Replies

tyke,

Clik here to go to the Congressional Record for the House for July 27, 1999. You will find Strickland's comments on the right hand column.

I do not believe this man deserves your defense. He never spoke out against the conclusions of this studay. Never. Instead he chose to speak out against those who did speak out against the study.

As an analyst I am always interested in the details - the actual data. But at the same time I am very aware how data can all to often be sorted/sifted/adjusted to fit a desired conclusion.

There is a link elsewhere in the postings to this study. Read it. It is not a study. It is a self serving attempt to normalize adult-child sex. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is not even a study. It is a discussion among those willing to discuss the possibility of adult-child sex being a positive experience. Consider who would participate in such a discussion.

This discussion was/is morally repugnant. Only someone without a moral foundation would find this to be anything close to a 'scientific study'.

Granted, most of those of voted for the resolution probably had not read the so-called scientific study. However, it is most likely someone on their staff had read it and could without question recommend supporting the resolution condemning the study.

This could have been regulated to the dusty bins of what often pretends to be science in psychology. Examples? Alien abduction therapy. Past life therapy. Recovered memory therapy. These represent only 3 of the over 400 various psychotherapies on the market today. On the market. To understand the market mentality of psychotherapy see the book "MANUFACTURING VICTIMS: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People" by Dr. Tana Dineen.

Bottom line: Something is missing from Ted Strickland. That something appears to be a moral compass.

Cheers!

Well noted. Mr. Strickland's remarks in the July 27, 1999, Cong. Record are manifestly a defense of the said study, the "scientist" who did it, and the American Psychological Association.

Strickland, as a practicing psychologist, has obviously been a longtime member of the APA.

He has not found it necessary to drop his membership because of APA (published) policies and tenets; nor has he apparently ever found it necessary to condemn any of these in any manner.

If one desires an indication of his approach to this realm, simply peruse the periodical of the American Psychological Association. There is no ambiguity about the Association's (really politicized) take on homosexuality, abortion, or any related subject.

If a member were to publicly oppose any of these secularized policy positions, they effectively would no longer be a member - and, as practicing psychologists or faculty, they would be ostracized in both their professional and social lives by other APA members.

A minister of the Word would surely find it impossible to coexist with this. The Old and New Testaments are replete with such choices. The law of Man or the law of the Lord.

In the cited Cong. Record, Mr. Strickland refers to the Ten Commandments and states "you ought not to bear false witness against your neighbor."

But by apparently subscribing to this study as indicated by his defense of it, he seems to bear false witness against those who do try to follow the Word, who did read the article, and see nothing of the Word in the politicized APA.