Will Amazon Ban The Bible Next?

Michael Brown: Site crossed a very dangerous line removing psychologist’s books

 

In a very disturbing move, Amazon has removed the books of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the psychologist whom critics have dubbed “the father of conversion therapy.” In other words, for claiming that sexual orientation is not innate and immutable, and for claiming that change is possible, Dr. Nicolosi’s books must be banned.

This leads to the logical question: Will Amazon ban the Bible next? There is no hyperbole here.

After all, it is the Bible that condemns same-sex relationships and the Bible that speaks of those who once practiced homosexuality but do so no more (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). These people, today, would be known as “ex-gays.” And it was Dr. Nicolosi’s life work to help people with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Why, then, should Amazon ban his books but continue to sell the Bible, which provides the theological underpinnings for Dr. Nicolosi’s scientific work?

After all, gay critics of the Bible refer to the so-called “clobber passages,” referring to verses that have been used to speak against homosexual practice. If these verses, then, have brought such harm to the gay community, why shouldn’t the book containing these verses be banned?

Not only so, but there are numerous books on Amazon written by ex-gays, sharing their wonderful stories of transformation. Will their books be banned next?

And what about the books that come to different scientific conclusions than the LGBT activists and their allies? And the books that challenge the goals of LGBT activism in society? And the books that reiterate the Scriptural prohibition of same-sex relationships?

Will those books be banned next?

What makes this especially frightening is that it appears that one man, Rojo Alan, based in England, was responsible for getting the books removed.

As reported on Pink News, at first, after sharing his concerns in writing, he got no response from either Amazon or the British outlet, Wordery. But after he posted his concerns on Facebook, he got an immediate response from Wordery, which quickly pulled Nicolosi’s writings.

Amazon, however, claimed that the books did not violate their guidelines.

Alan explains that “since then, I had been working on getting these books pulled. I contacted Amazon regularly to speak to them about the books, about how unethical they are.”

He “used social-media sites to ask people to leave bad reviews of the books, and also began researching the ways in which they violated Amazon’s rules of publishing.”

And, he continues, “Once I gathered everything I went back to Amazon and I threw all the information I had at them in several conversations. Yet I was given the same ‘we will refer this to the relevant team.’”

Not long after this, the books were removed, and Alan was moved to tears.

Of course, I could produce scores of testimonies from former patients of Dr. Nicolosi who were greatly helped by his counsel. Some experienced profound changes in their attractions. Others were freed from shame and self-harm. That’s why he remained in demand until his sudden passing in 2017.

Why don’t these voices matter?

I could also produce literature from liberal psychologists like the lesbian activist Dr. Lisa Diamond, who argues strongly that sexual orientation is fluid.

But that is not the real issue here. The issue is one of banning books that violate certain guidelines, in this case, guidelines created by LGBT activists. Amazon is now playing a very dangerous game of censoring that which is not politically correct. Where will that lead next?

Amazon carries thousands of books (perhaps, several hundred thousand books) that many readers find harmful and distasteful. Amazon carries a staggering array of material that offends many buyers or that raises serious concerns among others.

There are books that encourage behaviors I believe are destructive. There are books and other materials that attack and mock ideologies that are sacred to me. Should Amazon ban these books too?

Should Amazon ban books encouraging atheism and mocking the Bible? Or, conversely, should Amazon ban books challenging Darwinian evolution?

Should Amazon ban books that encourage sexual experimentation and the casting off of conservative morals? Or, conversely, should Amazon ban books that decry the dangers of legalized marijuana?

Should Amazon ban books that lead people into religious cults? Or, conversely, should it ban books that help people get out of these cults?

Should Amazon ban books that provide unhealthy food recipes? Or, conversely, should it ban books that encourage healthy eating and potentially “fat-shame” people?

To repeat: Amazon has crossed a very dangerous, precarious line. It needs to make an immediate about-face, admit its error, and make Dr. Nicolosi’s books available again.

The readers can decide what to buy and what not to buy.

It’s one thing if a book encouraged illegal, life-threatening behavior, as in a terrorist’s manual for making a bomb.

It’s another thing when a book, written by a respected psychologist, is banned because it violates LGBT sensibilities. Is this also a fruit of Amazon working with the notoriously left-leaning SPLC?

I have been a long-term Amazon customer, purchasing tens of thousands of dollars of books from them over the years, along with everything ranging from computers to headphones to random household items. As an author, I also recognize the importance of selling books on Amazon and getting good reviews written. And for me, personally, Amazon’s customer service has been second to none.

All the more, then, do I appeal to Amazon: Please set this right.

We know Jeff Bezos supports the LGBT cause, and that’s his prerogative. But when political leanings influence censorship decisions, we move a step closer to burning books in the streets.

Amazon, please reverse your course.

(If you agree with this article, post and share it widely, sharing your concerns with Amazon as well.)

https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/will-amazon-ban-the-bible-next/

VIDEO CA Legislators Blame Religious People For High LGBT Suicide Rates – no such thing as transgender

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None.

By Glenn T. Stanton  JUNE 27, 2019

Legislators in California have discovered yet another way to make it clear that mainstream religions holding to the sexual teachings of their sacred texts have no business doing so in the Golden State. Why? Because these faiths, which billions of good people worldwide happily hold, do not embrace homosexuality. This includes the three largest: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

In a resolution that recently passed the state assembly, “the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance” of LGBT people. It singles out especially faith-motivated individuals and organizations.

These legislators make a very ugly accusation against such people. California lawmakers are planning to spread the idea, with the power and moral authority of the state, that such religious beliefs actually kill people, including children. The text of this bill boldly states:

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT and questioning individuals…

Note the absoluteness of their conclusions, particularly two words: create and cause. Stigma, created by religious groups, causes high rates of suicide.

Do Religious People Make Others Commit Suicide?

Let it sink in. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your beliefs make gay people kill themselves. If this is indeed true, we are among the worst of the worst kinds of people. These legislators believe this is true and are doing something about it. California is trying to insist that churches, synagogues and mosques, their leaders, congregants, grade schools, universities, and families fully and uncritically support homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identities in every way.

Thus, any teaching, preaching, writings or practices that are faithful to the clear sexual instructions of these faiths will be beyond the pale of official California values. They will not be tolerated. This charge makes this legislation overwhelmingly serious and consequential because of the seriousness of this charge. Either one party is directly culpable for deaths or the other of making such a dreadful allegation.

To be clear, what they’re proposing is a resolution and would not have the razor-sharp edge of law. But it would have the real and devastating blunt force of state-sanctioned shaming of religious convictions. They couldn’t criminalize you, but they could obliterate your reputation and your life. There are too many vivid examples of this already. Of course, this resolution will grease the skids for it becoming enforceable law.

I want to demonstrate, through some objective and undeniable facts, coupled with simple reasoning, why this long-used accusation has no foundation. The case consists of three basic points:

  • There is simply no dependable research support for the accusation. None.
  • Gay and lesbian individuals themselves report being significantly more likely to choose to attend the very churches that teach a more traditional sexual ethic than they do so-called “welcoming and affirming” churches.
  • The most dramatically gay-friendly places in the world still have incredibly and disproportionately high rates of suicides among their gay and lesbian individuals.

1. No Real Evidence

There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None. It is largely created as an ideological assumption and political cudgel. But to even question the assertion will cast you immediately as a heartless stone. Remember, any science that does not permit it to be questioned has become fundamentalist dogmatism.
There is a very small amount of literature on the general harms of family rejection (which we at Focus on the Family strongly advise against), but none showing it causessuicide. There is certainly none establishing religious causation. That is an objective fact. Quite simply, anyone making the claim family responses and religious teaching cause suicide do so absent any bit of scientific proof.

2. LGBT People Choose More Traditional Churches

Let’s look at data that raise serious questions about the “religion kills” assertion. Research done by two gay-friendly scholars from Columbia and the University of California at Los Angeles found that, to their absolute disbelief, church-attending, same-sex-attracted individuals are 2.5 times more likely to attend congregations that hold and teach a more traditional, biblical view of sexuality than they are to attend so-called welcoming and affirming churches.
Let’s consider the implications of this interesting finding. Suppose for a moment that the “religion kills” accusation is correct. Either these individuals are too dull to realize they are doing grave harm to themselves by regularly attending such churches, or they find such churches are quite lovely and helpful. Why else would they choose to wake up early on a Sunday morning and go to the trouble of getting themselves there?
This study’s abstract states, “Guided by minority stress theory, the authors hypothesized that exposure to non-affirming religious settings would lead to higher internalized homophobia, more depressive symptoms, and less psychological well-being.” They were honest in admitting they found “There was no main effect of non-affirming religion on mental health, an unexpected finding discussed in this article.” No main effect on mental health itself, much less suicide.

3. Gay-Affirming Societies Also Have High Suicide Rates

Leading gay activists and their faithful allies in the media and academia operate on a simple and seemingly reasonable premise: non-acceptance of homosexuality leads to greater levels of suicide. To reduce these tragic rates, replace non-acceptance with full affirmation and all will be well. Doing so would not only dramatically reduce suicide, but also the disproportionately higher levels of mental illness among this population, which are strongly and consistently documented. (See herehere and here for just three strong examples.)
This thesis is easy to test: Determine the most gay-affirming places in the world. Are the suicide rates of gay and lesbian individuals in these places significantly lower than in non-affirming countries?
The most gay-affirming places on the planet are the Netherlands and Scandinavia. In Amsterdam, the gay movement has received every major law, policy, or cultural accommodation they’ve requested, with nearly no opposition, and often with great celebration. They televise their annual gay pride parade, and Amsterdam spends more than a million euros a year to promote itself as “The Gay Capital of the World.” The land of windmills and tulips is gay Valhalla.
Their gay and lesbian suicide rates should be extremely low, if non-existent, right?  That is not what scholars, government officials, and clinicians find. Rates of suicide and suicidal ideation among gay youth and adults are remarkably, tragically high in the Netherlands. Scholars even have a name for this. They call it the “Dutch Paradox.”
Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a world leader with respect to gay rights, homosexual Dutch men have much higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders and suicide attempts than heterosexual Dutch men. Epidemiologists report similar disparitieselsewhere in Western Europe and North America. [Emphasis mine.]
Let’s look at just a few examples of evidence. A 2006 Dutch study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that despite living “in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality” gay and lesbian-identified people were at dramatically higher risk for suicidality than the general Dutch population.
More recently, a 2016 Swedish study shows that the rate of gay males suffering from lifetime suicidal ideation there is 140 percent greater. The same measure for women there is 110 percent higher than the general population. Bisexuals are curiously even higher, with females 250 percent more likely and bisexual men 160 percent.
In France, fourth on the world’s gay-friendly list, gays and lesbians are on average 80 percent more likely to suffer suicidal ideation than their straight peers. All countries that keep such data show similar findings, regardless of changes in attitudes and policies concerning LGB-identified individuals.

Do Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Affect Rates?

With greater specificity, a 2016 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology examined how legalizing gay-marriage affected suicidality. It should have reduced it, right? Yet Swedes in same-sex marriages, enjoying their anticipated greater social acceptance and security, retained suicide rates nearly three times that of their married opposite-sex peers. The authors caution these numbers are likely an underestimation. A similar study found that Danish men in legal same-sex unions had a dramatic eightfold increase in suicide deaths over opposite-sex married peers.
The fact of the matter is this: There is no research whatsoever demonstrating significantly reduced rates of suicidal deaths or attempts among gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people as the overall acceptance or affirmation of these groups in a country increases. Any honest person who knows this literature well will admit it.
Thus, this is the conclusion that must be admitted: If the “acceptance of homosexuality equals reduction of suicide” thesis has any validity to it, a society would need to far exceed the acceptance, affirmation, and even celebratory actions of the Netherlands and other countries to demonstrate it. Of course, this is reasonably impossible. What is there left to do that these countries are not already doing?
Reasonable people, even those in the gay rights movement, must call for a sharp end to the absolutely vile and false accusation that certain mainstream religious traditions are culpable for the deaths of gay and lesbian people. The Bible Belt does not run through Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Copenhagen.
We must admit that something else is driving the tragically high suicide rates of our gay and lesbian neighbors, and it’s not traditional faith convictions. True compassion demands we find out what that cause is; these lives are too valuable to play baseless politics with.

Glenn T. Stanton is a Federalist senior contributor who writes and speaks about family, gender, and art, is the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, and is the author of the brand new “The Myth of the Dying Church” (Worthy, 2019). He blogs at glenntstanton.com.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/


There is no such thing as transgender – John F MacArthur

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: