A group called Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund has taken on the defense of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing (JONAH) against a suit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC complaint alleges that JONAH violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud law by promising sexual reorientation to clients without success. The complaint is here.
It is very discouraging to see the JONAH complaint framed as a freedom of conscience case. As the complaint outlines, the techniques alleged by the plaintiffs have been discredited within the mainstream mental health community and as such should be confronted. Please see this post on the “oranges therapy” and this one on the use of nudity by JONAH counselors.
Furthermore, it is misleading for JONAH to describe what it does in the following manner:
For over twelve years, JONAH has helped hundreds of people live the lives that they want, consistent with their personal values. JONAH’s mission is to give all people the opportunity to explore their internal conflicts around sexuality and other values in a caring, non-judgmental environment.
As I have noted elsewhere, reparative therapists are beginning to use the language of the sexual identity therapy framework to describe what they do. However, reparative therapy is inconsistent with the SIT Framework.
Dr. Oz’s Reparative Therapy Adventure
Sexual Identity Therapy is Not Reparative Therapy
Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: No Naked Therapy?
Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: Orange You Glad I Didn’t Say Banana?
Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: What Does Mainstream Mean?
Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: When Reparative Isn’t Reparative
As far as I know, any churches/organizations that perform exorcism are considered religious, meaning that any medical offices regulated by states do not perform exorcism, legally speaking.
In most states, as long as exorcism or any other religious ceremonies did not involve actions that have resulted in physical harm or death, people who’ve performed them, are not being held legally accountable.
I used the term “secular” from professional jurisprudential perspective, hence I’ve said, legally speaking. The Consumer Fraud law of New Jersey mostly applies to business that are officially secular and/or that serve secular purposes. That’s not me, but that’s how the lawmakers define things. FYI, a legal limbo is a common term that lawyers use to describe the interpretations of laws that come out as multidimensional, interpretations that are very gray and not so black- and- white. What you said in your last paragraph is exactly that, a law that is pretty complicated, not a black-and-white interpretation. You see what I mean?
I am praying for everyone at JONAH that this frivolous lawsuit end quickly.
This tabloid report is another example of why this blog should not be taken seriously by anyone other than radical pro-gay activists.
I invite you to have a look through
http://www.ministeringdeliverance.com/phpBB2/
etc etc
Here are some of the inevitable consequences:
inca nitta says:
December 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm
“It’s a very fine line determining what is considered a religion and what is a solely secular business, legally speaking.”
I said nothing about “secular” business. I said it was a business, the fact that it caters to a specific religious group however, does not make it a “religion.” JONAH has no more claim to being a “religion” than a kosher deli has.
“I see a legal limbo, here.”
I suspect you are once again only seeing what you want to see.
They lie. So? What’s new?
inca nitta
How would you describe these:
http://www.demonicafflictions.org/tools_to_freedom
As secular/medical, or religious?
There are a lot of floridly psychotic people who are at the tender mercies of such organisations – often run by people equally reality-challenged.
Gee, JONAH claims to have helped “hundreds” of people over 12 years. That’s anywhere from 16 people/year on the low end to 83 people/year on the high end. And that is not their “cure” rate, just the number of folks whom they claim to “help,” i.e., anyone who walks in their door.
I am praying for everyone at JONAH that this frivolous lawsuit end quickly.
This tabloid report is another example of why this blog should not be taken seriously by anyone other than radical pro-gay activists.
Gender Identity Change in a Transsexual: An Exorcism
David H. Barlow, Ph.D., Gene G. Abel, M.D., and Edward B. Blanchard
Archives of Sexual Behavior, VoL 6, No. 5, 1977
This research was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-20258.
Gender Identity Change in a Transsexual: An Exorcism
David H. Barlow, Ph.D., Gene G. Abel, M.D., and Edward B. Blanchard
Archives of Sexual Behavior, VoL 6, No. 5, 1977
This research was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-20258.
As far as I know, any churches/organizations that perform exorcism are considered religious, meaning that any medical offices regulated by states do not perform exorcism, legally speaking.
In most states, as long as exorcism or any other religious ceremonies did not involve actions that have resulted in physical harm or death, people who’ve performed them, are not being held legally accountable.
I invite you to have a look through
http://www.ministeringdeliverance.com/phpBB2/
etc etc
Here are some of the inevitable consequences:
inca nitta
How would you describe these:
http://www.demonicafflictions.org/tools_to_freedom
As secular/medical, or religious?
There are a lot of floridly psychotic people who are at the tender mercies of such organisations – often run by people equally reality-challenged.
I used the term “secular” from professional jurisprudential perspective, hence I’ve said, legally speaking. The Consumer Fraud law of New Jersey mostly applies to business that are officially secular and/or that serve secular purposes. That’s not me, but that’s how the lawmakers define things. FYI, a legal limbo is a common term that lawyers use to describe the interpretations of laws that come out as multidimensional, interpretations that are very gray and not so black- and- white. What you said in your last paragraph is exactly that, a law that is pretty complicated, not a black-and-white interpretation. You see what I mean?
inca nitta says:
December 23, 2012 at 4:57 pm
“It’s a very fine line determining what is considered a religion and what is a solely secular business, legally speaking.”
I said nothing about “secular” business. I said it was a business, the fact that it caters to a specific religious group however, does not make it a “religion.” JONAH has no more claim to being a “religion” than a kosher deli has.
“I see a legal limbo, here.”
I suspect you are once again only seeing what you want to see.
Ken,
It’s a very fine line determining what is considered a religion and what is a solely secular business, legally speaking. Btw, the law of New Jersey does not prohibit officially religious organizations, such as JONAH, to operate as businesses, in general. I see a legal limbo, here.
Patrocles,
Who is George Nader? I’ve never heard this name, before, and I’m wondering what relevance does he have towards SPLC and exgay/reparative ministries?
inca nitta says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm
“in order for the plaintiff in this case to win, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NO same-sex attracted person who’s been a client of JONAH can ever and has never changed his attractions to heterosexual ones”
No, all they need to do is show that JONAH’s methods have no scientific basis to “cure” homosexuality.
“since JONAH is a officially religious organization, most likely the state cannot control their activities,”
No, JONAH took money from clients and promised a service (curing their homosexuality), that makes it a business not a religion.
Ken,
It’s a very fine line determining what is considered a religion and what is a solely secular business, legally speaking. Btw, the law of New Jersey does not prohibit officially religious organizations, such as JONAH, to operate as businesses, in general. I see a legal limbo, here.
Patrocles,
Who is George Nader? I’ve never heard this name, before, and I’m wondering what relevance does he have towards SPLC and exgay/reparative ministries?
inca nitta says:
December 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm
“in order for the plaintiff in this case to win, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NO same-sex attracted person who’s been a client of JONAH can ever and has never changed his attractions to heterosexual ones”
No, all they need to do is show that JONAH’s methods have no scientific basis to “cure” homosexuality.
“since JONAH is a officially religious organization, most likely the state cannot control their activities,”
No, JONAH took money from clients and promised a service (curing their homosexuality), that makes it a business not a religion.
“It is very discouraging to see the JONAH complaint framed as a freedom of conscience case. ”
I understand your emotions. But then it’s rather discouraging for me to see the SPLC complaint framed as a consumer fraud case. I mean, Marc Potok isn’t George Nader, is he? And the people Jonah believes to help are not Southern poors, are they? So, there’s a hidden angle there, anyway.
“It is very discouraging to see the JONAH complaint framed as a freedom of conscience case. ”
I understand your emotions. But then it’s rather discouraging for me to see the SPLC complaint framed as a consumer fraud case. I mean, Marc Potok isn’t George Nader, is he? And the people Jonah believes to help are not Southern poors, are they? So, there’s a hidden angle there, anyway.
Gee, JONAH claims to have helped “hundreds” of people over 12 years. That’s anywhere from 16 people/year on the low end to 83 people/year on the high end. And that is not their “cure” rate, just the number of folks whom they claim to “help,” i.e., anyone who walks in their door.
Well,
Speaking strictly from a legal perspective: in order for the plaintiff in this case to win, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NO same-sex attracted person who’s been a client of JONAH can ever and has never changed his attractions to heterosexual ones, and that those who claim that have and that JONAH has benefited them (which, I’m sure, there are plenty of such supporters) are compulsive liars, also beyond reasonable doubt. I think this will be a very hard thing to accomplish.
Also, since JONAH is a officially religious organization, most likely the state cannot control their activities, except for very special circumstances, thus, there are chances that the case might be dismissed on the lack of merits.
Well,
Speaking strictly from a legal perspective: in order for the plaintiff in this case to win, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NO same-sex attracted person who’s been a client of JONAH can ever and has never changed his attractions to heterosexual ones, and that those who claim that have and that JONAH has benefited them (which, I’m sure, there are plenty of such supporters) are compulsive liars, also beyond reasonable doubt. I think this will be a very hard thing to accomplish.
Also, since JONAH is a officially religious organization, most likely the state cannot control their activities, except for very special circumstances, thus, there are chances that the case might be dismissed on the lack of merits.
They lie. So? What’s new?
This is a very disturbing trend to see these organizations pretending to be SITF. What do you think it will take for non-approved psychological practices to be discontinued? ..political action?? .. legal action?? .. medical board action?? some other action??
Dave
This is a very disturbing trend to see these organizations pretending to be SITF. What do you think it will take for non-approved psychological practices to be discontinued? ..political action?? .. legal action?? .. medical board action?? some other action??
Dave