The Christian Scientists do exactly this, and they go unpunished.

Then they should be, and their actions should be criminalized.

Right now here in Texas, we are fighting the Battle of Ignorance
with those morons over what is published in our high school 'health'
textbooks regarding sexuality.

Let us not also forget that even if murder is considered part of your
religion, you will nonetheless be prosecuted. There has been a line
drawn for some religiously-motivated forms of murder that are crimes,
such as with Satanic ritual sacrifice (assuming it ever occurs), and
some religiously-motivated forms of murder that aren't - such as with
Christian Scientists who let their children die for lack of medical
care. The line is arbitrary and is in desperate need of erasing.

On Sun 31 Oct 2004 04:22:37p, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up
a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:

In our last episode <2ukikrF2btl3sU1@uni-berlin.de>, towelie lept out of
the bushes shouting:

TV's The other Donald wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ujsqkF2c09evU1@uni-berlin.de...

TV's JTEM wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote

I disagree that it should be a crime.

Okay, so you "disagree." Now what about my example?

I agree that it is quackery, but if we make stuff like that a crime
we'll have to ban religion as well. It opens a whole can of worms.

What if religious tripe was used to treat cancer?

Or, instead of a tetanus shot, a doctor prescribed daily prayers for a
person that stepped on a rusty nail?

Would you then change your mind as to the criminality of their
actions?

The Christian Scientists do exactly this, and they go unpunished.

Here we go, read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1183596,00.html

Found it while I was trying to find *some evidence that "Newton's Cat"
wasn't making this ***** up (by the way, I can't find any evidence that
there's any discussion in the UK to ban "reorientation therapy," it
apparently doesn't even *exist in the UK).

Get this from the above:

"There is no such thing as a homosexual," the chief speaker, a clinical
psychologist called Dr Joseph Nicolosi, assures his audience. "Everyone
is heterosexual. Some of you may have a homosexual problem. But you are
still a heterosexual. 'Homosexual' is simply a description of a
psychological disorder, prompted by an inner sense of emptiness. This,"
he reminds them, "by the way, is non-religious, non-political
information. This is scientific information."


This is what I mean. Pseudo-scientific claims and offers of "therapy."
We don't have to go anywhere *near religion. The "repairative therapy"
bunch are making claims of being *scientific.

Here in the US we do at least this much:

"Since 1998, any client in the US seeking reparative therapy has been
obliged by the American Psychiatric Association to sign a consent form
acknowledging its position: that sexual reorientation is impossible and
that attempting it may cause psychological harm."

(I did not know that myself)

Read the article, though, and pay *particular attention to what Nicolosi
considers a "success." It's interesting.

I just LOVE this part:

"[Nicolosi's] clients are encouraged to form healthy friendships with
straight men, take vigorous physical exercise and use manly vocabulary
such as 'dude.'"

I like to fell out of my chair laughing at that one.

Huh. Despite the layoff (which started around August after the Great
Flower Bed Disaster <g>), my bench press is still more than my body
weight. My closest friends are *very straight males. And while I never
picked up "dude" (I lived for years in LA, it's surfer lingo <g>), I
cuss like a construction worker. I've also worked construction. I like
pickup trucks and hand guns. I like dogs, don't care much for cats
(though kittens are fun). Prefer Pit Bulls. Wear jeans, t-shirts, and
baseball cap.

I wish that ***** Nicolosi would get in *my face about masculinity.

It's the stereotype. More gay men are effeminate than straight men, so
even though there are plenty of manly gay men and effeminate straight men
(hell, I'm a bit effeminate myself, but then a good number of women like
that, so I get by just fine ;) ), people tend to assume that gay =
feminine, straight = masculine.

But what if someone who's lived a homosexual life for years decides
that he *wants* to live heterosexually, but he's
afraid|confused|whatever, and *wants* outside help to adjust? Would
you consider that a therapist|psychologist|psychiatrist who attempts
to help him is committing quackery?

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 15:20:39 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> said in alt.atheism:

My point is "repairative therapy" is known *quackery.

Well, wait a minute.

If they try to coercively change a homosexual to heterosexuality, it's
assault, or something close, and medical (probably) quackery.

But what if someone who's lived a homosexual life for years decides that
he *wants* to live heterosexually, but he's afraid|confused|whatever, and
*wants* outside help to adjust? Would you consider that a
therapist|psychologist|psychiatrist who attempts to help him is committing
quackery? (We're probably talking about someone who *is* heterosexual,
but has been living a homosexual life - not a homosexual. But how does
anyone but the subject know?)

They try stealing
the authority of science by clothing it in pseudo-science babble but it's
just snake oil. There's no such thing as a "cure" for homosexuality.

The same as the "cure" for heterosexuality, genetic maleness, etc. It's
called death.

Now they might get away with it *here. But that doesn't mean the Brits
have to put up with the snake oil salesmen and quacks does it?

If Shrubby has his way, it does. After all, what gives the Brits the
right that no one else in this world has - to not do what Shrubbery's god
wants?