Rowan Williams to celebrate 'secret' LGBT communion service

The Clergy Consultation has managed to get the Archbishop of Canterbury to celebrate a communion service and give a talk on 'present realities and future possibilities for lesbians and gay men in the Church.' The consultation is a support organisation for male and female, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender clergy, religious, ordinands, seminarians and their partners. As we report, the meeting, so secret that the list of those attending was to be 'shredded once seen by the Archbishop', is on November 29 at St Peter's, Eaton Square where the Bishop of Salisbury's former chaplain, Nick Papadopulos, is the new Vicar. The meeting is being organised by Chris Newlands, chaplain to the Bishop of Chelmsford, and Christina Beardsley. It comes at a particularly sensitive time given that the Archbishop is travelling to the US this week to see what steps TEC bishops are taking in order to come in line with Windsor following the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, pictured.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin, is incidentally the bishop at the centre of the row over the ordination of Richard Woods in George Carey's old church in Dagenham. Briony Martin, one of those down to attend on 29 November, is part of Inclusive Church, which has today publicised a forthcoming 'Celebrating Diversity' event at Manchester Cathedral.

The Archbishop's fundamental liberal sympathies are well-known, thanks to his essay The Body's Grace. Recently it seemed as if he had changed sides for the sake of Church unity. This has been a cause of great distress and anger within the liberal and LGBT community, who had looked to his appointment to bring about the changes in the Church's culture on sexuality that they had longed for. They felt hurt and betrayed. The fact that he's agreed to celebrate the sacrament for leading members of the LGBT community, however, is a good indication of where the Archbishop's true sympathies still lie. It has to be a possibility now that he's given up on trying to prevent schism, and after this week will go back to pastoring the liberal catholic community that is his natural home. The welcome back of the prodigal archbishop might not be all that he hopes however. The LGBT community is furious at the secrecy conditions attached to the whole thing.

Where this leaves the unity of the Church of England remains to be seen. I can't see there being problems on the same scale as the US - a eucharistic celebration is not an ordination after all although both are sacraments. But Peter Akinola will surely now be looking for a priest here to become a CANA bishop for certain English parishes to look to for oversight. And Rowan Williams is seriously destabilised now for the end of the week.

My view is that if it fits with what he believes - and it surely fits with the 'inclusive Gospel' - he should celebrate the eucharist. But it was an error to both do it and then try to keep it secret. I understand he doesn't much like the Internet and prefers more old-fashioned methods of communication. So I guess he'd have no concept of the futility of even beginning to try to keep something like this secret, especially when the very community itself doesn't want it to be a secret. They even have a page on Facebook for goodness sake! Ok it's 'closed', but still. I can see why they're angry. With so many of them just having found the courage to 'come out', why should they give in to an Archbishop seeming to want to shove them back in?

Rev Richard Kirker, of LGCM, said: 'A eucharist, in secret? I don't think it is a good thing in many ways. The conditions of secrecy attacked to attending the consultation are quite at variance with the openness of his meetings with a panoply of anti-gay church leaders. We are astonished at the attempts to make the meeting clandestine when it would be far better to have this in the open. The fact that he wants to go there without anyone knowing he's going there makes it quite clear that he has an attitude towards the event that he doesn't have at any other meetings.' 

Hat-tip to the Church Society's evangelicals.org for this rather extraordinary piece of news. Here is what the Church Society's David Phillips is saying:

'It has come to light that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be leading a service of Holy Communion for a secretive group of what appear to be homosexual clergy.   The secretive nature and circumstances of the meeting suggest that they have something to hide.  Moreover as is well known there are clergy in the Church of England who have refused to give assurances that they are celibate and Bishops who, contrary to their own agreed policy, apparently refuse to ask for such assurances.

'The Archbishop might have defended the meeting with such a group on the grounds that he is engaged in a listening process.  However, by leading the communion service he is clearly doing far more than just listening.

'The meeting is with a group called The Clergy Consultation which says of  itself that it is “a confidential support organisation for male and female lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender clergy, religious, ordinands, seminarians and their partners.”  It has been involved with other homosexual groups in lobbying for the Church to accept homosexual practice.

'For the sake of the Archbishop they have asked their members to keep the meeting secret and not to report what is said at it.  The meeting is scheduled to be held on 29th November at St. Peter’s Church, Eaton Square, London and the Archbishop has apparently asked to know in advance who will be present.

'The recently appointed Co-Convenors are apparently Chris N and Christina B with the other Steering Committee members being given as Bryony M, Paul C, Richard C, Carole G, Charles B, John F, Irene C and Tim N.'

Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said: 'It is understandable that the Archbishop of Canterbury would wish to express support and understanding for people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That is of course highly appropriate and many Christian churches and organisations do that. One assumes that the Archbishop will also meet with Living Waters, Redeemed Lives and Exodus Ministries to demonstrate his support and understanding for them also. However, to do this in the context of  a service of Holy Communion is much more problematic. A Holy Communion service includes confession and absolution of sins and is a very solemn and significant act. Christians are told to examine themselves carefully before identifying so closely with the death of the Lord Jesus for sin and his resurrection to new life. The teaching of the Bible, of the Anglican Communion and of the Church of England is that active same sex behaviour is contrary to the will of God for human behaviour.'

The Rev Jonathan Jennings, in Dr Williams' office, said: 'It should come as no surprise that the Archbishop is meeting pastorally with clergy and others affected by the current debates in the Church. Such encounters extend across the Church and right across the range of opinions found within the Church. Few of these encounters ever reach the public domain. That is exactly as it should be.'

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"What Christians? Not you, Geoff. You are no Christian. Nothing patient, kind, forgiving, loving unconditionally about you".
- Christopher, 2 NOV 2007, 18:39:19

Luke 6:37 It's been a long, long time since you read that, Mr C.

[Christopher]

What Christians? Not you Geoff. You are no Christian. Nothing patient, kind, forgiving, loving unconditionally about you.

[Geoffrey Smith]

What is it with these secular homosexuals that they can't understand that Christians will not be forced, law or no law, to do their bidding? A Christian magistrate in South Yorkshire has been compelled to resign after 18 years service. He asked a tribunal to be allowed to absent himself from a case involving a same-sex adoption, on the grounds of conscience, and they refused his request. Mr McClintock was forced to resign rather than allow his conscience to be bludgeoned into submission by the homo lobby.
We Christians are on the threshold of a new wave of persecution and martyrdom. The homos are doing their damndest to make us a marginalised section of society. These little hitlers must be resisted and defeated at all costs.

[Mike Homfray]

I wonder if conservative religionists ever sit back and wonder how they portray themselves - and whether that has any connection to their inability to convince?

[Christopher]

Yes Niamh, I entirely agree. And if it were true that condoms are useless in the fight against AIDS 'because they are permeable to the HIV virus', how does this explain that the gay community in the US and in this country was successfully in the forefront of reducing infections, that otherwise was set to be exponential, by the promotion of safer sex? The fact that some younger people in the gay community are now getting infected through barebacking surely proves beyond doubt the effectiveness of condoms. The Terrence Higgins Trust will confirm this but people like Geoff will curl their lips at 'liberal propaganda' if it contradicts some cardinal's ridiculous utterances. As usual the catholic church has its head in the sand when something contradicts its long-held dogmas. The church seems to prefer clinging to dogma than saving lives. Of course the safest sex in NO sex, but Cardinal Hume wisely said the catholic doctrine of ethics is unbelievably idealistic. Even those who have supposedly been given the charism of celibacy, i.e. priests, cannot always keep it, so why should gay people who have not been called to celibacy be able to keep it better just because the magisterium has imposed it - no longer a 'gift' but a life sentence? The implication is that 'you are free to do as you are told'.

[Niamh Devlin]

"That 'human disaster' [Aids] was caused by one single homosexual in the early 1980s... An historical fact.Thanks to the activity of some perverts known as bisexuals, it broke out of this community into the heterosexual population. An historical fact."
[G Smith 24 Oct 2007 11:13:02]

The infallible Geoffrey needs to do some reliable research. His "historical facts" were neither scientifically nor even historically accurate. They come from 'And the Band Played On', written by American journalist Randy Shilts.

See today's Telegraph:

"A widely-held theory of how Aids arrived in the west - as an infection carried by a promiscuous gay Canadian flight attendant ... in 1981 - is overturned ...

... the virus entered Haiti first, and then was transmitted to the United States, in or around 1969. Then HIV-1 circulated in the US for around a dozen years before the formal recognition of AIDS by doctors in 1981. ...

The strain that migrated to America in 1969 is the first human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) discovered, and it is the dominant strain of the AIDS virus in most countries outside sub-Saharan Africa. Almost all the viruses in those countries descended from the one that emerged from Haiti.

...The team analysed blood from five of the first Aids patients identified in the US, all of whom were recent immigrants from Haiti. The team also analysed genetic sequences from another 117 AIDS patients from around the world.

The team used statistical methods to investigate all the family trees that were consistent with the genetic data.

For the hypothesis that, from Africa, HIV went to the US first [Geoff's "historical fact"], the probability is 0.003 percent -- virtually nil.

For the hypothesis that HIV went from Africa first to Haiti in around 1966 and then on to the US, the probability is 99.8 percent, almost 100 percent."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?
xml=/earth/2007/10/29/sciaids129.xml

[Geoffrey Smith]

Ruth, I accept your decision to conclude this exchange of opinion, but I must protest at what Christopher said. I am not even remotely similar to James in his degree of disapproval of homosexual conduct.

[Christopher]

Geoffrey Smith - shade of James.

Time for Ruth to exercise a bit of editorial control, methinks.

(rg writes. You are right Christopher. Sorry everyone. Geoffrey, you've made your points. Enough.)

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Last of all, the rhythm method surely won't protect you from STDs".
- Jennifer Adams, 24 OCT 2007, 15:13:28

Your ignorance on this subject is becoming absolutely preposterous, Ms Adams. Have you ever had any training at all in biology or any related science? Do you believe in spontaneous generation? When both one's spouse or partner and oneself are free of STD infection, a condom is totally unnecessary. Needless to say, the rhythm method can be used in that circumstance with no fear of contracting AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhoea, whatever. Such a disease-free condition can be sustained by living an exemplary Christian life, and such a life is achievable by any one who has the courage to seek God's help.
Your belief that a piece of latex can stop the AIDS virus runs counter to the known scientific facts. Latex has an average aperture size of 5-6 microns; the virus has an average diameter of 1-2 microns. Go figure. You are a victim of the Maggie Thatcherite propaganda of 1984, when she bleated the persistent lie that 'safe sex' could only be enjoyed if you were using a rubber.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Do make sure you NEVER require a blood transfusion! One can never be too sure".
- Niamh Devlin, 24 OCT 2007, 12:53:55

A little late in the day, Ms Devlin. I had a blood transfusion nine years ago. Still no sign of Karposi's sarcoma. What on earth went wrong, do you think?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Mr Smith, never say never or you may tempt your God".
- Jennifer Adams, 24 OCT 2007, 15:13:28

I hardly think, Ms Adams, that you are in any position to tell me, or any one else, how to conduct my relationship with Almighty God.
Being a pro-homo, God-less secularist, you have a profound impertinence to lecture me on such a matter. Are you trying to challenge Mr Pearce for his title? You don't even come close.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The Catholic Church, via its stupidity in not allowing condom use
is effectively acting as murderer - any organisation so utterly immoral
deserves nothing but contempt. The fact it is run by a former Hitler Youth member is so apt!"
- Mike Homfray, 24 OCT 2007, 15:13:36

Murderer? Not a charlatan? Not a liar? You seem to be running out of
epithets, Mr Homfray. Let me help you. How about "inhuman bully"? Or perhaps "fool"? Maybe you like the sound of "religious cod-psychologist"? A real gem from Ms Adams, that one.
'Contempt' seems to be the buzz-word of the moment with homosexuals. Mr Pearce used it in his 'mildly humorous' post to David Smith recently, in which he threatened him with all sorts of litigation for exercising his civil rights. Sheer hair-drying, of course. Mr Pearce has to get rid of his hot air some how, you see. Why, he might go demented if he tries to restrain his scatological language!
Since you raised the subject of the Nazis, Mr Homfray, may I recommend "The Pink Swastika" for your book at bedtime? You can buy it on Amazon, but, since it's rather expensive, you can have my copy for nothing, via Ruth, if you like. A word of warning, though: its contents are so vile, they are likely to cause you to have nightmares, seeing that the subject of the book is homosexuality in the raw. God bless.

[Mike Homfray]

The overwhelming majority of people who are HIV+ came so via heterosexual intercourse

The Catholic Church, via its stupidity in not allowing condom use, is effectively acting as murderer - any organisation so utterly immoral deserves nothing but contempt. The fact it is run by a former Hitler Youth member is so apt!

[Jennifer Adams]

Mr Smith, never say never or you may tempt your God. People quite 'innocently' become infected with HIV. They can acquire it non-sexually, despite the implication behind your nasty little soubriquet "the gay plague". And contrary to your boastful confidence, it can be acquired vaginally - so you'd better lay off all forms of intercourse, in addition to blood transfusions and blood products. Last of all, the rhythm method surely won't protect you from STDs. Condoms do have their uses even though some lying bishop has said they have holes bigger than the virus and another lying bishop recently said they were laced with HIV. Put your imprimatur and nihil obstat on that!

Who knows if it was Patient Zero, a butcher of bush meat, or a bisexual who brought a simian virus into the human population. Spanish Catholic soldiers are said to have brought syphilis from the New World after sex with llamas. So what? The fact is that it is here, and no one, I repeat no one, deserves to die from AIDS, I don't care who they are. But one thing is certain, if you believe in your omnipotent God, he, all-loving father that he is to his children, must have created it - unless you believe it was man-made in a laboratory.

[Niamh Devlin]

Geoffrey Smith: "There are two things in my heterosexual life which are quite certain, Ms Adams:
a) I shall never become HIV+,
b) I shall not die from any AIDS- related disease."

WOW yet again! Would that we ALL had the ear of our Lord! My granny would say 'Never fly in the face of your Maker' Geoff. God works in mysterious ways.

Do make sure you NEVER require a blood transfusion! One can never be too sure.

[J Pearce]

Geoff is mostly talking out of his bottom. As usual. AIDs originated in primates in Africa - therefore, not a "gay" disease at all. How it crossed species to humans is not yet authoritatively defined (although I can already imagine the fantasies Geoff will be indulging in with this). Suffice to say it spread through sub-Saharan countries, transmitted by both males AND females - it was not exclusively restricted to gay Africans. This is a pernicious falsehood.

(I wonder - if and when it happens - if the majority of people to catch and spread bird flu happen to be heterosexual Catholics, will Geoff call bird flu the "Catholic plague"…?)

It is true that AIDs first came to media prominence in San Francisco - gay sex is the most viable vector for transmission. However, given the African AIDs disaster now unfolding for the entire population, it is eminently reasonable to hypothesise that AID's would have penetrated the heterosexual community in the West at some point anyway, because it is a sexually transmitted disesease which affects both homosexuals AND heterosexuals. Geoff's attempts to protray it is the "gay plague" are manifestly bollocks.

I would also point out that it is entirely possible to catch AID's from blood transfusions and indeed blood wounds. Blaming bisexuals for the spread into the heterosexual community is rather clutching at straws.

And what a surprise that a discussion about homosexuality is dragged down by the religious right to a slanging match about AIDs. No mention of any other sexually transmitted diseases, no complaining about "hetero plagues"…do devout male Chirstians spend ALL their time obsessing about gays and homosexual activities? I'm beginning to think that over exposure to a religious environment turns you into a closet pervert...

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Carden has written an excellent study for all your absurd bombast".
- Jennifer Adams, 24 OCT 2007, 09:24:40

Without the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, he might just as well write a Booker Prize winner for all I care. This man is NOT a theologian or scripture scholar who can be taken seriously. Only an agenda-driven dogmatist like yourself would give him any credence. Yes, Ms Adams, even pro-homos are dogmatic in their attitude. We Catholics do not enjoy a monopoly of fixed tenets, although you think we do.

[Geoffrey Smith]

No, Ms Adams, let's NOT paraphrase that argument. Let's stick to the point, shall we, just for a change?
That 'human disaster' was caused by one single homosexual in the early 1980s, when he immigrated into the United States. AIDS became known as 'the gay plague' when it swept through the homosexual community in America. An historical fact.
Thanks to the activity of some perverts known as bisexuals, it broke out of this community into the heterosexual population. An historical fact. It is thoroughly disingenuous of you to pretend that somehow or other the heterosexual section of society were equally to blame for the spread of this disease. I realise, of course, that these facts must be very embarrassing for the cause that you have chosen to defend, and the gay fraternity will do everything in their power to pussyfoot their way round these inconvenient truths.
Hence, your 'African plague' twaddle. Hence, the 'biblical studies' and 'comparative religion'
taught by Mr Michael Carden at the UQ. Hence, the attempt at rationalisation by protesting that some heterosexuals also engage in buggery. All in an effort to give the impression that sodomy and its related activity is 'normal' or 'acceptable' or 'unremarkable'.
There are two things in my heterosexual life which are quite certain, Ms Adams:
a) I shall never become HIV+,
b) I shall not die from any AIDS- related disease.
Why not? Because, as a Catholic, I greatly value the virtues of chastity and integrity, and I intend to hold fast to them, come what may. If you could say the same,
your life would be incomparably better.

[Jennifer Adams]

"As I thought, a lecturer in 'biblical studies' without any authorisation from the Holy See.
Or, in short, a fag with an agenda."
That's right, Mr Smith, judge a book by its cover and don't bother to read anything except what is approved by "a fag in the Vatican", to turn your idiotic invective back on you. I am sure you know the old joke "There are more fags in the Vatican than in San Francisco - except on weekends".

But to be serious, Carden has written an excellent study for all your absurd bombast. It might get you to think independently...but I fear that may never happen.

[Jennifer Adams]

Let's paraphrase that argument, shall we Mr Smith, to see were such spurious logic can lead when you self-righteously try to use a human disaster to make a moral point?

'I KNOW that "heterosexuality is one of the most wicked evils ever planted in the mind of man". I won't belabour the obvious: the life-style is disease-ridden, with the threat of AIDS an ever-present fear. Not for nothing is it called "the African plague".'

[Niamh Devlin]

I think, on the evidence presenting here, one might rationally place the anti-gay Smith duo in the context of 19th century pro-slavery, anti-Irish, anti-Jewish 'Christian paternalism'.

Paternalism requires a social or religious or intellectual hierarchy: some notion of who is inferior and who is 'superior'. In this instance only the word 'religious' is applicable. Not to mention subliminal 'knowledge' of others. Just a few examples:

Geoff Smith: "Ms Adams ... you and your fellow-lesbians"!!(?)

AND " ... listen hard. Don't try to teach me anything about the Bible. Be aware that I am not your typical papist, untutored in the Scriptures and unable to respond to your devious twisting of its verses." WOW! I'm impressed!

Dave Smith: ""Jesus healed many people ... I apply the same principles and approach .." AND
"I bring people to God".

AND "... the act of homosex is highly detrimental to the greater societal good ...those involved in it ...those close to them ... those of us who have ... to pick up the 'bill' for its consequences."

What 19th century religious paternalism entailed was the improvement of 'inferiors' at the hands of 'superiors'. What we have been disputing here, is the 'Smith' notion of 'improvement' i.e. redemption - courtesy of Smith literalism - of the 'morally inferior' (homosexuals) - those who are a danger to society as a whole.

Clearly, Dave and Geoff have NO doubts as to their own 'moral' superiority - whether biblical, medical, social, psychological or 'moral'.

Thomas Carlyle - "a religious conservative of the 1800s with a biblical world view" rejected (like 'our Dave') established religion - Rome, C of E and even the Kirk. Along with 'our Dave' he made consistent use of the Bible - applying his own interpretations. He disagreed vehemently with Christian abolitionists that slavery was wrong.

Carlyle argued that blacks were sub-humans "two-legged cattle", who needed the tutelage of whites wielding the "beneficent whip" if they were to contribute to the good of society.

A 19th century version of the 'beneficent' ex-gay movement perhaps. Or Geoff's 'beneficent' moral fascism.

Carlyle on the Irish: "The time has come when the Irish population must either be improved a little, or else exterminated". For him, the Irish were " ... noxious insects ... like cannibals".

The 'beit noirs' of Carlyle and his disciples were the Unitarian John Stuart Mill, who did not believe that every word in the Bible was either literal or immutable; the Quaker abolitionist John Bright and of course, the indomitable William Wilberforce a close friend of John Wesley.

Blacks and Irish were not the only moral inferiors for Christian paternalists - Carlyle believed the Jews threatened the "moral order" of the day - "leeches and vampires, sucking the lifeblood from others".

Does it all sound familiar? The 'Smith and Smith' script so to speak, not only on homosexuals, but ALL those who disagree with the 'Word' according to this comedy duo.

Dave to JPearce: "you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I don't intend to spend any more time going down this track with you. Period."

Indeed. As on every thread on this topic we hit the brick wall of pompous insularity, and patently bigoted 'superiority'.

Dave and Geoff rule okay! I for one am heartily sick of the rapacious egos.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"An excellent study of the reception of Genesis 19 is worth reading even by one as biblically educated as you, Mr Smith. It is 'Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth', by Michael Carden who teaches biblical studies at the University of Queensland"
- Jennifer Adams, 23 OCT 2007, 10:52:11

I quote: "Michael [Carden] is also a contributor to the internationally collaborative queer Bible commentary
project, 'The Bible in Translesbigay (sic) Perspective' (forthcoming 2005)". (www.equinoxpub.com/books/browse.asp?auth=39)

As I thought, a lecturer in 'biblical studies' without any authorisation from the Holy See.
Or, in short, a fag with an agenda.
Thank you very much, Ms Adams, for this information. I am indebted to you. I think you've said it all now,
don't you?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Mr Smith, you call me a lesbian. I am not. No doubt you meant it to be defamatory. If anyone called you a repressed homosexual you'd go squealing to Ruth, I have no doubt. But it is not defamatory to be a lesbian, even though you try to use it as a weapon against me".
- Jennifer Adams, 23 OCT 2007, 10:52:11
Well, Ms Adams, if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck,....
However, I accept your denial and I withdraw that remark. I stand by the rest of my post. I repeat: ALL genital activity between unmarried persons, heterosexual or homosexual,
is condemned and forbidden by the law of God. Indeed, some forms of this diversion are forbidden to heterosexuals (Gen 38:9), married or unmarried. To defend in any way the genital activity between people with such a disordered condition as homosexuality is sheer lewdness.
That, Ms Adams, is why I KNOW that "homosexuality is one of the most wicked evils ever planted in the mind of man". I won't belabour the obvious: the life-style is disease-ridden, with the threat of AIDS an ever-present fear. Not for nothing is it called "the gay plague".
I intend to investigate this UQ lecturer you mention. If, as I suspect, he teaches 'biblical studies' without the authorisation of the Catholic Church, he, too, like yourself, will expound an idiosyncratic view of the biblical narrative.

[J Pearce]

"when it comes to the interface of the medical and the spiritual, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about,"

Unfortunately for you David, I have rather more experience than perhaps you credit me. A close relative of mine ran an operation, disturbingly similar to yours on a number of levels, a few years ago. I am only too well aware of the "interface" between members of the medical profession, who put personal prejudices and sometimes pure greeed, before their Hippocratic duty - and "spiritual" evangelists much like yourself, who dress themselves in psuedo-science to adopt a façade of respectability, but offer precious little more than gobbledy gook, mumbo jumbo and eternal promises that life can be better, if only you were to do what they tell you to do...

I am also only too well aware of how charismatic, charming and convincing these kind of people can be. They can (and will) say almost anything, as long as suits their own agenda. Flattery to deceive, mate. What I also know is that once these kinds of people realise that no amount of silver-tongued verbiage is going to get them what they want, they resort to phrases much like the following:

"...you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I don't intend to spend any more time going down this track with you. Period."

I'm taking this as admission that the line I'm pursuing is in fact valid - and that there is a clear ethical problem with GP's recommending patients to you, if not a legal one. I'm seriously considering alerting the BMA to this, they may be interested to know that religious indoctrination is one of the "services" their GP's are recommending to patients.

[Jennifer Adams]

Mr Smith, you call me a lesbian. I am not. No doubt you meant it to be defamatory. If anyone called you a repressed homosexual you'd go squealing to Ruth, I have no doubt. But it is not defamatory to be a lesbian, even though you try to use it as a weapon against me.

You are still wrong about the interpretation of the Sodom story even if the Catholic Church is slow to make that plain, as it did over the (mis)perception about the culpability of the Jews for Christ's execution that it held for centuries until Vatican II. Centuries later the Church has given a kind of apology to the Jews. It took centuries to apologise for the treatment of Galileo. The fact that your infallible Church changed its mind in both those cases should surely indicate that it might have been wrong about homosexuals all along - and one day (I am not holding my breath) the Magisterium may officially admit it's grievous mistake.

But still you don't answer the original question: why do YOU think that "homosexuality, (and I mean its practice, not its condition) is one of the most wicked evils ever planted in the mind of man"?

An excellent study of the reception of Genesis 19 is worth reading even by one as biblically educated as you, Mr Smith. It is_Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth_ by Michael Carden who teaches biblical studies at the University of Queensland.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
'The issue here is one of ethics and professionalism. GP's have strict guidelines about where they refer their patients and to whom they refer them too. They can't just send them down the road to any old Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a psychologist.'

'J', I make no claim to being a psychologist and, when it comes to the interface of the medical and the spiritual, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and I don't intend to spend any more time going down this track with you. Period.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Do try to be consistent, and if you were a little less abrasive people on this blog might take you more seriously".
- Jennifer Adams, 22 OCT 2007, 13:58:13

Who called me a fool, Ms Adams?
Your supporter, Niamh Devlin.
Who called David Smith an inhuman bully?
Your supporter, J Pearce.
Who called David Smith a charlatan and a liar?
Your supporter, Mike Homfray.
I think your admonition would be better directed at those who agree with you, rather than at me.
My 'abrasiveness' is nothing compared with that sort of crudity.

[Mike Homfray]

And the silence will be deafening - because these people are charlatans and if found out, would be removed from NHS practice.

But we mustn't get too alarmist - remember that not only are they very unsuccessful (anyone can parade the odd self-repression advocate and claim 'change'... funny how conservative religion is ALWAYS involved!) but there are very few of them compared to the number of gay and lesbian people in the country.

In the meantime, they lose virtually all their campaigns and are regarded as kooks and extremists.

And the more they speak on places like this, the more they condemn themselves.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"The crime of Sodom was the mistreatment of guests with the threat of male rape. Are you trying to tell me that the Cathlic Church teaches that ALL the inhabitants of Sodom to a man were 'practising' homosexuals?
- Jennifer Adams, 22 OCT 2007, 13:58:13

Yes. Read Gen 18 and 19, but particularly 19:4-11. Subsequently,
Sodom was destroyed by God, as He threatened, for precisely the reason that He gave to Abraham.

"This is now the accepted interpretation of the Sodom story".
- op.cit.

Accepted by you and your fellow-lesbians, no doubt, but not by the Catholic Church. You might find a wacko theologian like Hans Kung or Charles Curran to support your idiosyncratic interpretation of Holy Writ, but you certainly won't find any solemn declaration by the Magisterium of the Church to agree with you.
The Jewish 'traditional way' of interpreting Gen 18, 19 is irrelevant. It is the way that the Catholic Church interprets the text that matters.
All this, however, is purely ancillary to the basic principle of Christian morals: ALL sexual conduct between unmarried persons is condemned by divine law. This censure applies to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. Since homosexuals are unable, or unwilling, to contract a marriage with a member of the opposite sex, for the purpose of having children, it means a life-time of chastity for them. If, that is, they wish to serve God and keep His Commandments. If they don't, then of course anything goes - and it usually does.
One final point, Ms Adams, and listen hard. Don't try to teach me anything about the Bible. Be aware that I am not your typical papist, untutored in the Scriptures and unable to respond to your devious twisting of its verses.

[J Pearce]

"Purely on the basis of your speculative ideas about how I work, and about the state of mind of those I help, you would have me thrown into jail through legal regulations that do not even exist (but ought to in your opinion)!"

We can clear that one up quite easily. You have stated that you receive NHS patients through GP's. All you have to do is confirm that you are registered to treat NHS patients and that the referrals are based on the clinical diagnosis of the GP(s) in question, such that the "treatment" you offer has been judged a valid out-source function of the NHS. In other words, is your practice "above board"?

The issue here is one of ethics and professionalism. GP's have strict guidelines about where they refer their patients and to whom they refer them too. They can't just send them down the road to any old Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a psychologist. There are issues of ethics and patient welfare at stake here. All I am asking is that you confirm the transparency of your operation. If you would care to name the GP's in question, I am sure they would not object to being asked about your practice - seeing as you make such a fuss about how "valuable" it is?

Instead of trying to divert matters with nonsensical accusations - I have not suggested that you should be thrown "into jail", merely opined that the way you operate is contrary to NHS ethical guidelines, which leaves open the possibility of legal intervention on the grounds of patient care and breach of trust. If this were to be the case and any legal action were brought, you would be an accessory, if not a witness - perhaps you would care to answer the simple questions about potential malpractice by the GP's in question?

[Jennifer Adams]

Listen hard, Mr Smith, we are talking about the Sodom story as related in Genesis. The crime of Sodom was the mistreatment of guests with the threat of male rape. Are you trying to tell me that the Catholic Church teaches that ALL the inabitants of Sodom to a man were 'practising' homosexuals? It is a well-known that in the Middle-East it was an age-old tradition that the conquering army would disgrace their fallen adversaries to 'feminise' them by anally penetrating them. It had nothing to do with desire and everything to do with aggression. This is now the accepted interpretation of the Sodom story. Go ask your priest if you don't know. And you are guilty of an anachronism in saying that the Sodom story "is related to Romans 1". Since Romans came centuries later it can only be the other way about, which does makes a difference. Even so, Paul may be drawing on it but still you have no evidence that he was not interpreting the story in the traditional way that the Jews have always done - that is about pride, luxury and the mistreatment of strangers, even using male rape to enforce their sense of superiority. Does the female rape related in the parallel story of Gibeah in Judges serve as a condemnation of all heterosexual sex? Hardly. Do try to be consistent, and if you were a little less abrasive people on this blog might take you more seriously.

[Jennifer Adams]

Well Mr Smith, have your text. It is hardly deathless prose, now is it?

[J Pearce]

"But what makes you think that you and others who share your views have the almost unique right, through abuse and threat, to force others to comply with it?"

Dave - Mike is not "abusing" or "threatening" you into seeing your local GP for a recommendation of psychological "counselling" from a dubiously qualified individual, because your GP has diagnosed you are suffering a "psychological disorder" called religious belief. Your trusted Doctor isn't enaging in ethically dubious practices by sending you to individuals whose only goal is to manipulate you into rejecting the foundations of your Christian ideology. You aren't being forced to comply with some hare-brained atheist/gay lobby agenda to convert you from your "religious orientation" because it is seen as "disordered" and therefore a potential threat to society.

But this is exactly the type of operation you are actively engaged in. You provide a "counselling" service to homosexual NHS patients sent to you by GP's, where the overriding priority is to convince gay people that they are intrinsically "wrong" and that they must change their sexual orientation, or face damaging consequences.

It is typical Smithian sophistry to accuse people like Mike of the very behaviour you display yourself. Your modus operandi is to force others to change, by exploiting their vulnerability and lack of confidence, with superstition - and then threatening them with fear (i.e. "take your chances").

The questions about potential malpractice still stand. Are you NHS approved? Which GP's are recommending you? Is their behaviour concomitant with NHS ethical guidelines?

[David Smith]

Jennifer Adams:
'Tell me once again, David and others, that you think Geoffrey Smith is reasonable, rational, calm and phlegmatic, and that you wish to engage with him in a civilised discussion.'

Almost everyone has some strong opinions, and their moments of becoming frustrated and overheating. This does not mean that they are not capable, most of the time, of being reasonable, rational, calm, and phlegmatic, and engaging in civilised discussion. Christopher's latest post is a good example of this.

You have referred to me, inter alia, as a 'born-again leech that wants to prey on [homosexuals]'. I find that to be as unfounded and offensive as any statement made on this thread. I would encourage you not to say things like this, and to get back to 'civilised discussion'. But so long as either you or Geoffrey remain capable of engaging in this, I think permanent coventry is far too draconian and borders on infringing both of your rights to free speech.

[David Smith]

J Pearce:
' "It is your perfect right to lead the lifestyle you choose, and to take your chances that there will be no judgment day in the terms envisaged in the Bible.“

Is this what you say to your “patients” David? I’m sure it probably is. You are beneath contempt. A simple religious bully, exploiting the vulnerable with fear and superstition to make money. The homophobic propaganda and manipulation you peddle for profit is inhumane.'

Sorry 'J', but this is just emotive, speculative rubbish. (What sort of a statement is 'I'm sure it probably is' ?!)

What part of "It is your perfect right to lead the lifestyle you choose" don't you understand? It's called having your own view, but letting people make up their own minds.

What part of "Go away and read the Bible - and the New Testamant in particular, and find out what Christianity actually is" do you not understand?

What part of "Jesus healed many people and freed them of many physical, emotional, and psychological conditions. And I apply the same principles and approach when people come to me with conditions that THEY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH" do you not understand?

What part of "People come to see me because they have heard that I have successfully helped people to change in ways that they also want to. They make that decision before I ever set eyes on them" do you not understand?

Purely on the basis of your speculative ideas about how I work, and about the state of mind of those I help, you would have me thrown into jail through legal regulations that do not even exist (but ought to in your opinion)!

I think it's pretty clear where the deep-rooted desire to coerce people you don't agree with, or to bully them - to use your word, is coming from.

My recomendation is that you go away and have a long cold bath and take a copy of the New Testament with you. And then come back and try to blog with an informed head rather than just wild emotions.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Even the Catholic Church has now conceded that, along with the majority of reputable biblical Scholars, Catholic and Protestant, that (sic) the sin of Sodom is not about homosexuality after all".
- Jennifer Adams, 20 OCT 2007, 23:38:47

The Catholic Church has done nothing of the sort. This is sheer daydreaming on your part. Sodomy, in the biblical context, is related to Romans 1, in which St Paul clearly condemned homosexuality and its attendant practices. The Catholic Church has never amended the Pauline teaching in any way whatsoever - nor will she ever do so, notwithstanding Mr Homfray's frequently recurring pipe-dream.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Ruth, isn't Ms Adams guilty of plagiarising my text? She is doing exactly what the unlamented Mr McBay did, running out of ideas and copying an opponent's post to score a brownie point.

(rg writes: as long as the source of the text is acknowledged or is clear in the context, that is fine.)

[Jennifer Adams]

Tell me once again, David and others, that you think Geoffrey Smith is reasonable, rational, calm and phlegmatic, and that you wish to engage with him in a civilised discussion.

[Christopher]

David,
all the studies on the efficacy of ex-gay programmes are beset by the same problems which have to throw reasonable doubt on their objectivity. They claim that they provide a magic bullet to what is perceived to be a problem when, in fact, it may not be. If they are wrong about the naturalness of a proportion of homosexuality in the human population then they are probably wasting everyone's time and may be doing damage to their clients and, in the process, setting back the cause of justice.

First, these studies are based on self report. The groups participating are self-selected, usually religious folk who think being homosexual is wrong, "not part of god's plan, etc, etc'
The latest study by Jones and Yarhouse was funded by Exodus and conducted by two evangelical Christians who think homosexuality is wrong. That already raises questions about objectivity.

Then they did NOT use any objective psychophysiological measures of sexual arousal and orientation, such as penile plethysmography or the more recent MRI technology. The size of the samples are really quite small, considering the numbers of gay people in the population, even though Exodus claims that thousands have been helped. Jones and Yarhouse think they have enough contributors to make the study viable. The participants were also in or about to enter therapy, against the original design which was supposed to be an entirely forward looking longitudinal study. They had to include the retrospective group to make up the numbers but the inclusion of people already in therapy vitiates the attempt to exclude one of the difficulties of the Spitzer study - the fact that how people's memories of how they experienced desires may be coloured by later therapy, i.e. they may exaggerate how 'homosexual' they were.

There is a difference between practice and orientation as the Christian right never tire of telling us - the measure used in the Shively-DeCecco scale allows for this. Thus a decrease in homosexual desire is not locked to an increase in heterosexual desire like water and/or air in a bottle. When it suits their purpose the Christian right suddenly want to equate negative homosexual practice with positive heterosexual desire. This has in no way been proved. Accordingly the monodimensional Kinsey scale would be a less useful scale than the Shively-DeCecco as a safe measure of the comparative homo-heterosexuality of people who self report as 'successful' clients of Exodus approved reorientation programmes unless some more objective measure such as penile plethysmography support the shift towards 0 /1 on Kinsey.
To their credit Stanton and Yarhouse observed this difference "We see that change away from homosexual orientation are consistently about twice the magnitude of changes toward heterosexual orientation. It would appear, then, that while change away from homosexual orientation is related to change toward heterosexual orientation, the two are not identical processes."

While Robert Spitzer might have concluded that change *may* be possible for some gay people it is a very small number as he later pointed out when his report was misused by James Dobson and others who misrepresented him and who continues to cite fraudulent studies put out by Paul Cameron. Dr Throckmorton who is an evangelical himself and who has commented on the latest study has written powerfully against Cameron's fraudulent claims.

Following the Schidlo & Shroeder study, Dr. Scasta describes how the scientific community reviews data to come to a consensus about an issue and then says, “what’s been coming out of the consensus is that much of the data coming out of the Christian right groups is really not scientific.” Following Dr. Scasta it is Dr. Spitzer himself who says, “The people who do this therapy claim that about a third make a substantial change in behavior and feelings, I very much doubt that that happens.”

Schidlo & Shroeder said "We interviewed 202 people who had undergone conversion therapy. Only 13% of those had felt the therapy had been a success. When we took a closer look at that 13% we found some very interesting things.

Dr. Shidlo then partitions the 13% into those who were still struggling, single and celibate and finally, the 4% of their group who viewed themselves as now heterosexual. That leaves 87% who failed.

So it seems that the homosexual activity of 13% has been reduced which would be the case if they merely opted for celibacy or took bromide in their tea. Don't forget that these are people who are very conflicted about their sexuality for religious reasons. Only 4% claim they are now heterosexual and short of a penile plethysmograph we must suspend belief, given how many leaders and pin-ups of the ex-gay movement have been in denial and later were found to have 'regressed' even after marriage and children.
While this was supposed to be much better designed than the Spitzer study they encountered difficulty in recruiting participants and ended up with half the number that Spitzer found. This is strange when Alan Chambers has said that Exodus has helped hundreds, thousands of people to reorientate their sexuality. It is odd they don't come forward in droves if they believe Exodus is doing god's work. Perhaps they can't because they simply aren't there.
A major point of discussion surrounds the dropouts from the study and what reasons they gave. One commentator put it like this “Not assessing the dropouts is quite similiar to not including those who died in data on the effectiveness of a cancer treatment.” Jones and Yarhouse described those “experiencing difficulty with change would be likely to get frustrated or discouraged early on and drop out of the change process.” In assessing the dropouts becomes critically important, because the very reason for dropping out of this study may have direct bearing on both questions the study was designed to address: Do people change, and are they harmed by the process? With as much as a quarter of the initial population dropping out potentially for reasons directly related to the study’s questions, this missing analysis represents a likely critical failure, one which could potentially invalidate the study’s conclusions.
Referring to a comment that ”Any old scared-s***less southern Baptist 20-something is going to tell his pastor and all his friends that he is 'liking women more every day' as long as they hold social and spiritual capital over the guys head” I would reassert, that until some objective measure of arousal/desire like penile plethysmography or MRI technology is included, self-reporting is just not sufficiently objective or scientific in an area so fraught with the pressures to succeed. JPearce has called it religious bullying which I believe has happened to you so that you have absorbed mechanisms of self-oppression to deny your homosexuality and declare yourself healed and now a fully functioning heterosexual. You told us Jesus cured you but in the terms of this debate it is impossible to verify because it is retrospectively reported and indeed self reported. Even if you would undertake a penile plethysmography test it still wouldn't completely satisfy the conditions of objectivity because the test hadn't been applied at the beginning of the process before you met Jesus. Worse, the bullied in turn become bullies themselves and rely on scaring their clients; the penalties for failure are terrible - not merely disappointing parents and pastors and maybe even earning ignominy ("you should have tried harder - prayed harder" or "you missed gay sex too much and took the easy way out") and ultimately they may invoke the condemnation of a 'holy' and judgmental god who might well say "Depart from me, ye ungodly, I know you not".

Bob in Colo Sprgs on the blog about the Jones-Yarhouse study to which Warren Throckmorton and Dr Stanton Jones also participated (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com) gave the following very telling rationale why he underwent reparative therapy in the first place:

"I was saved, and became “a functioning heterosexual” for years. Married, children and able to push back from this slight but increasing temptation for men. After that followed a period of depression and guilt that helped fuel a complete questioning of Christian faith. When you are convinced that God will punish you, and that Satan is pushing these desires, it is possible to be a “functioning heterosexual.” But the relief I found by accepting myself as gay was far greater than anything I have gotten from religion. I also have great empathy for those who go through this ex-gay (self-torture) movement. I do not doubt that for three, five or ten years, that many of the “successes” will claim success — especially since their alternative is to consider themselves subject to God’s wrath. But to what extremes will they go if they finally reach a point where they admit they have been lying to themselves and everyone else?
I was lucky, and have the help I need — from some competent psychologists. And I do not doubt they saved my life."

No one seems to count the cost to the people in the 87% 'failed' group. As Wayne Besen has said "The ease with which [well-meaning Christians] consistently overlook or minimize the enormous pain, guilt and suffering caused by these groups is astounding".

[Jennifer Adams]

Tell me, Mr Smith, why do YOU think that "homosexuality, (and I mean its practice, not its condition) is one of the most wicked evils ever planted in the mind of man"? In what way does it equal murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding a worker of his wages?

....Or is it that you are merely parroting your (outdated) Penny Catechism without thinking about it?

The Catholic Handbook says
"The four sins crying to heaven for vengeance are:
Wilful murder (Gen. 4);
The sin of Sodom (Gen. 18);
Oppression of the poor (Exod.2);
Defrauding labourers of their wages (James 5)."

Even the Catholic Church has now conceded that, along with the majority of reputable biblical scholars, Catholic and Protestant, that the sin of Sodom is not about homosexuality after all.

Perhaps it is time you took one Dr Marsh's courses in Theology that he so recommends, if you don't want to walk into one of your own traps.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Well, David? Still convinced that you can debate with these homosex fans? Let's have a recap of their collective wisdom over the last few posts, shall we? According to the Misses Adams and Devlin, and Messrs Homfray and Pearce, you are:
(1) A bully
(2) A witch-doctor
(3) A quasi-messianic figure (!)
(4) A charlatan
(5) A liar
(6) A religious cod-psychologist
(7) inhumane
(8) A possible criminal, certainly someone who should be investigated by the authorities.

Tell me once again, David, that you think these people are reasonable, rational, calm and phlegmatic, and that you wish to engage with them in a civilised discussion. You and I both know, as Christians, that homosexuality, (and I mean its practice, not its condition) is one of the most wicked evils ever planted in the mind of man, the others being murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding a worker of his wages. These people are devoted to the worship of their cult. There is nothing that either of us can say to them that will persuade them to think otherwise. As the Gospel says, there are some things that can be cast out only by prayer and fasting.

[J Pearce]

”It is your perfect right to lead the lifestyle you choose, and to take your chances that there will be no judgment day in the terms envisaged in the Bible.“

Is this what you say to your “patients” David? I’m sure it probably is. You are beneath contempt. A simple religious bully, exploiting the vulnerable with fear and superstition to make money. The homophobic propaganda and manipulation you peddle for profit is inhumane.

I am still waiting for you to explain whether you are registered to take NHS patients, whether your “practice” is approved by the appropriate authorities and whether the actions of the GP’s who send people to you are contrary to the ethical guidelines layed down by the NHS. All of these questions you have avoided.

Have you actually got the stones to answer those questions, because I for one would like to know whether you operate within the boundaries of the law.

[David Smith]

Mike Homfray:
'If David Smith has no other evidence than the rubbish produced by NARTH.. '

A typically well-reasoned and scientific response by you, Mike, to an enormous weight of expert evidence that I have quoted to the effect that, where there is the will, a change in sexual orientation is possible.

The evidence that I quoted was not 'produced' by NARTH. It was produced by many independent experts who were then quoted by another expert whose material, like that of many other independent experts, was then quoted on the NARTH website.

Here is some more of what Dr Whitehead wrote:
'Dr Robert Spitzer, a prime mover in the 1973 decision to remove SSA from the Diagnostic Manuals as a mental illness, nearly 30 years later interviewed 200 people who claimed they had changed, and he concluded that real and extensive change had occurred in many cases. This was probably an extreme sample, but showed unequivocally that change, sometimes large, is possible for some motivated individuals.

The study published in 2003, attracted a large amount of criticism and abuse from the gay lobby, but any impartial observer would say he has established beyond reasonable doubt that change does take place for some people, and that in view of the published literature, this is no real surprise.

Spitzer after his study, received death threats so disturbing that he withdrew from making public comment about the subject because he said he had to protect his family.'

You are a homosexual man, who for his own reasons does not want to change. So, that change is possible is a most inconvenient fact for you. Like many in the pro-homosex lobby, you seem to think that if you shout loudly and agressively enough this fact and those who state it (not to mention the God whose views they represent) will somehow just disappear.

I do not underestimate the challenge that changing a lifestyle presents to people like you. I have seen this also at first hand. But it is no greater than the challenges faced by many others who in this and other ways lead lives aspects of which they know would be far from acceptable to God.

It is your perfect right to lead the lifestyle you choose, and to take your chances that there will be no judgment day in the terms envisaged in the Bible. But what makes you think that you and others who share your views have the almost unique right, through abuse and threat, to force others to comply with it?

[David Smith]

Niamh Devlin:
'Thanks again David Smith. Dr Neil Whitehead from my search appears as.. '

Standard form from the pro-homosex lobby, I'm afraid, Niamh Devlin: if you can't argue compellingly against the content of the message, tap into any source to personally discredit the messenger.

So now we have the findings of all those experts that Dr Whitehead quotes, including a repentant member of APA, versus one man with negative opinions about Dr Whitehead. Desperation indeed!

I say again, sexual orientation can be changed. I have seen this happen with my own eyes, and we have had personal testimonies to this effect on this blog.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
'Do what I did, Mr Pearce. Buy the book and read it for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.'

Come on, Geoffrey!

You slate 'J' as nothing but a troublemaker. Then, when he asks you a sensible question, you don't even begin to answer it.

No wonder he gets frustrated, and sometimes a little colourful in his language with you... and then blamed for being a troll!!!

I, together with 'J', asked Alan Marsh a similar question about what faith is.. in August. (See below) I am still waiting for a reply!

[Alan Marsh:
'David, it is somewhat unlikely that I have "brainwashed" myself by reading the bible.'

Thank you, Alan, for your reply - all of which I note.

A propos of the above comment, would saying that you have 'come to believe' through reading the Bible, rather than been 'brainwashed', describe at least part of what you are driving at here?

If so, can you think of a good way of putting a clear distinction between these two 'states of mind' into words?]

[Niamh Devlin]

Well said Mike Homfray! I think the focus on NARTH is useful and revelatory.

Thanks again David Smith. Dr Neil Whitehead from my search appears as another religious 'dabbler' 'hand-picked' to suit NARTH's purpose

Dr Neil Whitehead - the author of “My Genes Made Me Do It”… is, in scientific circles monitoring such research, seen as New Zealand’s answer to Paul Cameron or Jeffrey Satinover.

He has a PhD in Biochemistry - for NARTH that means he is an expert on genes? Right? Well NO! He’s actually a 'born-again' Baptist connected to the more extreme NZ religious right. He has no expertise in the field of genetics. In reality:

Neil Whitehead works for the Institute of GEOLOGICAL and NUCLEAR Sciences; a group that study earthquakes. Whitehead is NOT an expert in genetics. In fact, he’s not even remotely associated with any gene research.

Yet, Exodus, NARTH et al present his book as that of an expert. Serious researchers in the field disagree. Neil Whitehead made a submission to the NZ parliamentary committee studying the Relationships and Civil Union Bills, in that submission he so distorted the work of impartial genetic researchers (hence, the association with Paul Cameron) that a furious reply was sent from from one of the misrepresented academics:

"Dr Whitehead’s claims about the potential impact of the Civil Unions Bill can, quite fairly and with due respect for the passion of his convictions, be rejected. His argument is flawed. His “research method” seems little more sophisticated than joining dots on a two-dimensional plane. He superficially connects observations from some published studies of genetic and environmental factors in human sexuality and mental health.

The pattern that emerges is a distorted caricature of existing knowledge that lacks depth and complexity. It adds nothing to serious, informed debate about the nature of homosexuality or the ways in which a civil society should formulate law. The essential problem is that Dr Whitehead’s research is quasi-science. He has strayed far beyond his field of expertise. His training and professional experience, and his publications in academic journals, are almost entirely in geological and nuclear science.

If one conducts a search for his research papers listed by Thompson ISI Web of Science (the international standard search tool for scientific information) nothing can be found.

Although Dr Whitehead claims he has researched the field of sexuality for 13 years, it would seem this research has been entirely unproductive. A search revealed no empirical study [by him] of human sexuality and indeed no systematic review on the topic that has been accepted by internationally recognised, peer-reviewed journals.

His three books are populist and are not published by mainstream academic publishers that require scientific review. Thus, they are not regarded as serious works in the field of human sexuality."

[Complaint from: Professor Michael Dunne - Dept of Health, Queensland University of Technology - expertise: Epidemiology; Health research methods; Sexual health; Parkinson’s Disease; Alcohol abuse; Sexual abuse]

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Yeah, OK, but what is F. Collins ACTUAL definition of faith, etc, etc".
- J Pearce, 18 OCT 2007, 15:37:52

Do what I did, Mr Pearce. Buy the book and read it for yourself. Don't just take my word for it.

[Mike Homfray]

If David Smith has no other evidence than the rubbish produced by NARTH, none of which is peer reviewed, he must be desperate!

The fact is that there are more openly gay people than in previous years, that the total number of people in ex-gay groups in the UK is minute, and there is generally a simple answer to 'struggles' with fundamentalism and Christianity.

Stop struggling and give up fundamentalism.

That's what many people have done and they are all the better for it.,

[David Smith]

David Smith:
'According to your version of the Gospel...Jesus was a witch-doctor who went around spreading religious propaganda and making people feel unnecessarily guilty, and then used superstition and fear and religious brainwashing to somehow force them to change!'

J Pierce:
'Well, yep, something along those lines, definitely.'

Maybe other Christians would like to comment on this statement, but to me it just shows that you have little clue about the Jesus of reality, or indeed desire to acquire such. Instead you prefer to shadow box with figments of your own imagination.

I say again, 'J', go away and read the Bible - and the New Testamant in particular, and find out what Christianity actually is. When you have done so let's talk again about this, and about ministries like mine which operate according to its principles.

Jesus manipulated no one. Though He had all power, He just told them the truth and then let them make up their own minds what they wanted to do.

People come to see me because they have heard that I have successfully helped people to change in ways that they also want to. They make that decision before I ever set eyes on them. You have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

If you want to live in a negative dream world about Jesus and about me, that's up to you, but please don't expect me to expend any more time in a fruitless exercise of trying to drag you out of this or in responding to the almost entirely speculative views and arguments that you put forward in this area as a result.

[J Pearce]

Geoff,

Yeah, OK, but what is F. Collins ACTUAL definition of faith, why is it different to what Dawkins describes and why should it be considered as qualitatively admissable in comparison to, say, scientific enquiry and methodology?