Monday, March 12, 2012

The Closing of the Western Mind and Mouth

According to, Lesley Pilkington, apsychotherapist in the UK has stated that:

  • “Our churches have become extremely worldly. It is supposed to be that the churches influence the nation, but now the nation is influencing the church.”
  • Churches “very rarely talk about sin and refuse ever to say that homosexual behaviour is a sin.” Only a minority of people in the churches in Britain, “speak out the word of God. And they get a lot of aggression for it. The church is doing a disservice to homosexuals by denying sinners their liberty in the lord Jesus Christ. They are blind guides leading others into a ditch of destruction.”
  • “The established churches don’t accept the way I’ve spoken today, which is a biblical way. The word of God is being marginalised, as is the medical truth of homosexuality.”
  • “Statistics for self-harm, self-hatred, psychological illness are horrendous and are getting more and more momentum as this acceptance grows,” she said. Homosexual behaviour is “incredibly bad for the individual, it is destructive to the person and to our nation.”
  • “There is no way being gay-affirmative is helpful to individuals or to our nation,” she said. She admitted that in the UK, it is becoming “very close to illegal to say this.”
How could Pilkington get away with saying such inflammatory things? Well, she didn’t:

  • The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy found her guilty of professional misconduct and ordered her to undergo re-training and “professional development.” These are to be completed in six to 12 months, or her membership will be revoked and she will be “struck off.”
  • The BACP ruled that Pilkington’s approach was “reckless,” “dogmatic,” “disrespectful” and “unprofessional.” She was judged to have let her “personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation … affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial.”
This transpired because,

  • Lesley Pilkington was the object of a sting operation by undercover journalist Patrick Strudwick, who approached her to ask her for help with his sexuality. He had told Pilkington that he wanted to leave the homosexual lifestyle and she informed him that she only worked within a Christian counseling framework.
  • Strudwick, who went to two counseling sessions with Pilkington and published the transcript of the meetings in The Independent newspaper, was awarded journalist of the year by the homosexualist organization Stonewall for the sting. After the sessions, he lodged a complaint to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy alleging that Pilkington had failed to respect the “fixed nature” of his homosexuality.
 Pilkington had explained,

  • “He told me he was looking for a treatment for being gay. He said he was depressed and unhappy and would I give him some therapy. I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted.”
Had Strudwick only complained that he was depressed, Pilkington would have been held in contempt by her profession had she sent him away telling him to “learn to live with it!” Why the double standard? Certainly, the BACP would never stoop to political correctness by compromising truth and professionalism. Certainly, the BACP wouldn’t compromise the welfare of the public that they serve!

Commenting on the case, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said,

  • “Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to ‘turn’ a consenting homosexual? If, for whatever reasons – moral, religious, personal – a homosexual man wants to have help to cure this, he should be allowed to seek treatment. I’m not being critical about homosexuality at all, but if we have people who want to change, why should they be prevented from that happening?”
Good question, but who cares about truth and logical consistency if the cost is criticism!

  • During her discussions with the BACP she asked for a clear answer on their policy on clients seeking help to overcome same-sex attraction, but received no answer. But a document released by the UK Council for Psychotherapy, Ethical Principles and Code of Professional Conduct, says that even when a client specifically asks for help to eliminate homosexual tendencies, psychotherapists are obliged to refuse. The guidelines say that even in a case of a father with a family, who loves and wants to stay with his wife and children and wants to be rid of same-sex feelings, the counsellor is obliged to refuse to “pathologise” them and instead must “affirm” him in being a homosexual.
  • “Agreeing to the client’s request for therapy for the reduction of same sex attraction is not in a client’s best interests,” the guidance says. Therapists who feel they do not have “sufficient competence” to adhere to this policy are obliged to refer clients to therapists who will only help them to accept homosexual inclinations.
In such a case, the BACP is convinced that the client doesn’t know what he is talking about. The BACP clearly knows what’s best for him, even if he is married and has children! After all, what’s the matter with having a dad or a husband if he wants a little extra sex on the side!

Pilkington insinuates the use of Nazi-like tactics:

  • “It is extraordinary to me. People have lost the ability to genuinely look at what’s best for people. Political correctness and gay activists have generated a fear. People say, ‘I’m going to agree with this or I’m going to have a lot of aggression towards me’.”
It is even more extraordinary that the Western institutions that are supposed to safe-guard against aggression and coercion have capitulated!

(I am now prevented by Facebook from posting my essays on other groups. If you will miss this, please register on this blog as a "follower.")

No comments:

Post a Comment