I’m staight, and you ain’t gonna change that. That said, my first career was as a hair stylist in Orange County, CA. Most of my male acquaintances were gay and as a teenager I had to decide if gay people were a threat to me. After deciding that square pegs don’t fit in round holes, euphimism intended, I went on with my life. That their saviour, Jesus Christ, never addressed Homosexuality in his teachings baffles me as to why this is such an issue. I am not a christian but I do have a bible. In it it tells me that I am allowed to kill my wife if I want to. Why are christians not screaming from the rafters that this is allowed by God? They pick and choose the most inane subjects. My guess is that there are an inordinant amount of closeted gay men in the Fundamentalist heirchy that are terrified of their own sexuality. How else to explain their fascination with such a benign and banal subject?

Actually, their saviour, Jesus Christ, addressed Homosexuality indirectly in several of his teachings. His twelve Deciples slept together the night at Gethsemane, in fact Jesus had to awaken them three times (Mark 14:37 - 41). And one of the young men that was with them in the Garden of Gethsemane was caught by the temple guards, but they were only able to get hold of his linen cloth and he fled from them naked (Mark 14:51 - 52). Remember the night was COLD (Peter sat with the servants and warmed himself by the fire in Mark 14:54). Jesus was unmarried at age 33 - most heterosexual men were married by 18 to 21. I believe JetBlack found the key: they are terrified of their own sexuality. 

I believe JetBlack found the key: they are terrified of their own sexuality.

I think that is exactly it. In psychological jargon, the phenomenon is known as “reaction formation.”

Sexy Sadie: Again, since my personal opinion of these programs is that they are abominable and extremely harmful for teens, I would say that the authorities are overdue in investigating them.

Despite those on the left who like to prattle on about “Christian Theocracy”, I would like to submit the following two facts:

1. The majority Christian population in the U.S. has been astoundingly tolerant of non-Christians over the past 300 years.  They have even gone so far as to tolerate abominations like Roe v. Wade, and attempt to end the American Holocaust using peaceful means, for the most part.

2. When we do see someone wanting to use government power to coerce someone else to their point of view, it is almost always someone on the left trying to snuff out any hint of morality.

Put a Christmas tree up in a public park, and people on the left will be up in arms about “Separation of Church and State”.

But heaven forbid you are honest with your child and tell them that homosexuality is a quick way out which only leads to disease, depression, achoholism, drug addiction, and death.  In that case, people like Sadie here will demand that the government step in and preach the left’s religion of “There’s no right and wrong, it’s all OK!”

The report said some Christian-based gay prevention and treatment groups have used the First Amendment protection of religion to avoid sanctions by state health officials seeking to enforce regulations on counselors who offer therapy without a license.

Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman said officials need to ensure that those offering such therapies are licensed

And, here we have the Orwellian end-game for those who think that government should tell you what to eat, wear, and think.  The Gay and Lesbian Task Force insists that only people with a government license should be able to tell you what’s right and what’s wrong.

Well, you believe in an absolute right and wrong, Daryl. I don’t, so to me, I really don’t care if someone who doesn’t see the world the way I do tries to tell me I’m wrong. I don’t consider Roe v Wade an abomination, because I don’t believe that stuff. Homosexuality is not a quick way out - studies have shown that sexual preference is defined at a very early age (although what influences may change that later in life has been batted back and forth to ill effect). Simply because you rely on God’s notion of right and wrong doesn’t mean the rest of us do. You talk about the tolerance Christians have for non-Christians - you mean like Christians aren’t killing people left and right and we should congratulate them? Certainly, you are not embodying that tolerance.

But it is a difficult problem, I agree. Just because you’re religious doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have a say in what goes on, but all too often, and you have to admit this, religions also try to put forward legislation that empowers the religion. The situation is a conflict between trying to catch people who are working to advance their religion, versus people who are expressing themselves in the democratic process.

That said, if they’re claiming theraputic cures for homosexuality, then they better be therapists to practice. Period. If they’ve got stuff that works, I can’t see a reason why we would’t keep it open. There are people who are uncomfortable being gay. I know of them. It’s up to them what they want to do, and should this proposed therapy work, then they should be free to take it - free of religious incentives.

Simply because you rely on God’s notion of right and wrong doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

This is it in a nutshell. Something tells me that this simple fact is beyond poor Daryl’s willfully limited comprehension, however. I choose to not take seriously anything people like him have to say for that very reason.

arc_legion: That said, if they’re claiming theraputic cures for homosexuality, then they better be therapists to practice. Period. If they’ve got stuff that works, I can’t see a reason why we would’t keep it open.

The whole idea of having to be “licensed” by the state to give people advice about how to live their life is outrageous.

Suppose my friend calls me, and he’s having marital trouble?  I guess I should tell him, “Sorry, the government forbids me from offering you advice.  Please see a licensed, secular ‘expert’ and they’ll tell you what to do.”

How is it precisely that “we” (the government) get to decide who gets to “keep it open”?  Perhaps I need a license to read to my kids out of the Bible?  There’s plenty of excellent therapy in there.

Which gets back to my point: As much as liberals like to whine about “The Theocracy taking over”, they’re the ones who are eager to use government to control what people can and can’t think.  Conservatives are the ones who want to keep government small and unintrusive.

JetBlack: My guess is that there are an inordinant amount of closeted gay men in the Fundamentalist heirchy

leguru: JetBlack found the key: they are terrified of their own sexuality.

Sexy Sadie: I think that is exactly it. In psychological jargon, the phenomenon is known as “reaction formation.�?

This sort of Ad Hominem attack is the liberal version of what a 12 year old boy says during recess to make fun of someone: “Dude, you’re gay!”

I imagine if a 12 year old said that within earshot, you’d be outraged and maybe give them a stern lecture about “tolerance”.  But it’s ok when you do it, right?

Daryl, therapy is very different from advice, and, as Sexy Sadie suggested in the article, the question arises: to what extent is an advisor accountable to the advised.

Stating that you can make a person “not gay”, and openly offering help, to me, shows that you expect people who have not been able to overcome this on their own to come to you for your help. As a result, are they not in a position of trust? In that case, the people prescribing this treatment are bound to the same ethical (and legal) consequences if their “treatment” turns out to be dangerous.

And, regardless of whether or not you like the secular point of view, it’s the most consistent measure of how harmful said treatment might be, which means the treatment will have to run in secular standards. Not doing so would unnecessarily put the person’s well-being at risk. IF such a treatment is going to be prescribed to people who want it, it must work, it must work well, it must minimize negative effects to the person being treated, and it must be administered by someone trained in the ways of that treatment.

I’m a firm believer that when a person comes to you in a state of trust, and you offer to help them, you are responsible for their well being. So, likewise, I wouldn’t want just any Joe Blow saying he knows what’s best for me. That’s why I’d hold this “treatment” to secular standards.

Which gets back to my point: As much as liberals like to whine about “The Theocracy taking over�?, they’re the ones who are eager to use government to control what people can and can’t think.  Conservatives are the ones who want to keep government small and unintrusive.

Why don’t you look around. Who is in control of this country? Conservative Christians. Who is in the White House? Conservative Christians. These people have proven time and time again that they have every intent on shredding the line between church and state. As Thom Heartman once said, “The first amendment protects religion and everyone else from religion.”

Did the government ever have a spying on US citizens scandal when Clinton or Carter were in the White House? Has ever a liberal in the White House in the past century attempted to bring in laws to limit our freedoms and expand the government like the Patriot Act does? No.

Put a Christmas tree up in a public park, and people on the left will be up in arms about “Separation of Church and State�?.

Has this ever happened to you? If it hasn’t and the only time you have ever heard of it happening was on Bill O’Reilly then shut up.

But heaven forbid you are honest with your child and tell them that homosexuality is a quick way out which only leads to disease, depression, achoholism, drug addiction, and death.

Homosexuality is a quick way out? Last I checked people are forced to stay in the closet and when they come out have to deal with the ridicule of people like yourself. Quick way out? I don’t think so. And your stereotype of gays having disease, depression, achoholism and drug addiction is quite untrue. You do know that those same things can happen if you sleep with the wrong women as well. That wasn’t a very nice thing to say though. How would you like it if I said, “Being a Christian Conservative leads to hate, willful ignorance, stupidity, sodomy with little boys, an overwillingness to misquote scripture for your own personal gain, social darwinism, and an inability to notice all of the above.”

I do believe Jesus said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Therefore, by being judgmental of others when you yourself are not without sin is a sin in itself and threfore wrong.

Don’t you dare ever judge someone for something that is their own personal business ever again. If you do, you shall rot in the pits of hell when you meet your eternal judgment. Jesus, the great liberal, is watching you.

Christian population in the U.S. has been astoundingly tolerant of non-Christians over the past 300 years.

Are you implying that means it’s about time for a dose of intolerance then? I thought christianity was ‘supposed’ to be all about tolerance and love, even for people who you believe to be ‘sinners’.

hey have even gone so far as to tolerate abominations like Roe v. Wade, and attempt to end the American Holocaust using peaceful means, for the most part.

I am not American so am not overly familiar with roe v wade, I can tell you however that I personally disagree with abortion. That means that I personally would never have one, or encourage someone else to. I realise that’s a personal choice for them, and I am sure few go ahead with such a drastic measure without serious thought and soul searching.

I am far more concerned with pollution, wars, famines, and the corporate consumer society lifestyle, than I am about abortion. It’s a bit like the recreational drugs thing with me, if people are going to do it then they will. Much better that they do so in a clinic where it’s at least sterile, than in a backroom somewhere with a coathanger.

When we do see someone wanting to use government power to coerce someone else to their point of view, it is almost always someone on the left trying to snuff out any hint of morality.

Well seeing as you give no examples it’s hard to answer this without making assumptions. So here goes I will assume you refer to cases where people use the goverment power to veto legislations that attempt to enforce christian morality on others? One thing to remember where morality is concerned, permitting other people to choose their own morals, or lack of them isn’t going to ‘snuff out’ anyone elses right to uphold their own morality.

Sadie here will demand that the government step in and preach the left’s religion of “There’s no right and wrong, it’s all OK!�?

I seriously doubt that! I think you are confusing people who accept other peoples right to choose their own moral standards with a lack of morals on their part. Right and wrong are generally relative, what’s right for you most likely won’t be right for someone who does not share your beliefs or moral standards, so that may make them ‘wrong’ in your eyes, but it does not make them ‘wrong’ in a universal sense.

Daryl and his whining remind me of The Beatles’ song “Nowhere Man.”

He’s a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his Nowhere Land…

Apologies to John Lennon and Paul McCartney for associating your great song with a clueless, judgmental prick.

Errandchild, to Daryl: And your stereotype of gays having disease, depression, achoholism and drug addiction is quite untrue.

All the gay men I know--twelve in all--are extremely happy people who get the most they can out of their lives. Doesn’t do much for Daryl’s little stereotype, huh?

By the way, Daryl, you strike me as a very angry person. Homosexuality clearly seems to strike a nerve somewhere deep within you. I don’t know you at all (not that I’m complaining about that), but I must say I’m a mite curious as to why this may be. Are you upset that diversity exists in the real world, or does something else about it bother you? Since you are so quick to judge others and project your own deluded notions onto them, let me say that I myself have my own suspicions about why you appear to have such a large stick up your ass regarding the concept of homosexuality.

To be fair to commenters here, and especially to Daryl, I stand by my post. With all respect, unless you can present otherwise, we are not experts, and this is a bad place to be making armchair assessments about Daryl’s character. I have my own suspicions about the kind of person Daryl is, but I don’t think that this is the appropriate circumstance to be making such judgements.

I would like to point out a few things pertaining to Christians though. Those who believe in the Bible hold that God, and only God, is the basis of moral law. It should be no surprise that anyone who believes that will hold objection to other views on morality. Yet that same book advocates non-judgement, and turning the other cheek X times if you should be slapped so often. What bothers me is not Daryl’s character, but the the inconsistency characteristic of a large number of Christians, of which Daryl seems to be a part.

arc_legion: Daryl, therapy is very different from advice

Is it?  By all means, spell out how the two are different.  Since they’re “very different”, I’m sure you can provide a simple test which will clearly delineate the difference.

arc_legion: as Sexy Sadie suggested in the article, the question arises: to what extent is an advisor accountable to the advised?

No, the question which arises is: to what extent does the adviser need permission from the government before they can offer advice?

Most Catholics who are having trouble in their mariage don’t go to see a secular counselor, they go to see a Catholic priest.  That’s not surprising because to Catholics, marriage is a religious institution.  There are three parties involved in a Catholic marriage “contract”: a man, a woman, and Almighty God.

To a secular counselor, marriage is a legal and financial framework and perhaps a way to say “I think you’re really groovy.” Expecting somone like that to fix a marriage between Christians is like expecting a motorcycle mechanic to fix a helicopter.  Let the ahteists go to secular counselors, if that’s what they want.

Should the government “screen” Catholic priests, and decide which ones can give marital advice to the couples in their parish?  Or is it possible that grown-up Catholics maybe just decide for themselves who they want giving them advice about marriage / gambling problem / drinking problem / wahtever else without a government ok?

arc_legion: So, likewise, I wouldn’t want just any Joe Blow saying he knows what’s best for me. That’s why I’d hold this “treatment�? to secular standards.

*ponder* What are you, some sort of automaton who does whatever Joe Blow tells you, as long as he has a piece of paper from the government?

I stand by my original assertion: The only people trying to impose their worldview on others using government coercion are those on the left.  “Unlicensed therapists” is just code for “They are telling people that it’s wrong to be gay!  Make them stop saying that!!”

Thank you, arc_legion.  Now I’d like to review the pre-adolescent side of this thread:

JetBlack: Falwell is gay.  He is totally gay.

leguru: Yeah, Falwell is gay!  Falwell is gay!

Sexy Sadie: Haha!  Everyone, Falwell is a fag!

Daryl: You know guys, calling someone names to discredit him is what we adults call an “Ad Hominem Attack”.  It means you’re attacking the person, instead of refuting his arguments.  It’s very childish.

Sexy Sadie: Daryl is gay!  Haha everyone, it’s Daryl who’s gay!

Daryl: Oh-kaaayyy.  I think we’re done here.  Please return to your classrooms and make something out of construction paper.

With all respect, unless you can present otherwise, we are not experts, and this is a bad place to be making armchair assessments about Daryl’s character. I have my own suspicions about the kind of person Daryl is, but I don’t think that this is the appropriate circumstance to be making such judgements.

I’m sorry, Arc, but in my opinion Daryl Cantroll has long forfeited the right to be addressed in a respectful, adult-like manner. Nearly all of his posts contain extremely inflammatory rhetoric without an ounce of valid corroborating evidence. In fact, just about the only “verification” he relies on seems to be his own prejudices. Also, it appears to me that, regardless of the topic at hand, nearly all of his posts devolve into ad hominem rants against liberalism in general.

Little more than a troll, in my eyes. And my suspicion (see my above comment regarding reaction formation) only gets stronger with each successive comment he makes, by the way.

Cantroll

Most Catholics who are having trouble in their mariage don’t go to see a secular counselor, they go to see a Catholic priest.

Well that’s their choice, though I wonder what happens when there are serious issues in a marriage such as mental illness or alcoholism, does the priest then refer them to specialist treatment, or does he muddle along despite his lack of expertise?

To a secular counselor, marriage is a legal and financial framework and perhaps a way to say “I think you’re really groovy.�?

Ah yes of course secular marriages don’t have emotional content as they don’t have any christian love(tm), so therefore qualified secular counsellors ignore the emotional side completely when dealing with marital issues despite it being a large part of their coursework when training to be a counsellor. Hmm or maybe you are just painting a biased image of secular counselling to suit your agenda Daryl?

Expecting somone like that to fix a marriage between Christians is like expecting a motorcycle mechanic to fix a helicopter.

Ok you want to play the ‘having fun with illustrations game’? Good I love this game myself, firstly your above illustration makes the assumption that a christian union is vastly removed and dissimilar from a secular one, and shares nothing but the most basic mechanical principles.

I think a more fitting illustration would be to say, if a secular marriage is like a motorcycle, then a christian marriage is like a motorcycle with a side-car. Then again that wouldn’t fit with the point you were trying to make now would it?

Also to turn things around I would add the following illustration, that to go to a priest for marriage counselling would be like taking your motorcycle to the guy that runs the car wash when it breaks down. Not to say the guy who runs the car wash knows nothing about motorcycles of course, but his area of expertise is in cleaning them and not fixing them up.

@Sadie: Don’t let him get under your skin, at the end of the day neither side can ‘win’ an argument, because both sides are ‘right’ in their own context. I doubt Daryl is ever going to concede a point to any of us, and it’s rather unlikely he will ever make a point any of us will consider either. So it’s at best an opportunity to hone our debating skills, and at worst a fruitless exercise.

As much as I despise the term “whining liberal,” (I prefer “bitching conscientious objector") I think Daryl does bring up a valid question, which was posed by the other side on the other thread. Pretty much: Where’s the line?

Arc-Legion said:

Stating that you can make a person “not gay”, and openly offering help, to me, shows that you expect people who have not been able to overcome this on their own to come to you for your help. As a result, are they not in a position of trust? In that case, the people prescribing this treatment are bound to the same ethical (and legal) consequences if their “treatment” turns out to be dangerous.

But Daryl:

...to what extent does the adviser need permission from the government before they can offer advice?

I say, when that adviser touts themselves a “therapist.” When that adviser offers psychological “treatment.” While I see Daryl’s point, and think it would be unrealistic to try to regulate all religious advisers, I also find good reason a person cannot open a “doctor’s office” without a medical license.

And, just to straighten this out, Daryl:

...As much as liberals like to whine about “The Theocracy taking over”, they’re the ones who are eager to use government to control what people can and can’t think.

Controlling what people can and cannot think is strictly the business of the Church/the right. Both sides are in the business of controlling what people can and cannot do.

P.S. Is anyone else not receiving follow-up comments? My notify box is checked!

According to Daryl:

1. The majority Christian population in the U.S. has been astoundingly tolerant of non-Christians over the past 300 years.  They have even gone so far as to tolerate abominations like Roe v. Wade, and attempt to end the American Holocaust using peaceful means, for the most part.
2. When we do see someone wanting to use government power to coerce someone else to their point of view, it is almost always someone on the left trying to snuff out any hint of morality.

Daryl, do you see how these comments contradict each other? Roe v. Wade gives a woman the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. That’s it. It makes no claims over whether doing so is a good idea, or even moral. It is merely legal. You claim that this is an example of the left using governmental power to coerce everyone to their point of view. Where is the logic behind this claim?  Under current law, no one is forced to do anything. Your comments about abortion law would only make sense if we were forcing people to have abortions against their will. If things went your way and Roe v. Wade was overturned, everyone would be forced to kowtow to your point of view, and not have an abortion. So what you are complaining about isn’t an example of the left using governmental coersion, it’s an example of the conservative right NOT being allowed to use coersion.

Conservative Christians constantly complain about how, even though they are the majority in this country, nothing ever seems to go their way. Maybe this is because conservative Christians like yourself, Daryl, AREN’T actually the majority in this country. At best, you’re a plurality. The upshot of this is that you’re going to tend to lose when you make arguments based upon nothing more than Biblical “reasoning”. Purely Christian arguments are not likely to persuade people who aren’t Christian. Logical arguments, on the other hand, are likely to persuade most people who aren’t Christian, plus a good number of people who do define themselves as Christian. Of course there are many issues where logical reasoning and Christian reasoning reach the same conclusions (enough so that some people are convinced the two are one and the same). And of course the demographics are such that every so often a purely “Christian” law or an illogical “leftist” law is going to squeeze by (or a purely nationalistic law, etc.). But for the most part, I think you’ll find that an ever-increasing number of people can smell the bullshit when you can’t find a good reason to legislate a particular way without referencing the Bible or old Christian prejudices.

Now, as for your comments on advice and therapy: Can you really not see the difference between your friend calling you to ask for advice, and your friend going to a therapist for that advice? Presumably, when your friend asks you for advice, it is with the understanding that you don’t give that advice out professionally. Though you might be known for giving great advice, your friend will probably still be aware of the possibility that you might not know what you’re talking about. If your friend went to a therapist, however, he would probably expect that he would be talking to someone who had had extensive training in resolving the types of issues that he needed help with. Hopefully your friend would still retain a healthy degree of skepticism, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable of him to assume that the therapist was qualified to give him counsel, and had a strong record of successfully doing so in the past. In short, a professional therapist has a much higher degree of responsibility towards their client than someone giving non-professional advice would. Thus, anyone is qualified to give advice; not just anyone is qualified to give therapy. You seem to think this shouldn’t be a legal issue. Let me ask you a question: if I were to proclaim myself a surgeon and offer to operate on anyone for 1/5 of the hospital price, would it be wrong for the law to stop me?

No one is saying that you need a license from the state to give marital advice to a friend, any more then you would need a license to tell that friend your best home remedy for a cold. However, it doesn’t seem unfair to expect that when people make a profession out of helping people make decisions that frequently involve life and death, there should be some sort of oversight.

The funny thing is, it appears you agree with me:

Most Catholics who are having trouble in their mariage don’t go to see a secular counselor, they go to see a Catholic priest.  That’s not surprising because to Catholics, marriage is a religious institution. 

So when Catholics need advice about what they perceive as a religious issue, the only person they trust is a priest, someone who they know has extensive training in interpreting religious issues? And here I thought just anyone could give good advice. *ponder* What are they, automatons who do whatever Joe Blow tells them, as long as he has a piece of paper from the Church?

Daryl Did you read my last post? I believe I covered this already:

The only people trying to impose their world view on others using government coercion are those on the left.  “Unlicenced therapists” is just code for “They are telling people that it’s wrong to be gay!  Make them stop saying that!!”

Who is in control of our government right now? Who has penned and passed the Patriot Act? Who has lied this country into war for the simple purpose of playing soldier and gaining oil? Conservative Christians. So shut the hell up over your misguided view that liberals are ruining this country. The Patriot Act gives the government more power. I thought that conservatives didn’t like that. I guess you have been caught in a lie.

Unlicenced therapists have every right to preach what they will, even if it is hateful. However, they shouldn’t be surprised when someone slaps them with a lawsuit. The same goes for both sides.

You do know that changing what people say in order to make it seem immature and you mature is immature in it’s nature. Kind of like changing what the bible says in order to agree with your opinion.

P.S. I am receiving follow ups.

Sadie, while inflammatory rhetoric is something Daryl’s known for, judgements about personal character isn’t. That’s not to say that you should stop or anything of the like - I’m not going to stop you in the least if that’s what you want to do. I’m all about you saying whatever you want, but I don’t see a sequences of character judgements that are half-developed as doing anything productive.

Daryl, a simple advisory is the presentation of information, done with the contention that the person will make a free decision based on the information presented. In that, a person is deemed competent to do what is necessary to take power in the situation.

When it comes to therapy, therapy is the altering of the person, intentionally and specifically. Definition-wise, it’s to treat illness, although I can concieve of many situations in which therapy might be used to enhance a person’s well-being, rather than averting illness. Take a look at gene therapy, for instance. I wouldn’t classify being homosexual as an illness, either. In a sense, therapy is also a presentation of information, but one which aims specifically to change the person, and, by extension, one that holds the person incapable of inflicting that change on themselves. You wouldn’t be offering therapy if nobody needed your help to change X.

to what extent does the adviser need permission from the government before they can offer advice?

That’s hard to say, although the legal form of this, as mentioned before, is through fiduciary. It already holds true for medical and legal professionals. I don’t tend to require it for advisors in general, since, as long as you don’t intend to hold them accountable for what happens, it’s not necessary. I hold that kind of judgement right up to and including psychologists - I’m smart enough to realize whether or not someone’s advice is sound or even practical, and so in general I don’t rely on fiduciary. I can take care of myself. But when it comes to legal matters, or performing medical procedures, I’m typically not learned enough to do that myself. As a result, I have to put my welfare in the hands of someone else, and so I want them to be accountable. That said, I can’t hold them accountable without a legal basis to do so (unless I’ve got some serious dirt on them and whatnot; but I’m no criminal overlord… *taps his fingers together* ...yet...).

This is not to say that I think the doctors or lawyers who work for me are idiots; but having fiduciary there will help keep them from abusing that position of trust and causing harm to others, through idiocy or malicious intent. I’m not outright to say that the therapy being described won’t work - but I am there to say that where I have to depend on it for my welfare (and moreso if I have to pay for it) it had better follow through proper. When it comes to friends, I’m in a different sort of trust because I already know they’re good on their word. I can’t say the same for a stranger offering treatment.

*ponder* What are you, some sort of automaton who does whatever Joe Blow tells you, as long as he has a piece of paper from the government?

As to what do I think I am - man, I could get into some serious metaphors and whatnot, but I’m too tired for that kind of discussion. I’m a really intelligent guy who knows when he’s getting in over his head. And, when I know I have to get in over my head, I create conditions that can cover my ass to reduce my losses. I recognize that science is generally dependable, and, if I had my way, I’d keep such systems open to everyone. That goes back to what I said before though - I’d want a guarantee that the treatment was going to follow through, and I think a fiduciary would support that, along with running it through the bells and whistles of a secular system for testing.

The only people trying to impose their worldview on others using government coercion are those on the left.

I’m calling bullshit on that (I really don’t know how you can claim that religious groups haven’t been making manifold attempts and seizing power within government), but I support it either way. I’d rather we be trying to use the governnment for our agendas (left or right) than to let the government get too powerful and forget us in lieu of pursuing it’s own agenda.

You’d think that after the third or fourth time someone posted exactly what I wanted to say while I was still typing, I’d learn to keep my posts a little shorter. Well, said, Justice.

As an aside, I wonder how christians would view it if athiests set up a counselling program for vulnerable teens, to help prevent them from turning to christianity? I strongly suspect the song would change if the boot was on the other foot, who knows eh?

“discrimination against Christianity” “Liberal conspiracy” “secularists pushing their own religious agenda in government”.

Serai, I’m pretty sure if the boot was on the other foot, the reaction by the far right would be the same. They aren’t in the business of reason, but emotion-enticing rhetoric.

I’ve not had much to add to this conversation, but I do want to point out to my old friend Daryl that I actually laughed at this comment from him…

Perhaps I need a license to read to my kids out of the Bible?  There’s plenty of excellent therapy in there.

As well as this one…

The only people trying to impose their world view on others using government coercion are those on the left.

I consider Daryl to be one of the smartest people I know, smarter than me to be certain, so it’s always somewhat shocking to hear him say such unintelligent things. It’s also disheartening to see someone I respect corrupted by a silly belief system into espousing such backwards views. I’m left to wonder how we got along for so many years with such diametrically opposed outlooks on life.

Serai writes…

As an aside, I wonder how christians would view it if athiests set up a counselling program for vulnerable teens, to help prevent them from turning to christianity?

Honestly I’d love to see someone set up just such a program and I’d even contribute to it’s funding to whatever degree I could manage. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

The only people trying to impose their world view on others using government coercion are those on the left.

I consider Daryl to be one of the smartest people I know, smarter than me to be certain, so it’s always somewhat shocking to hear him say such unintelligent things.

You be the judge then, Les.

Here we have an example of atheist, pro-homosexual activists openly demanding that the government silence the voice of religion, and only allow “licensed” therapists to peddle their “it’s-ok-to-be-gay” party line.

Can anyone point to a mainline Christian organization using government coercion to shut down secular therapists who don’t have church approval?