I can’t ‘celebrate’ but it doesn’t mean I hate you

FRIDAY, 17 JULY 2015

I can’t ‘celebrate’ but it doesn’t mean I hate you

BY STEVE C. CRAIG

 3 |  |       

From left to right, the car’s bumper stickers read: “Hatred is Not a Family Value,” “Celebrate Diversity” (in rainbow colors), and “Obama-Biden.”
Collectively, these refreshed my growing fear that I should soon “celebrate” certain lifestyle choices or suffer the consequences. There was once another option, but memory of it is fading rapidly like an image in my rear view mirror.
Both the imperative tone and intolerance of the bumper messages are troubling; as is the shallow and muddled thinking behind them. A polite “no thank you” is now an unacceptable response to the colorful and demanding “celebrate”. It is time we rediscovered the validity of conscientious objection.
Conscientious objection is objection to an act, not a person. Equating conscientious objection with bigotry is unkind and a particularly egregious kind of ignorance. And restricting and penalizing the exercise of religiously-informed civil rights is simply wrong -- though in modern parlance it is “evolved” behavior.
Two examples might help.
First, most would agree that a manufacturer of forceps has the right not to sell her product to an abortion clinic, due to a conscientious objection to dismemberment.
Forceps play a direct and key role in late-term abortion, an act many Americans consider immoral. This act is the basis of the forceps maker’s objection; not the sex, race or sexual orientation of the clinic’s staffers, customers or victims. The objection concerns the act, and the same is true for any vendor or employer who would refuse to enable an abortion.
Returning to “celebrate”, consider cakes or photographs at gay weddings. Gay weddings are also acts, not people. The difference is real, although in some circles conflating acts and people produces the ugly charge of bigot against those who would avoid celebrating.
Like forceps, these cakes and photos play a material role in an act many find immoral. Their materiality is confirmed by the importance assigned them by both sides of a very intense debate, one that recently played out in Indiana over a religious freedom law.
However, even though religiously-informed bakers and photographers object to material cooperation in gay weddings, their doors are open to homosexuals for the purchase of regular cakes and every day photographs. This is important. It tells us that participation in the act of gay marriage is found unconscionable, but not the customers themselves.
Bigotry, on the other hand, is comprehensive, more proactive, much more personal and far less nuanced – lynching being an extreme, but crystallizing example.
Yet it is the unjust charge of bigotry that is masking the broad daylight theft of the right to conscientious objection. Many are confused and this confusion results directly from a media-induced failure to think, loud and hysterical demagoguery, and an aggressive and unprincipled quest by some to have their sexual choices celebrated and publicly validated, though this is not a right.
Out of guilt and fear citizens have succumbed to a widely promoted fiction that wedding cakes and photos are a homosexual civil rights issue; that this is Selma all over again; and that discrimination against homosexual persons across numerous goods and services is a big problem, leading to disenfranchisement, segregation, exploitation and violence. It is not, and to assert that it is makes light of Selma.
Homosexuals have equal access to goods and services, cakes and photos, in all but one scenario: an act in which some religious people would prefer not to participate. If Selma’s biggest problem were that a few Black residents could get cake all of the time from most bakers but only 95 percent of the time from the rest, Selma’s movies would have been much better attended than Selma’s marches.
The conscientious objection of the forceps manufacturer to their use in abortions is not a civil rights issue for women as such, because that manufacturer provides equipment for women for all other purposes, and because other manufacturers, who do not have the same objection, can supply what is need to protect the right to abortion.
In a similar way, the conscientious objections of the baker and photographer concerning gay weddings are not civil rights issues for homosexuals, because those vendors sell to homosexuals the rest of the time, and because other businesses can meet the demand.
The one, very predictable exception in either case concerns an objection to a particular action, not to person. We should all be intelligent, stable and mature enough to understand this.
These questions have nothing to do with sexism or bigotry and should be resolved consistently in favor of the right to conscientious objection. Everyone should have the right not to be forced into material cooperation with an act they find immoral.
For the law or public policy to say otherwise represents an invasion of government into personal conscience. Our longstanding system of pluralism embraces a diversity of views, whereas forced affirmation requires unanimity through the power of the police state.
Clearly, the better answer is a live-and-let-live, bi-lateral, peace-be-with-you agreement. For the same reason that Christians don’t force gay bakers and photographers to work on their weddings, homosexuals shouldn’t force Christian bakers and photographers to work on theirs.
But live-and-let-live is what the “celebrate” movement won’t tolerate. Now that rights have been recast as the ability to force others to validate, to do things -- sell products, render services and provide benefits -- force is being applied in a new way. It is now trained on the elimination of dissent.
The recent attack on an Indiana pizzeria, a $135,000 fine imposed on an Oregon baker, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s comment about Christian school tax exemptions being at risk, prove the crusade is growing more predatory. “Celebrate” is now a menacing and direct order. The validation movement’s use of force is an aphrodisiac driving new conquests.
This is a problem. As the right to judge, live and work according to one’s conscience is checked by the newly manufactured right to validation, Americans will find it increasingly difficult to live according to standards that differ from those held by a minority of influential citizens seeking celebration of or validation for one thing or another.
And although ours and every generation fancies itself modern, evolved and unprecedented, we have seen this before. Henry VIII forced consciences to validate his sexual choices, and state tyranny resulted. The preamble of his Suppression of Religious Houses Act is eye opening. Many who were religious were deprived of their property, liberty and lives. Henry proved that forced validation is a bad path and no business of the state.
History‘s arc is looping and those in charge are again targeting religion in the name of sex. Last time the enforcer was Cromwell as Vicegerent. This time it will likely be Verrilli as Solicitor General or Koskinen as IRS Commissioner.
A chasm again exists between those who believe that chastity is virtuous and those who reject the concepts of both chastity and virtue. In twenty first century America these two groups should be able to live freely, each guided by their very different beliefs. But just as in 1535, the latter group is increasingly intolerant of the former’s view of vice, and wrongly seeks to police its thought and constrain its religious civil rights. Then, Henry labeled priests and nuns “vicious, unthrifty and abominable”. Now, sexual validation crusaders label Christians sexist and bigoted.
As before, these are lies. The premise of bigotry on which the attempt to constrain conscientious objection rests is a smokescreen. Christians see a homosexual person’s dignity as rooted in something great and common -- that we are all children of God -- whereas those insisting on the validation of sexual choices are fixated on a mere act as the source of a homosexual person’s dignity -- a far lower and less glorious standard.
The realization of a common dignity gratuitously gifted by God is both why there is no Christian pride parade and why Christians can’t condemn others for their parades. It is also why Immanuel Kant’s invention of autonomy and Justice Kennedy’s more recent version of it as the “right to define one’s own… existence… meaning… and mystery” ring so hollow. Ask the truly mysterious ex-NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal about the difficulty of defining your own existence.
The Kant/Kennedy approach is a heavy yoke and an uncertain foundation for living. Defining our own meaning is as improbable as creating ourselves. Plus, it casts us as islands and makes us needy, insecure and irritable when validation isn’t forthcoming or constantly awarded. It leads to frustration from time wasted by inventing troubles, instead of living life.
Christians may not throw stones but they may rightfully ask not to be force marched, as validators, in others’ acts or parades. This is what they are asking – that their diversity be tolerated (actual celebration is not necessary) and rights of conscientious objection respected. It is a courtesy we must extend, in the name of freedom of conscience, intellectual honesty, pluralism, rediscovering actual bigotry, mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence.

Steve C. Craig is a financial analyst who lives in Texas.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/i-cant-celebrate-but-it-doesnt-mean-i-hate-you/16524#sthash.tGqI1KD6.dpuf

Free speech: what banning ‘gay conversion therapy’ will really stop

Free speech: what banning ‘gay conversion therapy’ will really stop

A professional therapist explains his work and what it is not.

Christopher Rosik | Jul 15 2015

 38 |  |       

Not every man or woman who finds himself or herself sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is happy with that attraction. Parents of adolescents who show such tendencies may consider it best for the happiness of their child to seek counseling or other professional help for them. And such help is available.
However, the assumption that homosexual attraction, and, in some cases at least, more established orientation, can change, runs into a wall of opposition from gay rights campaigners and professional bodies. These assert that it is harmful to try and change something they believe is not even a problem, but a naturally occurring phenomenon.
In April this year the White House threw its weight behind this anti-therapy campaign, which had already seen three US states ban sexual orientation change therapy for minors (New Jersey, California and Washington, D.C.). In May the openly lesbian Governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, signed another such law. At the same time Representative Ted W. Lieu introduced a bill into the US Congress that would ban so-called "conversion therapy" throughout the United States.
MercatorNet believes this is a very one-sided culture war. Where is there space given to professional therapists who work in this area to explain what they do and to defend it? Well, right here. We emailed some questions to Dr Christopher Rosik, a practising psychologist and director of research at Link Care Center in Fresno, California, as well as a clinical faculty member of Fresno Pacific University. Here, in the first of three articles, we begin his responses.

* * * * * *

Earlier this year President Obama endorsed a ban on “gay conversion therapy” for minors. What would this mean for the kinds of young people you see in your practice?
In my opinion, this topic is above our President’s pay grade. What the ban in California has meant for me is that I immediately added language to my advanced consent forms, which parents and adolescents read at the outset of therapy, indicating that the law is in effect and therefore I can no longer engage in any intervention that could be construed as promoting change in unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors.
The California law is very nebulous, as I am still allowed to share information, talk about change, or provide support to a minor, but not say anything that could be viewed as promoting change. Given that costly ethics complaints are made by patients, whose perceptions may vary wildly, such distinctions are of little practical value, and I suspect these laws will hinder the provision of any type of professional psychological care to these minors that is not overtly gay-affirmative in nature.
The White House defined “conversion therapy” as “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” – Does this term and its definition describe what you do?
The progressive left has done a superb job of demonizing terms such as “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy” beyond recognition. These terms have been repeatedly and widely associated with abusive aversive techniques that have not been used within the psychological professions for over three decades, and this includes licensed therapists who do such work.
We are further characterized as coercing minors into treatment and telling such patients they must have been sexually abused.
However, my colleagues and I always follow the lead of the client in goal setting because we understand that there is no genuine therapeutic process without client self-determination. Nor do we assume every client has a history of childhood sexual abuse, although there is reason from the literature to believe such abuse can be an important influence on the development of sexual orientation for some people (Beard et al. 2013; Bickham et al. 2007; O’Keefe et al. 2014; Roberts, Glymour, & Koenen, 2013; Wells, McGee, & Beautrais, 2011; Wilson & Widom, 2009).
Such poor practices, were they actually being used by licensed therapists, would surely risk ethical censure or even loss of licensure without the aid of such bans. Yet I am not aware of a single therapist who has had to deal with an ethics complaint on such a basis. Indeed the lack of any ethics complaints against such therapists at the state level suggests that their professional conduct is not the problem but rather their willingness to entertain the possibility of change for some patients.
Recent legislation in Washington State further disclosed ban supporters motives as seeking to suppress the free speech rights of therapists. A bill with bipartisan support to prohibit harmful aversive techniques with minors (e.g., electrical shocks, chemically induced nausea, ice baths) eventually died after ban advocates protested that the bill still allowed for therapist speech in the potential facilitation of change.
In point of fact, there is no one special kind of therapy for such patients. I am not a reparative therapist, but I do see insights from this paradigm as being applicable to some patients. Therapists like me who work in this area typically utilize a number of mainstream interventions that address relevant emotional and cognitive processes as well as certain relational dynamics. While many of these therapists operate from a psychodynamic and developmental perspective, they often incorporate insights from the cognitive, interpersonal, narrative, and psychodrama traditions as well, to name just a few (Hamilton & Henry, 2009).
Often these therapists are not focusing on same-sex attractions at all, but rather on the broader issues of identity and specifically gender identity in an attempt to resolve various factors that may contribute to the patient’s difficulties.
For those patients who prioritize their traditional religious and/or cultural values above acting upon their same-sex attractions, chastity/celibacy, behavioral management, and the modification of same-sex attractions and behaviors are all valid options that should be embraced by their faith communities.
Having said all this, it has to be acknowledged that conservative hyperbole on these issues (e.g., Ben Carson’s recent statements on people choosing to be gay; mean-spirited and scientifically uninformed comments by some leaders of the religious right) also does damage to how this work is seen by the public and makes a reasoned discussion around these issues more difficult.
Are there any questionable practices in this field, in your opinion?
Among licensed therapists working in this area I believe questionable practices are kept to a minimum by accountability to a professional code of ethical conduct, including full informed consent and careful assessment of client motivation. I spearheaded a related effort to provide practice guidelines for clinicians who affirm the right of patients to pursue change of unwanted same-sex attractions and behavior. Therapists doing work in this area should be familiar with this document.
There is much greater variability regarding questionable practices among unregulated and unaccountable religiously oriented counselors and life coaches. It is a great irony that legal bans that prevent licensed therapists from assisting a patient’s free choice to pursue change actually increase the risk of harm by causing some of these individuals to seek out such non-licensed counselors.
Any sort of “therapeutic” nudity, which has apparently been offered by some ministries, is an invitation to (so to speak) get one’s pants sued off.
Less egregious but very important concerns arise when the counselor wanders too far from what current science says (or does not say) about sexual orientation.
Examples of this include the counselor overselling the likelihood and degree of change, not sufficiently exploring the role of outside pressure on the client’s motivation to pursue change, offering reductionistic explanations for homosexuality, overstating the co-occurrence of psychopathology in homosexuality, and ignoring or minimizing the potential impact of stigmatization and discrimination, both as a cause for the symptomology of a client or possibly resulting out of their pursuit of change.
Do many of these patients drop out of therapy or decide to embrace a gay identity after all?
Psychotherapy patients in general do drop out of therapy with some regularity.  In itself, this is not a clear indicator of harm.  Some may drop out because of dissatisfaction, but others may drop out because they are doing better and no longer feel a need to continue in therapy.  Some patients do decide to adopt a gay identity, and that is their right. As a psychologist, I am obligated to honor that decision as well.
Next: In Part 2 of this interview Dr Rosik discusses his work with minors and the position of the leading US professional groups on sexual orientation therapy.
Christopher Rosik is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Oregon and earned his doctorate in clinical psychology from Fuller Graduate School of Psychology.  He is currently a psychologist and director of research at Link Care Center in Fresno, California, as well as a clinical faculty member of Fresno Pacific University. He has published more than 45 articles in peer reviewed journals and has served as President of the Western Region of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies.  He is currently Past-President of the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity.

- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/child-abuse-or-free-speech-what-do-bans-on-gay-conversion-therapy-aim-to-st/16507#sthash.nsJp00Qi.dpuf