QUICK LINKS
Is Hate A Disease?
Some psychiatrists think so and are pushing to include it in some diagnostic criteria sets in future editions of their DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) which is published by the American Psychiatric Association.
The Washington Post ran an article on December 10, 2005 titled, “Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness.”
The title suggests the ominous implications.
The Post said, “Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and some patients are disabled by those beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.”
Bottom line:
Some psychiatrists are pushing for racists and people who suffer from “homophobia” to be labeled mentally ill.
The Post makes the case by telling the story of a man who turned down a job because a co-worker might be gay and would not go certain places because he thought he might run into a gay person.
Think about where this can lead.
It could easily put people who strongly oppose homosexual behavior on the same level as people who suffer irrational fears of gays and declare both people mentally ill.
Remember, the American Psychiatric Association has already said that homosexual behavior is normal, so to strongly oppose it would be irrational and abnormal.
I have personally observed how the Soviet Union, who was officially atheist, sent hundreds of thousands of Christians to mental institutions because they said if you believe there is a God, you are insane. Most oppressive governments use some form of this tool.
If bias becomes a mental illness, it will let criminals off the hook as well. It won’t be their fault. They will be victims of an illness.
Chuck Colson also read this article and concluded, “If the day should come that opposition to homosexual conduct is labeled homophobia and homophobia labeled delusional, then it is a very short step to saying that belief in the Bible, which labels that conduct as sinful, is also a mental disorder.”
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom Network
Click here to add this blog to your email inbox.
EVENT NOTE:
“An Evening with Chuck Colson”
Want a taste of the Good Life? Join Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson and President Mark Earley to understand what the good life is truly about. Enjoy delicious desserts as well as hear Chuck’s reflections on his new book, The Good Life.
Joe Fuiten says, “His books have been very influential in the development of my political philosophy as it relates to the faith. I admire the man greatly and would love for you to have the opportunity to hear him.”
Saturday, January 7th at
Cedar Park Church
16300 112th Ave NE
Bothell, WA 98011
Dessert reception from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the gym
Program from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. in the Sanctuary.
Admission is FREE.
RSVP to 1-877-478-0100.
6 Comments:
I believe Michael Savage has a book out titled "Liberlisem is a Mental Disorder". This may prove he is correct.
I'll bet the APA thinks Cindy Sheehan is AOK though.
One more organization that has been hijacked by the extreme left.
My Father, a prestigiously credentialed psychology professor and researcher dropped out of the APA in 1982 citing it's far left (he used the psychological term "nutcase") ideology.
btw, dad was a lifelong Democrat.
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 5:21 p.m. EST
22 Congressmen Hate Christmas
This year's "War for Christmas" – keeping "Christ" in the holiday has apparently been won. And, like many "wars," there has even been a Congressional resolution in support of keeping Christmas alive and well.
On December 15 the House of Representatives passed a resolution "protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" by an overwhelming 401-22 vote.
Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."
"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas."
Twenty-two Democrats played Scrooge and disagreed.
Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) said Republicans were more concerned with the symbolism rather than the substance of Christmas – referring to Republican passage of a bill to slow the rate of growth in federal entitlement programs.
Story Continues Below
Davis lodged a preemptive response to critics who might question the constitutionality of her resolution.
"Celebrating Christmas is not a violation of separation of church and state," she said. "The Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue."
The text of the resolution read as follows:
Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore be it resolved, that the House of Representatives –
(1) Recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) Strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) Expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.
so do these 22 Congressmen Hate Christmas have homophobia as well because they are trying to ban the use of christmas symbols..Representative JoAnn Davis (R-VA), the resolution's sponsor, said the resolution was necessary to counter "political correctness run amok."
"No one," she said, "should feel like they have done something wrong by wishing someone a Merry Christmas.
What the civil union numbers tell us
January 5, 2006
If you read the press reports, you might conclude that civil unions in Connecticut are a bust.
In its Best of the Year issue, the Advocate (which bills itself as "the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine) offers a timeline of significant events for 2005.
"Oct. 1: Connecticut's civil unions law goes into effect, but few couples take advantage of it." An Associated Press story on Dec. 13, 2005, took a similar negative attitude. The editors at the Hartford Courant gave it the headline: "Civil unions law doesn't lead to a rush on courthouses."
Have gay couples in Connecticut chosen to forgo civil unions altogether? Far from it.
Let's do a little math. According to the AP story, "In the first six weeks that civil unions were legal in Connecticut, 463 gay couples received licenses."
That's an average of 11 licenses a day. In this paper on Dec. 15, one reads that between July 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2004, 1,137 Vermont couples filed for civil unions. That averages out to 0.7 licenses per day. And in The Boston Globe last Sept. 12, we find out that, since May 17, 2004 (the day on which same-sex marriage became available there), some 6,500 gay couples have married in Massachusetts. That's roughly 13.5 marriages a day.
Now factor in population. Vermont's population in 2004 was estimated to be 621,394; Connecticut's, 3,503,604; Massachusetts', 6,416,505. For the sake of convenience, let's say that Connecticut is six times larger than Vermont and Massachusetts 10 times larger. Using Vermont's rate of licenses as a benchmark, in four and a half years we might expect Connecticut to average 4.2 civil union licenses a day and Massachusetts to average seven marriage licenses a day. Right now, Massachusetts is giving away almost twice as many licenses than the Vermont rate suggests, and Connecticut is handing out close to three times more licenses than the current Vermont rate.
It's hard to know precisely what these numbers mean. Are there twice as many gay couples per capita in Massachusetts and three times as many in Connecticut as there are in Vermont? We simply don't know; there are no reliable census figures for gay Americans. Intuitively, one senses that the pace of licensing slackens over time, once pent-up demand is met, so Vermont's rate is probably lowest because we've been at it longer and Connecticut's is highest because it is the newest. It also remains unclear how many of the licenses in Massachusetts and Connecticut have been given to out-of-state couples. (Remember: the Vermont number factors only Vermont couples.)
But look at the Connecticut numbers all by themselves. Even assuming a decrease in the rate of licenses, Connecticut stands to issue thousands of civil union licenses by the end of next year. And if it were to issue 4,000 licenses by spring 2007 — a number not outside the realm of possibility — it would match per capita the rate of same-sex marriages in neighboring Massachusetts. Thus, it is simply untrue to state, as the Advocate does, that "few couples" are entering civil unions or to suggest, as does the AP story, that couples are avoiding civil unions. The numbers tell a different story.
It's not hard, though, to figure out why journalists and gay activists try to downplay events in Connecticut. Having decided that anything short of marriage is inherently discriminatory, they are of two minds as they watch thousands of gay couples perpetuate the alleged discrimination. No one begrudges these couples from seeking the legal benefits offered by the civil union law, but perhaps we would all reach same-sex marriage more quickly if these couples refused to ride on the civil union bus.
But the distinctions between civil union and marriage are crumbling all around us. In that same issue of the Advocate, an interview with former president Jimmy Carter reveals that he supports civil unions for all, gay and straight alike.
Andrew Sullivan, one of America's most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage, has taken to using the M-word when describing Britain's new civil partnership law. Sir Elton John and his partner, David Furnish, took advantage of that law when they had their civil ceremony in the Windsor Guildhall, the same place where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married.
So perhaps the time has come to admit what civil union opponents have said all along. You may recall how some lawmakers who voted against the civil union law in 2000 had rubber ducks on their desks. Their message: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Calling legalized gay relationships "civil unions" doesn't disguise what they really are: marriages.
Yes, civil unions still don't receive federal recognition (neither do Massachusetts same-sex marriages), and portability is uncertain (Connecticut recognizes Vermont civil unions but not Massachusetts same-sex marriages). But let Connecticut serve as an object lesson: Thousands of gay couples care less about what the government calls their relationships and care more about the protections the government extends. That's a story that journalists and activists alike seem to miss.
Post a Comment
<< Home