Association of Christian Counsellors (UK) Statement Prohibiting Reparative Therapy

Monday, the UK Guardian reported that the Association of Christian Counsellors* prohibited reparative therapy for their members.  The statement backing up this action sounds very much like the sexual identity therapy framework. Here is the AAC statement in full:

An ACC statement to its members January 2014
In December 2012, ACC made a statement to its members supporting and clarifying our ethical framework. The Board has continued to discuss and reflect on the area specifically relating to work with clients who present with same sex attraction issues and is now updating our guidance to counsellors, supervisors and members.
For the purpose of clarity below is the first part of the original statement mentioned above:
“All counsellors are required with due diligence to provide safe practice on behalf of their clients. This requires the counsellor to practice fully within the Ethics and Practice framework they are using with each client. The client is to be aware of the Framework being used as essential information during contracting and guidance given as to which complaints procedure is in
operation.
The particular ethical considerations taken from the ACC Ethics and Practice are:
(From’ Ethics for Members of the Association of Christian Counsellors’ section)
5.1 “Members should be trustworthy…maintain confidentiality…”
5.2 “Members should respect their clients’ right to take decisions for and to act for themselves.”
5.3 “Members should be committed to securing the client’s best interests.”.
5.5. “Members should avoid any action which might cause harm to a client. One of the most important aspects in counselling is client autonomy.”
In addition ACC has now reflected on the following (from ‘ACC Good Practice in Christian Counselling and related fields’ section 5) and its application including how it relates to the Equality Act 2010:
Good Practice in Christian Counselling and related fields states 5.1.1.12. Members should not allow any personal views they may hold about lifestyle, gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, beliefs or culture to prejudice their professional relationships with clients. The Equality Act 2010 requires that discrimination does not occur on the following protected grounds: age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
As counsellors working in the UK, ACC members are expected to adhere to both ACC Code of Ethics and Good Practice and to UK Law, which means adhering to both of the statements made above. It is clear that in some instances the ‘protected grounds’’, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, of one individual may appear to be contrary to that of another (or indeed may be in conflict within an individual) i.e. the religious beliefs of a counsellor and the sexual orientation of a counsellee. In such instances ACC would expect our members to act without discrimination towards all and uphold the rights of the protected characteristics enshrined in the Equality Act 2010. In addition the essential characteristics of a therapeutic relationship are genuineness, congruence, unconditional positive regard, empathy and understanding (being non-judgmental, warm and empathic) thus providing a safe environment for the client to explore their feelings and concerns. It is clear that in protecting client autonomy it is important for counsellors not to impose themselves or their beliefs on anyone who comes for therapy, either by implying that a particular outcome is possible or expecting the client to come into alignment with their own belief system or understanding on certain approaches to life. Such actions would be unethical and so ACC would expect any member to consider the therapeutic model that they are using to be in-line with these principles and characteristics. ACC has therefore expanded on the original statement that reflects more clearly its view on therapy in relation to same sex attraction.
There are certain guiding principles arising from ACC Ethics and Practice framework. These guiding principles apply when deciding what is appropriate in practice or for any therapeutic model. Namely that …
a) Counsellors / therapists do not make assumptions that the client is looking for a particular outcome
b) Do not allow counsellors/ therapists to suggest, impose, advertise that therapy would achieve a particular outcome / change etc.
c) Counsellors / therapists do not make the achievement of a particular outcome (determined by the counsellor/therapist), be the measure by which success / failure of the therapy is determined
d) Counsellors / therapists do not impose a particular moral standpoint or belief system on the client.
We have considered Reparative (or Conversion) Therapy by these principles and have decided that it does not fit the above criteria for the following reasons:
(i) Its language implies that sexuality can be ‘repaired’ and so introduces the idea of treatment or cure.
(ii) Where it is proposed, advertised, or practiced as a therapy, it suggests that a specific outcome is possible and appears to make an a-priori assumption that it should happen. This would not fit any of the above guiding principles.
(iii) It is incompatible with the Equality Act 2010.
For this reason, we do not endorse Reparative or Conversion Therapy or any model that implies a predetermined direction of outcome of counselling at the outset. We recognize that such models have the potential to impose situational demands on the client at a time of vulnerability with the potential to create harm and therefore view them as incompatible within the ethos of counselling.
Members who are considering using this model of therapy should neither commence nor continue to use it and any advertising or promotional material should be replaced immediately, or at least removed from current use. This includes the ACC “Find a counsellor” facility on our website.
We recognize that this is not the view of some of our members but in the interests of public safety we have decided to make clear what is expected by those who choose to be part of ACC.

*No relationship with American Association of Christian Counselors

CVV: Searching For A Libertarian Jesus

Gil Harp and Michael Coulter have a thought provoking op-ed out this morning via the Center for Vision and Values titled, “Searching For A Libertarian Jesus.”
In reaction to various unnamed Christian supporters of a minimalist state, Harp and Coulter search for a libertarian Jesus without success. To listen to Christian proponents of the tea party, for instance, one might think governments are incapable of any good. One might think that, but one should not claim Jesus expressly teaches it. Harp and Coulter:

Must Christians—because of the example of Jesus—oppose states enacting sabbatarian laws or limiting access to pornography? How about making drivers wear seatbelts? There might be prudential reasons for opposing such laws, but Jesus’ teaching doesn’t address them. In addition to punishing criminals, governments can use their power to do positive good, such as sometimes using force so that child support is paid by a non-custodial parent. Government can also use its power to discourage some harmful behaviors, such as divorce or public drunkenness. Nothing in Jesus’ teaching explicitly rules out these kinds of state actions. The Gospels do certainly offer ethical principles, such as the Golden Rule, but they don’t provide a blueprint for health insurance regulations or tariff policy.

While I don’t want sabbatarian laws enacted, I think I get the point. The Gospels, and I will add the Bible, don’t offer us detailed economic policies which must be followed as one would follow revealed truth. In much Christian discourse today (e.g., David Barton’s sermons), the Bible is presented as the GOP policy manual with deviation from the political platform treated as grounds for excommunication.
Christian libertarians who want Jesus to be a libertarian have to contend with an inconvenient truth. One the icons of their movement, Ludwig von Mises, didn’t think much of Christianity. Again, Harp and Coulter:

Mises was no fan of Jesus’ economics. He asserted that Jesus’ “teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” Mises contended that, “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come … In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer.” As for the religion Jesus founded, Mises was convinced that “A living Christianity cannot, it seems, exist side by side with Capitalism.”

Although I wish they would have named names, the article is a good read and I encourage you to check it out.

Was The Death Penalty Really Removed From Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill? (UPDATED)

UPDATE – 1/14/14: This morning, I received an email from Charles Tuhaise, researcher for Uganda’s Parliament. Charles provided clarification about some of the issues I raised in this post. Thanks to him for the information. I am placing his comments in advance of yesterday’s post because they address some of my questions below. Regarding the manner of handling bills in Uganda, Tuhaise wrote:

Over here, the original Bill remains intact throughout the debate period until the Bill comes up for second reading. At second reading, usually on the same day, the entire Parliament constitutes itself into a “Committee of the whole House” and then effects amendments to the Bill clause-by-clause. After that, the Bill is “read” the third time and is passed by Parliament.
The rules of procedure do not provide for any other way of amending a Bill, after it is printed, other than the above procedure, when the Bill appears for 2nd reading in Parliament’s plenary sitting. That’s why the same copies of the AH Bill are provided whenever you request them. Even if it is a Private Member’s Bill, the Bill’s proponent cannot alter anything in the printed Bill, but must wait to propose such amendment at the Bill’s 2nd reading.
After a Bill is passed by Parliament with amendments, the Clerk’s office undertakes to produce the revised Bill that incorporates the amendments agreed by Parliament. This revised copy of the Bill is never availed to the public but is sent to the President for assent. If the President assents, it goes to the Printers and is next seen by the public as an Act of Parliament, (no-longer a Bill).
I hope this clarifies the issue of Bill amendment. The first time we know which amendments were agreed on in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, is when it appears as an Act of Parliament (i.e. if the President signs it as passed). Alternatively, one can go to the House record of the debates (the Hansard) to see the amendments agreed when Parliament constituted itself as “Committee of the whole House” – (after the Hansard Department publishes the day’s proceedings – not sure if a copy is already available.)
But, Parliament’s Public Relations Department covered the day’s proceedings and wrote an article that indicates what was agreed on that day.

The article indicates that an act of homosexuality could lead to 14 years in jail with life in prison for repeated offenses. I have also been told that the 30 day period for Museveni’s assent (or not) does not begin until he gets the amended bill. If that is true, then his time for consideration may not have started since he may not yet have the amended bill. I asked Charles to clarify that point and will add that information when I get it.
……………. (Original posts begins below)
After the passage of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill on December 20, all news coverage of that event claimed that the death penalty was removed from the bill.
On one other occasion prior to the adjournment of the 8th Parliament, the public was told that the death penalty had been removed. However, later, it was learned that the death penalty was in fact, still in place. And if the committee report that supported the enactment of the bill in December is the same report as offered in May 2011, then the death penalty could very well still be in the bill being considered now by Uganda’s president Yowari Museveni.
I have asked Parliament several times for a copy of the amended bill. Recently, when I asked Parliament’s media relations for a copy of the bill passed in December 2013, I received a copy of the bill tabled in June, 2011. In that bill, there are no changes from the original bill; the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality is still in place.

The date stamped on this bill is June 30, 2011 which was when the bill was tabled in the 9th Parliament. Click the link to read the bill sent to me and described as the bill passed by Parliament. The description of “aggravated homosexuality” is the same.

The death penalty is still in there (UPDATE: but as noted above, the death penalty is supposed to be removed. I still want to see the language myself due to the incident in 2011).
Now it may be that amendments were made and the bill as amended is being kept a secret. However, with the deadline looming for Museveni’s decision, it is worth asking what is actually in the bill. The world was told once upon a time that the death penalty was taken out and that other changes were made. However, the committee report in 2011 revealed otherwise.
Life in prison is bad enough and as this Cameroonian fellow proves, any time spent in prison could be a death sentence, so the removal, if true, is not reason for relief.
As I understand it, the bill becomes law if Museveni does nothing by next Monday (please see above — this may not be true). As of now, in my mind, there is still some doubt about what that law will look like.

David Barton's Favorite Candidate For Texas Attorney General Preparing Texas To Be Independent Nation

Like Ted Cruz before him, Barry Smitherman is a rising star in the Texas GOP. Smitherman is currently chair of the Railroad Commission and running to be Texas Attorney General.  David Barton endorsed Cruz and now David Barton has endorsed Smitherman for AG.
Smitherman’s views are right of center to say the least. He is preparing for the demise of the nation and wants Texas to be ready to secede from the union.  So when Smitherman says he wants to secure the borders, he might mean with Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Arkansas as well as Mexico.
His defense of Christian identity group “Crusaders for Yahweh” is disturbing for one of two reasons. Either Smitherman doesn’t know the Crusaders are white nationalists, or he does know and stuck up for them anyway. Being in sympathy with white nationalists would be worse than being uninformed, but being uninformed about such things does not inspire confidence in an Attorney General candidate.
 
*I changed the headline to reflect the fact that I have seen no evidence that Smitherman advocates secession from the U.S. now. His statement to WND supports Texas independence if the U.S. collapses.

Uganda's Speaker of Parliament Accuses Donors of Bullying; Forgets Uganda's Bullying of Gays

According to the Uganda Sunday Monitor:

The Speaker of Parliament, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, has warned the West against “bullying” Uganda over passing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Addressing Uganda’s ambassadors abroad during a meeting with the House committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, Ms Kadaga took a swipe at foreign countries for targeting Uganda, yet still keeping economic relations with other African countries with the same law.

As a taxpayer, I am glad the government is considering human rights in their donor decisions. I can think of a few other countries I would like to see get less money from the U.S. over human rights violations.
Speaker Kadaga should consider how she would like her government to bully gays.
Kadaga’s rhetoric makes me think that she is facing some heat internally. My guess is that she has political aspirations beyond being speaker and would like to use the gay issue in a populist appeal.