.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, October 02, 2006

 

I am not attending the NARTH conference; Dr. Blakeslee resigns

Call me crazy but I have decided not to present the Sexual Identity Therapy Guidelines at the NARTH conference in November. In addition to other reasons, I am in disbelief that the leadership of NARTH has not come out against the article by Gerald Schoenewolf regarding political correctness. I fear that this is a cloud over NARTH that can only be dispelled by decisive action and clear statements.

Furthermore, I have been informed that David Blakeslee has resigned his membership in NARTH and the NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee, in part due to the ambiguous responses from NARTH regarding the Schoenewolf controversy. David will be adding remarks in an update here soon.

Comments:
I'm very happy for both of you.

The NARTH blog right now appears to be in a state of paranoid fanaticism--this Sojourneer character apparently is immune to reason.

Rather than address the legitimate, logical criticisms from the gay activists, he side steps them and instead posts a hundred articles which depict Ex-gays and NARTH as ostracized victims.

Absolutely ridiculous.

My support for NARTH goes only as far as the following phrase : "the right to self-determination."

Hell, I don't know what those wackos are thinking these days. I'm sorely disappointed.

Craig
 
I think you have taken a very honerable position, at considerable risk to your standing among some of your colleagues. But I think that when it comes to those colleagues who matter, your principled stand will be applauded.

I continue to be astonished at NARTH's continuing to ignore the situation, as well as their increasingly hysterical tone on NARTH's blog.

Warren, you're a-okay in my book.

I look forward to seeing Dr. Blakeslee's remarks.
 
Perhaps this will either be a wakeup call for Narth to rethink itself, or will result in the creation of some other group dedicated to principled therapy and research rather than invective and activism.

Yeah, I'll probably still disagree but at least I'll have the privelege of debating what a study means or what is or is not effective treatment rather than whether slaves were "better off".
 
Hats off to you both.
 
NARTH has the power to be a good organization if they allow someone else to engage in activism and they focus on making scientific comments about same-sex attraction.

Every organization has flaws, some of them serious, most are remediable. There are many good people at NARTH who need to lead it based upon its identity as a scientific organization. If it is led in another way, it needs to change its identity to an activist organization.

Until it is clear which path they choose, I decided I could no longer identify myself with them. As long as they inserted political opinions and poor advice into serious reviews of scientific research, I could no long identify myself with them. As long as they stubbornly defended such action and claimed they were being attacked by legitimate criticism, I could no longer identify myself with them.

I have been to NARTH conferences and found a diversity of ethnic and religious backgrounds represented. I cannot understand why they would stand so strongly behind an article which is so offensive and would be so easy to repudiate. Over the last few weeks they have had several opportunities to rethink this decision and they have failed everytime. I cannot help but think that non-scientists have too much pull in such decisions.

Sometimes organizations change because of the vision they renew. Sometimes they change because outside pressures require they do so. Sometimes they change, because internal pressures redirect them.

In the current political climate I would prefer that NARTH survive, change, and provide an important balance in the debate about same-sex attraction. The current debate about same sex attraction would not be as lively and varied were it not for NARTH and its contributions. I think they can can do even more and do it much better. We will see.

Some good friends who have disagreed with my decision have argued that the APA suffers from the same problem of cherrypicking its data to support a political agenda (See Redding, 2001). I will continue to fight against that hegemony at APA, but I cannot succeed in that fight if the colleagues I respect and support are making the same mistakes as those at the APA.

So, I resigned.

I hope all scientists on both sides of this intense debate will renew their efforts to both create good science and interpret the results they discover accurately. I believe NARTH would not exist at all if that devotion to truth at the APA had not been significantly weakened. All organizations (churches, schools, research organizations, and professional associations) assume many responsibilities when they lead, chief of which is a devotion to the truth. I look forward to NARTH refining its mission and through that process providing necessary balance in this debate.

All sides are helped by fidelity to the truth and by loving one's neighbor as one's self.

David Blakeslee
 
Just IMAGINE... "the creation of some other group dedicated to principled therapy and research rather than invective and activism" and that would

"provide the privelege of debating what a study means or what is or is not effective treatment rather than whether slaves were "better off".

Now THAT would be something!!!

I might even be willing to be a member of such a SCIENTIFIC organization, not because I believe gays can or should be "changed", but because it would be nice to see this debate removed from politics and put back into some scientifically respectable framework.

While we are at it, it would be REALLY nice to see EXODUS return to its roots, disentangle itself from political causes, "get out of bed with NARTH" (as EXODUS co-founder, Robbi Kenney suggested on this blog) -- and get back to bringing the Gospel to gays.
 
Craig: I take exception to your characterization of people at NARTH as "wackos." They see things differently than I do but they are trying to do what they believe to be correct.

David: Well said.
 
Mr. Blakeslee said:

"All sides are helped by fidelity to the truth and by loving one's neighbor as one's self."

Now THAT bears repeating. Perhaps all sides of this debate should adopt it as organizational and professional POLICY. We might even be able to re-start the very good discussion we had going awhile back on this blog on "Common Ground" -- in the weeks back before the malodorous "NARTH bombs" exploded.
 
Wow. I turn my back for a second and look what happens. Dr. Blakeslee and Warren, excellent decisions.
Remember I mentioned how the article was a rehash of a longer piece over at freecongress.org?http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/index.asp. Anti-black, Anti-Jew, anti women in the workplace, and anti-gay. These people are leading the charge in the culture wars that the Christian right has bought into. This isn't just a NARTH thing. It's pandemic. It's dangerous to all walks of life.
 
Now, if we could only convince Alan Chambers and his friends at FOTF that distancing themselves from NARTH would be a good thing for them as well. For better of for worse, you ARE known by the company you keep.

Last Sunday, our pastor urged all "ministries" to remain non-partisan. Or, was Jesus a Republican?
 
"I fear that this is a cloud over NARTH that can only be dispelled by decisive action and clear statements."

I have been out of touch for awhile. Has their been any cloud-lifting recently?
 
I note that there has been no response from EXODUS regarding the NARTH artciles or the resignation of Mr Blakeslee. NARTH is still linked to Alan Chamber's blog. I also noticed all the links to conservative Republican organizations and individuals. I keep scratching my head. What ever happened to the EXODUS I knew?

I am still trying to get used tto the fact that EXODUS is no longer the "loose-kniw coalition of ministries". Now, it seems, it has become just another blatantly political special interest group
 
Due to holidays, slow in coming, but...

Good. Long over due. But you knew that.

To go back to my Baptist roots...

"One does not bargain with the devil."

Ever.

And the devil is known by his lies.

Welcome aboard: what took ya so long???
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?