Religion and sexuality – Page 106

International Federation of Social Workers denounce Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

In reaction to the statement put out last week from the National Association of Social Workers – Uganda, the International Federation of Social Worker has issued a response. The IFSW is the parent group of the Ugandan branch. Here is there response:

The proposals before the Ugandan Parliament concerning homosexuality and gay rights are a violation of international human rights conventions and should be withdrawn’, said Dr David N Jones, President of the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), as he prepared for the annual United Nations Social Work Day in New York. He was supporting statements already made by UN global leaders and eminent human rights spokespeople.

IFSW has followed with concern the debate arising from the bill before the Ugandan Parliament concerning homosexuality. IFSW has consulted the Chairperson of the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda and social work leaders in Africa. IFSW has also followed debates between social workers and social work educators in Africa. We recognise that there are different views.

‘IFSW respects the territorial integrity of national governments and member organisations and does not usually seek to engage in debates about policies or legislation within individual countries, David Jones continued. ‘However the regional and global risks to human rights arising from this legislation are such that a comment is required in this case.’

IFSW respects and upholds the international conventions and treaties which explicitly recognise the right of all individuals to give expression to their sexual orientation, among many other basic rights. These global conventions and policies have been developed by common agreement and in the light of experience and research and are reflected in the global ethical principles of social work, endorsed by IFSW and the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW). No further justification of the right to freedom of sexual orientation is needed or appropriate. We note that the United Nations Secretary General, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Bishop Desmond Tutu and other world leaders have all criticised and advised against the legislation on these grounds. The world body of social workers endorses those statements.

We note the concern in Uganda to respond to sexual abuse of children and young people and of vulnerable adults. IFSW entirely endorses this objective and would be pleased to work with the Ugandan government and other parties, including the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda, to draft and implement legislation to enforce the highest standards of child protection. We note that children can be at risk of sexual abuse for many reasons and from many quarters. We note that the abuse of girls and young women by older men has been the subject of heated debate in many African countries, as well as the abuse of boys and young men. Both evils must be confronted.

Effective child protection legislation should deal firmly and unequivocally with all forms of ill-treatment of children and young people, without fear or favour and regardless of the status of the men and women involved. Social workers are often the lead professionals when such action is taken and fully understand the legislation and intervention required.

However all international policy and academic research make clear that the expression of sexual orientation is a human right. It is misguided and an abuse of human rights to imply that the expression of sexual orientation and ill-treatment of children are the same or related. They are not.

‘IFSW calls on the Ugandan Parliament to reject this legislation’, concluded David Jones, ‘including its cruel and severe penalties, including the death penalty, targeted at friends and family members of gay people as well as gay people themselves. We offer our global experience to assist the Ugandan people to strengthen their child protection legislation, if they consider this appropriate.’

This is a measured statement and one which does not deal point by point with the NASWU position. I suspect other negative statements will come soon. I am aware that the United States NASW is working on a statement.

Exodus International rejects statement from Uganda’s social workers

This just out in a press release from Exodus:

Exodus International Responds to Ugandan Social Worker Association’s Endorsement of Country’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

ORLANDO, FL – Last week, the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda (NASWU) issued an endorsement of the African nation’s controversial anti-homosexuality bill, arguing “there is justification for Uganda to put in place appropriate legislation to comprehensively prohibit homosexuality.” The organization did recommend changes to the legislation, such as an exemption for counselors helping those struggling with same-sex attraction to report “homosexual offenses” to the government. However, overall, the NASWU recommended the bill continue through the legislative process so that “an appropriate law will emerge from this process that even other countries will want to emulate.”

In response, Exodus International President Alan Chambers said, “Although the NASWU seems genuinely concerned in helping those struggling with same-sex attraction, the organization fails to see that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009–as any legislation that criminalizes homosexuality–does more to hurt than help homosexuals. Exodus continues to urge Uganda’s Parliament to reject this hurtful legislation; we also ask the country’s evangelical churches to take the lead in offering hope and healing to all people, regardless of their particular struggles.”

Exodus recently released a letter from its Board fully outlining the organization’s position on Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill. To view the letter, click here

Philadelphia Biblical University condemns Martin Ssempa’s position on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Philadelphia Biblical University wants the world to know that Martin Ssempa did not learn his attitudes toward gays at their school. They posted the following statement on their website, and on their Facebook page.

Recently, Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa made statements concerning public policy regarding homosexuals in that nation. Philadelphia Biblical University (PBU) categorically condemns any position that calls for violence against human beings created in the image and likeness of God, or violent solutions to socially controversial issues. While PBU holds to a biblically defined position regarding human sexuality, to call for such action clearly violates the teaching of the Bible, and the principles and practices taught at PBU. Ssempa did earn a graduate degree from PBU in 1994. Ssempa also received an honorary degree from PBU in 2006 for his ministry of compassion to HIV/AIDS victims in his native land. The University was not aware at that time of Ssempa’s recently expressed views. His present publicly stated position in no way represents or reflects the views of the University, its administration, or its faculty. It is our sincere hope that Christians would hold their convictions regarding homosexuality with a spirit of grace and compassion toward all human beings.

-From the University Administration

I am not aware of any public pressure on PBU to take this stance, although I can imagine that alums were concerned about the reputation of the University. PBU is a conservative evangelistic school with a solid reputation. It is striking and significant to see a school publicly address the actions of an alum in this manner.

Other institutions which are affiliated with Dr. Ssempa include Oral Robert University (Board of Reference) and Canyon Ridge Christian Church (supporting church). Other people and groups that have distanced themselves from Ssempa’s crusade include Rick Warren, Wait Training and Teen Mania (see this post for additional details).

ht: Gug, BTB

Uganda social work association calls for prohibition on homosexuality

The President of the National Association of Social Workers of Uganda (NASWU), Charles Tuhaise, sent this statement from their organization this morning. Mr. Tuhaise is also a researcher for Uganda’s Parliamentary Research Service. I referred to him in this prior post on the purpose of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In contrast to Martin Ssempa’s distortions of the bill, Mr. Tuhaise is clear that the bill intends to prohibit homosexuality, saying

…you have read the Bill and know that its object is to outlaw all same-sex sexual conduct. The question of “consenting adults” therefore does not arise. All same-sex sexual conduct is proscribed under the Bill.

Thus, even though adults may give consent, the intent of the bill is to make such consent illegal. In the following document, the NASWU, led by Mr. Tuhaise supports comprehensive prohibition.

The NASWU is affiliated with the International Federation of Social Workers. Mr Tuhaise told me that the IASW is aware of the document which has generated support and criticism. I fully expect that IASW as well as most mental health organizations will issue critical statements soon.

The statement is lengthy and will commence in full after the break. I am not putting this in block quotes because some of the formatting will be lost. I will comment further on this statement in another post. Continue reading “Uganda social work association calls for prohibition on homosexuality”

Lifesitenews article: An exercise in confirmation bias

Yesterday, Lifesitenews published an article complaining about me. Many of the complains are recycled from Peter LaBarbera’s website and a OneNewsNow article. I addressed those criticisms here and here. Mark Yarhouse also did so on the SIT Framework website. Beyond rehashing LaBarbera’s issues, I think the article reflects poorly on Lifesitenews. Let’s start with their characterization of how my peers have been reacting to my work. Reporter Matthew Hoffman wrote:

Throckmorton’s defection from the ex-gay movement has been met with condemnation by Evangelicals. “Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as ‘authentically Christian,’ Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s ‘Sexual Identity’ according to their feelings (and comfort level with same),” laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

Evangelicals? Let’s count how many condemning evangelicals are quoted by LSN. If you count Michael Glatze, two people are quoted as complaining about my views, the other one being Peter LaBarbera. My reason for hedging on Glatze is that he began his ex-gay journey as a member of the LDS church and is listed as an “Executive Assistant” at the Buddhist inspired Shambhala Mountain Center in Colorado, which, according to an article written by Glatze in 2009, is a welcoming place for gays and lesbians.

Rather than reporting some broad evangelical condemnation of my work, the article repeats the criticisms of Peter LaBarbera. I noted to Mr. Hoffman when I declined his interview (more about that shortly), that I am on the National Advisory Board for the American Association of Christian Counselors (as is Mark Yarhouse) and that they paid Mark and me to present a half-day workshop at the 2007 conference on how to apply the sexual identity therapy framework. By any definition, the AACC would be considered an evangelical organization. Mr. Hoffman says that I am under fire from evangelicals and yet only quotes one, maybe two. At the same time, he ignored evidence that my views are promoted within a much larger, more mainstream evangelical organization (not to mention several others he could have consulted).

As an aside, it is curious that Mr. LaBarbera has not included the AACC in his crusade. The AACC still promotes the SITF via the tapes they sell of the pre-conference workshop. The SITF was featured in the AACC magazine in 2007 via an invited article by Mark Yarhouse. Perhaps, the AACC will be next.

When I declined the interview, I pointed out to Mr. Hoffman that the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) also claims to value client self-determination. I sent Mr. Hoffman a link to my recent post, “Is NARTH the next target?” which notes that Joseph Nicolosi says, on the NARTH website, that he provides gay affirmative therapy to some of his clients. NARTH is mentioned favorably at least 46 times on Peter LaBarbera’s website. I also sent a link to a YouTube video where Dr. Nicolosi says this about his practice:

The therapeutic approach is always positive. In fact, to be honest with you we never tell our clients not to have homosexual activity. If they want to do it, let them do it. It’s up to them. Our job is to help them understand what they learned from it. When a client comes in to me and says, ‘I had gay sex last night.’ My only question to him is, ‘What was going on with you just before you decided to act out? What was your psychological state of mind that made you want…?’ That’s where the lesson is. So we don’t tell clients not to act out. They can act out, but every time they do act out, it’s an opportunity to learn something about themselves.

Given that Mr. Hoffman mentions my movement away from NARTH’s emphasis on reorientation, it would have reasonable and responsible for him to mention that NARTH holds to a view of client self-determination that is arguably more permissive than my own. For instance, in the SITF, if a client seeks celibacy or monogamy, we advocate working with clients to avoid contexts which could elicit undesired behavior.

Mr. Hoffman is correct that I changed my mind about an interview with him, but failed to completely describe the circumstances, saying

After agreeing to an email interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Throckmorton refused to answer the questions submitted, claiming they were “slanted.” The questions sent to Dr. Throckmorton, are available at this link.

In fact, I declined his original request. After thinking it over, I asked to see the questions he wanted to ask. I did not agree to an interview although he may have thought that I did since I asked to see the questions. Once I read the questions, which he posted, I decided there was little chance for a fair representation of my views. For instance, I asked Mr. Hoffman how he formed this question (#3 in his list):

3. In a recent article you defended the thesis that sexual orientation is biologically determined in the womb, by hormonal deficiencies. Do you now believe that homosexual orientation is immutable?

I wrote to ask where I “defended the thesis that sexual orientation is biologically determined in the womb, by hormonal deficiencies.” He then wrote back citing this article in Uganda’s The Independent and quoted this section:

However, we do not know this to be the case. Most researchers around the world agree that there is no consensus about the causes of any given person’s sexual orientation. While it seems unlikely that there is one biological or genetic cause for all homosexuals, there are data which suggest that genetic and hormonal factors during pre-natal development have some impact on our desires, in different ways for different people.

In the email, Mr. Hoffman explained:

Perhaps I overstated your position slightly. You are suggesting

apparently that hormonal and genetic factors in the womb contribute to the phenomenon. Please consider my question amended to that effect.

I believe he did more than slightly overstate my position. His original question slanted my plainly stated views. That was enough for me to stick with my decision not to do an interview.

Currently, LSN is lamenting exclusion from a mainstream Catholic news source, Zenit. I know nothing of the specific issues but it relates to criticisms of LSN’s reporting. I can say after this experience, that I will not accept what I read there at face value. Perhaps in the zeal to promote a certain point of view, LSN’s reporting is skewed in a manner which concerns more mainstream outlets. Here are some tips. If you are going to advance a thesis, call it an op-ed, don’t present it as news. If you make a generalization about a trend or a group, interview more than one person from the group you are characterizing. If you want to have sources trust you, then do not slant or misrepresent their views. Follow up on aspects of a story that may lead you away from your preconceived ideas – avoid confirmation bias.