman.
For more information on the brief regarding a gun rights case, click the link in the tweet.

Does the Church Have a League of the South Problem?

When the Washington Free Beacon revealed that an important member of Sen. Rand Paul’s staff, Jack Hunter (aka “The Southern Avenger”), had at one time been a member of the League of the South, pressure came quickly for Paul and Hunter to distance themselves from the League’s neo-Confederate views.  Eventually, Hunter resigned from Paul’s staff.

Pundits on the left and right questioned Paul’s judgment and views on race. Paul has been on the defensive and if he chooses to run for president, he likely will be asked again about his reasons for hiring a neo-Confederate sympathizer.

With the emergence of the Institute on the Constitution as an accepted organization within the Christian right, I submit the evangelical church now has a League of the South problem. As I have pointed out on the blog, the IOTC’s director and lead teachers are leaders in the League of the South. Founder and director Michael Peroutka is a member of the board of directors for the League and senior teacher David Whitney is the chaplain of the League’s MD branch. Peroutka has stated to a League of the South audience that his reasons for teaching the Constitution are not to reform the current government but to prepare for Southern secession or some form of governmental collapse. He has also pledged the resources of the IOTC to the achievement of the League’s objectives.

As I noted recently, the National Religious Broadcasting network is now showing the 12-part Constitution course with Peroutka and Whitney teaching. This course is also being shown simultaneously on Liberty University’s television network. The far right Sons of Liberty of Bradlee Dean is also offering the IOTC course. Peroutka is a regular on Steve Deace’s talk show. If not for parents’ protests, the Springboro School Board would have evaluated the course as a potential offering in their school district. The teacher of the course then moved it into a local church. Many mainstream churches, especially in Ohio, have hosted the course over the past several years.

Before the series started on the NRB network, I alerted the NRB about the connection between the League and IOTC. And yet, the series continues.

Is there a problem here? I may be wrong, I believe there is a brewing problem. Many in the nation are having important conversations about race and racism. Historically, the church has been divided over issues of race. The League fancies itself a Christian oriented organization with an objective to promote Southern secession to form a white, Christian nation. Will the evangelical church let these objectives enter the mainstream?

To my mind, the emergence of the IOTC raises significant questions. Is the situation I am describing here helping or hurting racial reconciliation? Can a League of the South board member simultaneously be a leader in the evangelical world? Does the stated aims of the course and organization matter if the content of the course serves Christian right political objectives?* Association with the League in the political world is enough to cause significant alarm; should the same be true in the church? Are there important differences between the political and religious worlds that make association with the League a problem in one place but not the other?
Does the conservative Christian church have a League of the South problem?

*A related issue relates to the accuracy of the course information. There are many problems with the IOTC programs I have seen (e.g., see this post) but this is also true of Christian nationalist programs without questionable ties to neo-Confederate organizations.

Answering Matt Barber on Jefferson and the First Amendment

Continuing the Liberty Law School misunderstanding of the First Amendment, Matt Barber cites Thomas Jefferson out of context in a recent WND column. Following David Barton, Barber wants the intent of the First Amendment to cover denominations of Christianity.  Barber writes:

Now what did they mean by “… shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?”
Well, in a letter to Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson – often touted by the left as the great church-state separationist – answered this question. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was simply intended to restrict Congress from affirmatively “establishing,” through federal legislation, a national Christian denomination (similar to the Anglican Church of England).
As Jefferson put it: “[T]he clause of the Constitution” covering “freedom of religion” was intended to necessarily preclude “an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States.”

Before I set Jefferson’s word in proper context, let me note that law attorney Eugene Volokh addressed this issue here, and I have here and here. Volokh refers to the North Carolina Ratifying Convention which I will return to shortly.
The Jefferson quote above comes in a letter of response to Benjamin Rush. To understand Jefferson, we must know to what in Rush’s letter he was responding.  On August 22, 1800, Rush wrote Jefferson about several matters, one of which was to remind him to explain his views on religion. In doing so, Rush offered his view of Christianity in relationship to republicanism as a form of government. Rush wrote:

You promised me when we parted, to read Paley’s last work, and to send me your religious Creed.–I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of Republicanism. Its Spirit is opposed, not only to the Splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many” of its precepts have for their Objects, republican liberty and equality, as well as simplicity, integrity and Economy in government. It is only necessary for Republicanism to ally itself to the christian Religion, to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world. (emphasis in original)

Rush seemed to be making a clear pitch for some kind of alliance between republicanism and Christianity. What was Jefferson’s response? On September 23, 1800, he wrote to Rush:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

First, he addressed Rush’s question about his personal religion. Jefferson would not provide Rush with a lengthy outline of his views until 1803. However, in this letter, he deferred that topic and goes on to the then current matter of Christianity and politics.

The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. 

First, Jefferson referred to the XYZ affair which was used to garner support for the Alien and Sedition Acts. In particular, the acts relating to sedition generated much controversy over free speech when criticizing the government. The XYZ affair frightened Federalists into thinking they needed to risk violating freedom of speech to keep the peace.
Jefferson used the XYZ affair to illustrate how public sentiment could threaten Constitutional liberties. He then responded to Rush’s rather enthusiastic wish to align republicanism with Christianity. Social unrest also led various clergy to push for their denomination to become preferred by the national government. In other words, he was speaking about the sentiment of the day during the Adams’ administration and vowed that he would stand any such efforts. Jefferson was running for president at the time against Adams and had been criticized as an atheist and enemy to religion. He concurred to a certain point; he was a threat to the designs of some clergy to establish a sect in violation of the First Amendment.
Jefferson wasn’t saying that the only intent of the First Amendment was to preclude the establishment of a particular sect. He was responding negatively to Rush’s ebullience about aligning Christianity with politics and using current events to do it. Furthermore, if historical events had been different (e.g, some other religion wanted dominance), it seems reasonable to believe Jefferson would have referred to those other religions as well (as he did in his autobiography when discussing religious freedom in VA).
That Rush understood Jefferson’s answer as a specific response to the August 22 letter is made clear in Rush’s follow up letter of October 6, 1800. After agreeing with Jefferson on the disadvantages of cities, Rush wrote:

I agree with you likewise in your wishes to keep religion and government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the World: “Cease from your political labors – your kingdom is not of this World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human Governments.” From this, it derives its preeminence over all the religions that ever have, or ever Shall exist in the World. Human Governments may receive Support from Christianity but it must be only from the love of justice, and peace which it is calculated to produce in the minds of men. By promoting these, and all the Other Christian Virtues by your precepts, and example, you will much sooner overthrow errors of all kind, and establish our pure and holy religion in the World, than by aiming to produce by your preaching, or pamphflets any change in the political state of mankind.”
A certain Dr Owen an eminent minister of the Gospel among the dissenters in England, & a sincere friend to liberty, was once complained of by one of Cromwell’s time serving priests,—that he did not preach to the times. “My business and duty said the disciple of St Paul is to preach—to Eternity— not to the times.” He has left many Volumes of Sermons behind him, that are so wholly religious, that no One from reading them, could tell, in what country,—or age they were preached.—

What a contradiction to the efforts of the American Renewal Project this is. Rather than be misunderstood by Jefferson, Rush extended his thought on religion and politics in this letter. He was not proposing that clergy do more than practice their faith in ways that make better citizens. Rush said St. Paul would have a message for “the Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the World.” He adviseed preaching the faith rather than focusing on “the political state of mankind.” Rush’s answer to Jefferson was a support to the separation of church and state in the context of the times.
The North Carolina Ratifying Convention also took up the question of the extent of the First Amendment freedom of conscience. They understood that the First Amendment “no religious test clause” applied to non-Christian religions as well.  James Iredell, later appointed as a Supreme Court justice said about the First Amendment and no religious test clause:

I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those who formed this system to establish a general religious liberty in America.
But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong.

Jefferson noted that the Virginia legislature resisted efforts to limit religious freedom to Christianity.
The efforts of the Liberty Law School to follow David Barton’s misunderstanding of the First Amendment probably set it apart from most, if not all, other such schools and is not a model that is well supported even by the authorities they cite. Attempting to use Jefferson in such a manner rips his words from the immediate context of his letters to Rush but his other statements on liberty of conscience.
Now what separation of church and state means in practice is still a matter to be worked out on a case by case basis. I am not saying that I agree with every court case which invokes separation of church and state as a principle. However, it seems clear that both Jefferson and Rush supported the principle of independence of religion and government from each other.
Note: The post above has been edited to reflect the fact that the NC convention took place before the First Amendment had been introduced (thanks to Bill Fortenberry for pointing this out). The NC convention considered a similar addition in their recommendations as a part of a broader set of amendments. That declaration read:

“20. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence: and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”

Given the discussion in the convention, it seems clear that it was understood that broad religious freedom covered any sect or society, not just a Christian version.

David Barton: Christian Professors Were Trained By Pagan Professors Who Hate God

During the same program where David Barton claimed that only four professors in the nation criticized The Jefferson Lies, he also had something to say (listen) about the Christian professors who have raised concerns about his claims.

What happens is, and Christian professors were basically trained by pagan professors who hate God, and they’re just repeating what they’re been told.

I was reminded of this line by reading the History News Network article about Barton’s claim about the four professors.
I think what he might mean is ‘Christian professors who disagree with me were basically trained by pagan professors who hate God.’
For Coulter and me, Barton’s theory doesn’t work out. My history training came from Cedarville University profs back when the school was more conservative than it is now. Everybody seems pretty fond of God around CU. Coulter went to GCC and then the University of Dallas.
More generally, though, that is quite a strong and insulting statement, one I doubt he can back up.
It’s not too late to join the #Barton4.

Steve Deace to David Barton: Not So Fast

Tuesday, I posted a brief quote from David Barton claiming that only four professors didn’t like his book, The Jefferson Lies. He said this on the Steve Deace Show, a conservative talk show host from Iowa. In the Tuesday post, I listed many more professors who have expressed criticism of the book and have been adding names to the list since then.
Today, Deace penned a column titled, Not So Fast, in which he cited an email from me about the way Barton depicted his opposition. I commend Deace for not letting this drop. I also appreciate that he makes his audience aware that the concerns about Barton’s claims are coming from conservatives. As he notes, two conservatives who have raised questions about Barton’s claims, Jay Richards and Chuck Dunn, have been guests on his show.
At the end, Deace suggests that his audience “trust but verify” when it comes to various historical claims. For those who are inclined to accept such claims blindly, that would be a good start.

David Barton Says 4 Professors Criticized The Jefferson Lies; He Forgot Some

Facts are pesky.
On July 19, Steve Deace interviewed David Barton (at 24:12 in hour 3) in Iowa after the big political confab there with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Deace asked Barton to describe the controversy over The Jefferson Lies (now approaching a year ago). He also asked if there was any substance to the criticism.
Barton said a bunch of stuff he usually says about it (e.g., publisher Thomas Nelson got scared of the scary professors, etc.). Then he said:

You’ve got about 6,000 universities in America and they found four professors who criticized what I did. Well, 6,000 universities, you probably have 60,000 professors and they found four who didn’t like it.

Well, we all know who two of them are. But just four? I think he forgot some. Last August, World Magazine reported that Jay Richards assembled 10 Christian professors who expressed a negative response to the book.  Then there was Clay Jenkinson, and Martin Marty, and John Fea, and Paul Harvey, and Regent University’s Chuck Dunn, and Greg Forster, and Gregg Frazer and Steven Green. And then there were the 650 voters in the History News Network poll who helped Barton squeak out the Least Credible History Book in Print designation, just beating out Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” Then more recently, 34 Christian history and social science professors approached Family Research Council about the Capitol Tour video (which FRC removed from view due to the errors).
Please note that most of the people referred to in this post are evangelical Christians.
Christian publisher Thomas Nelson’s reasons for pulling the book were expressed in World’s report:

The publisher “was contacted by a number of people expressing concerns about [The Jefferson Lies].” The company began to evaluate the criticisms, Harrell said, and “in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported. Because of these deficiencies we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to stop the publication and distribution.”

Need to refresh your memory? See the World coverage here and here
UPDATE: Readers have reminded me of some additional historian/professors who have had negative things to say about The Jefferson Lies. Let’s add Daniel Dreisbach, Kevin Gutzman, and James Stoner, and Miles Mullin and John David Wilsey and Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson

P.S. He still is completely botching the Jefferson Bible…
P.P.S. Are you a professor? Email or tweet to add your name, or leave your name in the comments.
English prof Jeff Sharlet and Religious Studies prof Julie Ingersoll have added their names to the “four.”
Add History professors Jared Burkholder, Jay Case, Brenda Schoolfield, Keith Beutler, Joseph Moore, Scott Culpepper, Bobby Griffith, Paul Fessler, Jason Dikes, Chris Gehrz, Chris Cantwell, Jonathan Wilson, Alan Snyder, Glenn Sunshine, Philip Perdue, and Rachel Larson, and also Religious Studies profs Michael J. Altman and P.C. Kemeny to the list of profs. Independent historian Michael Miles concurs.
Glad to add Yoni Appelbaum, GCC colleague Dan Brown (the entire GCC history dept is included in the 34 profs who wrote to FRC), math prof Sharon McCathern, Environmental Ethics prof Bron Taylor and English prof Steve Roberts.
UPDATE: Steve Deace posted my rebuttal to Barton.