Friday, December 30, 2005

Intolerance The Result Of Political Correctness

It's hard to imagine how something intended to create greater sensitivity and understanding among us all has actually accomplished exactly the opposite; the creation of complete intolerance. Like a piece of badly crafted legislation, the social movement of Political Correctness (PC for short) is having so many negative consequences that it is now to the point of absurdity. Yet anyone with half a brain could have (and should have) seen it coming.

It's been going on for a couple of decades now, though it reached a tipping point in the last few years. It began as a truly noble goal; to eliminate Polish jokes, and black jokes, and retard jokes, and religious freak jokes and atheist jokes and jokes about every other group that has had the misfortune of being predictable enough to be stereotyped (regardless of whether the shoe fit).

Then it moved onto racial and ethnic slurs, condemning us for saying anything offensive, (deserved or not) within earshot of the victim of our saying the word (though out of earshot seemed to be okay for a while, but no more). Bear in mind, this is only for those outside the stereotype. Those within the group can call each other whatever they want, no matter how degrading, as long as they sufficiently fit the stereotype. One man's offensive word is another man's welcome. No wonder we started to get confused about what's right and wrong in the social department.

Then, of course, religion got into the picture. At the risk of sounding like an old fogey, there was a time when anyone could practice just about anything, call it religion and be left alone. It was called tolerance. As long as people weren't hurt and laws weren't badly or habitually broken, it was tolerated. After all, we began as a country because others were intolerant to us and our religious beliefs. It's why we moved here from England, risking life and limb on a rickety ship across the North Atlantic. Tolerance has always been a true part of our culture, and even though we may not always have demonstrated it to the best of our abilities as a nation, we have always believed it was something we should strive for. Until now.

Now, it seems, we've gotten to the point where intolerance is the accepted practice. The PC measure for sticking your nose into someone else's business has evolved from imminent and harmful physical danger to the innocent, to the possible, perhaps, maybe fear of hurting someone's feelings, or making them "uncomfortable". What a bunch of woosies!

We should have seen it coming. Now that it's here, however, and we can all agree it's not fun or funny, we have to figure out a way to get the pendulum to swing back again. Maybe we should just all go back to telling Polish jokes. Now THOSE were funny.


Noted U.S. Psychologists Condemn Homosexual Activist Influence on APA

Senior members of the psychological community delivered a scathing condemnation of the American Psychological Association (APA), at the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) conference last month. Dr. Nicolas Cummings, Ph.D, a former president of the APA, said pro-homosexual social activist influence has undermined the scientific legitimacy of psychological research within the organization. Dr. Cummings charged that research by the APA is now limited to projects where "they know what the outcome is going to be.only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

Cummings expressed his concern over the APA's backing for legalized gay marriage, which was recommended by the APA in 2004 because it would "promote mental health," among members of the gay community. That decision, said Cummings, was based upon vague research which indicated "loving relationships are healthy'' in a general sense. "That was one of the worst resolutions, " Cummings said. " When we speak in the name of psychology we are to speak only from facts and clinical expertise." Otherwise "very soon the public will see us as a discredited organization-just another opinionated voice shouting and shouting."

Dr. Rogers Wright, Ph.D, co-author with Cummings of their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, criticized the APA for failing to live up to the organization's long-held ideal of openness to diversity. The organization deliberately avoided issuing a response to the book and, at first, forbade its member-publications from reviewing it. "So much for diversity and open-mindedness," said Wright.

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., spoke at length on the ethical misuse of scientific literature in recent legal cases that have laid the foundation for major changes in family-law policy. Satinover accused mental-health associations of allowing gay activists to distort research in order to support their own social and political agendas, on a scale he finds "appalling beyond imagination." Among the methods used to falsely support the gay agenda, he identified researchers who used their own work as references, who used active members of pro-paedophilia groups as sources, and who ignored current conflicting research in favor of obsolete, discredited work.

Dr. Dean Byrd, Ph. D, Chairman of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee, read from a letter he sent to the APA, criticizing the organization for exercising a double standard toward individuals who express a desire to return to heterosexuality: "Though not all of the patients that NARTH members treat are religious, many are. Is it not a blatant disregard for their religious values and an affront to real diversity to marginalize these individuals by failing to acknowledge their right to choose how they will adapt sexually?

APA's continuous message of respect for diversity rings hollow if it does not represent different worldviews.either you support client autonomy or you do not; either you support client self-determination or you do not; either your actions reflect diversity, or they do not."


No comments: