Month: September 2013

Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality

On Institute on the Constitution’s website, a 1956 essay by Calvinist thinker Frederick Nymeyer describes discrimination which is permitted within a society.  John Lofton, IOTC Director of Communications, reprinted this article from a journal recommended by Christian reconstructionist Rousas Rushdoony.
Nymeyer lays out his thesis clearly:

The word discriminate has in late years acquired a bad flavor. There are three kinds of discrimination which are under special attack: discrimination on the basis of religion, discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination on the basis of nationality. We wish to challenge the validity of objections to these discriminations. We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish. We wish to present the case for the right of any and all discriminations except discriminations which involve injustice (violation of Second Table of the Law).

Injustice is not completely spelled out but involves violation of the Ten Commandments.

What, if any, discrimination is forbidden? The discrimination that is forbidden is the discrimination that involves injustice. And in our thinking injustice is discrimination which involves coercion, fraud and theft. All other discriminations are, we submit, permissible. 

According to Nymeyer, discrimination is allowed even if the reason for the discrimination is an immutable trait.

But the moral crux of the problem of discrimination is the discrimination against unalterable characteristics. Is it moral to discriminate against unalterable characteristics regarding which a man is helpless? Here is where the race problem becomes so sensitive. A man with a white skin cannot do anything about it; a man with a black skin cannot do anything about it. Why discriminate against (choose against) a man for that for which he has no remedy, for an unalterable trait that is unattractive to you and maybe others? Here is where cruel injustice appears immorally to intrude itself into the situation. But is it injustice?
If the writer has made an earnest effort to carry a tune and keep time (which he has) but is unable (which happens to be the fact), is an injustice done h i [him] because he is “discriminated” against by a choral society which discriminates against a trait he had which is unalterable for h i [him]? Of course not. Justice does not consist in denying reality or the facts of life; injustice is not identical with recognizing reality (that I cannot sing).
And so we hold – in the name of happiness, and in the name of liberty, and in the name of the right to discriminate – that there is no more “injustice” in discriminating against an unalterable trait than against an alterable trait; neither is an injustice. For us, every discrimination is valid except a discrimination involving injustice.

Somehow for Nymeyer (and apparently for IOTC) singing skill is analogous to race. Since the trait in question is the unalterable trait of skin color, Nymeyer must believe there is something inadequate about one skin color versus another (analogous to the desirable trait of song versus inability to sing). I wonder which race is the disadvantaged one?
Even if they would not personally discriminate based on race, Nymeyer and by extension IOTC actually promote the idea that discrimination based on race can be justified. If IOTC does not mean to convey this belief, then why post this article on the website?
For more on the IOTC, click here; for more on the League of the South, click here. IOTC founder Michael Peroutka is a board member of the League of the South and has pledged the resources of the IOTC to the League.
The IOTC’s course on the Constitution is being hosted by the National Religious Broadcasters each Thursday evening at 8pm.

International Healing Foundation Announces The End Of Homosexuality

Really. Just look.

Announcing
THE END OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Want to Know How?

Greetings,
Want to be part of an exciting revolution? Want to end homosexuality and prevent bullying? Want to protect your children and grandchildren?
Everyday our kids are being inundated with false information about homosexuality-born that way and cannot change. This is both scientifically and scripturally untrue. We at IHF have developed solutions to end homosexuality:
1. Coming Out Straight: a plan to heal unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA)
2. Gay Children Straight Parents: a plan for family healing
3. Counselor Training Program: education for therapists & ministry leaders

Eventually all of this turns into a request for money. Want to end the gay? You gotta pay to play.
There is one thing that can be said about International Healing Foundation: Change is Possible.
They change their message and tone frequently. Good cop and bad cop, all in one package, all in one day.
Speaking of that slogan – change is possible – nearly two years ago, Cohen and IHF apologized for it.

We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community who may have been hurt by our message of “change.” As the director of IHF, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. I did not realize that by stating, “Change is Possible,” some would be offended. That was the furthest thing from my heart and mind. To think that our message of “change” would cause further pain to LGBTQ youth and adults is painful to imagine … I am deeply and profoundly sorry.

Now I can envision another future apology: We at IHF wish to apologize for claiming to bring about the end of homosexuality. We did not realize that by announcing the end of homosexuality, some would be offended.
One would be hard pressed to find a more confusing organization than IHF. On their “coming out loved” website, they claim to accept gays:

Some live a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, or transsexual life, while others are unsure about their sexuality and seek to explore alternatives. We uphold your right of self-determination, to follow the path that fills your heart with love. 

Bringing in the bullying theme heightens the confusion and contradiction. I can only imagine how IHF’s message would be received by a GLB teen or young adult. IHF is now identifying with the bullies who also want to end homosexuality and is doing so in the name of preventing bullying.
Surreal.
 
 

Martin Ssempa is on Twitter

Might make this tweet into a badge or something. It would go nicely with my “Throckmorton is a snake” award given by Scott Lively.

Except there was no “falsified news.”
Rev. Ssempa had some nasty tactics to push Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill and all of that came to light. Quite a story really.
Guess I’ll follow Rev. Ssempa and see what he’s talking about these days.
UPDATE: I’ve been blocked…
 
 

Matt Drudge: Putin Is Leader of the Free World

I first saw this posted over at Little Green Footballs…
Matt Drudge says Vladimir Putin is leader of the free world.

This is same Vladimir Putin who is leading the charge against various freedoms in Russia (speech, assembly). And the same Putin who leads a government which persecutes religions other than Russian Orthodox (including Christians).  Despite some efforts to limit abortions lately, Russia subsidizes legal abortion and has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
Even a cursory analysis of Russia’s problems makes it clear that Russia’s leaders must do something to address their many problems. However, stigmatizing gays and limiting freedoms is unlikely to do much to help. It is certainly bizarre to see conservatives here rally around the former KGB officer.
LGF tipped the hat to the New Civil Rights Movement.
 

NARTH Complains About Lack of Research in Statement on Reorientation Therapy Court Cases

After the 9th Circuit court upheld CA’s law banning reorientation therapy for minors, NARTH issued a statement in response. For context, I reproduce the entire statement with comments to follow:

NARTH finds today’s ruling by the court to be disappointing and plans to appeal this decision. If left standing, this ruling will constitute a serious intrusion by government on the freedom of minors and their families to choose their desired form of psychological care.
At a time when adolescents who experience themselves as being the wrong biological sex are allowed to pursue sexual reassignment surgery, licensed therapists who are willing to assist youth with unwanted same-sex attraction and behaviors will be prohibited from even talking to minors in a manner that could be construed as promoting the pursuit of change. 
Politicians and non-elected judges have seen fit to approve of such encroachments on personal and professional freedoms in spite of the fact that the American Psychological Association admits the exact causes of same-sex attractions are not known, virtually no research exists directly addressing the modification of same-sex behaviors and attractions with minors, and the prevalence of harm from such change efforts is unknown and has therefore not been established as being any greater than the rates of harm documented for psychotherapy in general.  Furthermore, much research has documented that fluidity in sexual attractions and identity often occurs naturally and is particularly pronounced in adolescence and early adulthood, which suggests the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.
These facts make it clear that science is not at the forefront of this effort to restrict freedoms.  If that were the case, gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through a bipartisan program of research, not by the heavy hand of government squelching professional practice in order to appease powerful interests of activists within professional associations and lobbying groups.  NARTH sincerely hopes that these crucial facts will be considered by a more receptive judicial audience in the future.

Strong point of the statement: They are correct that more research is needed on minors who are in conflict over their attractions to the same sex.
Given the concerns over safety and effectiveness, it seems reasonable to take seriously adult reports about when they were minors. In one sense, retrospective (but still inadequate) research has been done by asking adults about their experiences while teens.
Weak point of the statement: Spontaneous developmental change in attractions does not “suggest the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.”
Being situationally or temporarily attracted to the same sex is not the same experience as exclusive attraction to the same sex throughout adolescence.  The CA law allows therapists to discuss sexual orientation issues and engage in self-discovery. However, when a youth declares a gay orientation, a therapist is not allowed to engage in therapeutic techniques designed to change orientation.
Weakest point of the statement: The hypocrisy of NARTH whining about research.
Opponents of reorientation therapy are reacting to many stories of youth and young adults who felt harmed by being dragged to the conversion therapist and asked to do something they couldn’t do. There are some studies that link parental lack of acceptance (one manifestation of which is forced attendance at conversion therapy sessions) with mental health adjustment in GLBT youth. Surely those studies are relevant and are unanswered by NARTH.
It is just as accurate to say “science is not at the forefront” of NARTH’s effort to maintain access to conversion therapy.  “If that were the case (science at the forefront), gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through” a program of research led by NARTH. However, this has never been the case. Despite numerous calls for such research from various sources, NARTH has done just one survey of adults since the organization was founded in 1992.
The lack of research complaint is a dodge. While I haven’t been on the inside for quite awhile, I was at one point. I actually did some research on the subject and attempted to address concerns of both sides. I did it on my own dime and worked to get it published. However, where has NARTH been? It is my settled opinion that the defense of conversion therapy is not based on science because if it was, there would be some NARTH-generated science to talk about.
Perhaps those who defend NARTH should ask why NARTH has not tested it’s claims. And perhaps NARTH should stop talking about science until it has some to talk about. If NARTH’s leaders were serious about research, they would channel all of their funds and efforts into a large multi-year study of their efforts designed by legitimate scholars instead of legal fees.