Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Sanity and Civil Rights

Sanity and Civil Rights

Last updated on: June 16, 2021 at 10:23 pm by Jennifer Fitz

Sanity and Civil Rights 2021-06-16T22:23:09-05:00 Jennifer Fitz

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Let me start by saying: My personal, non-medical, non-expert (but Old Married People do know a thing or two) opinion is that “conversion therapy” is a lousy idea. I think this because I think human sex drives are pretty deeply embedded in the brain.

I think, therefore, that even when we don’t like some aspect of our sexual inclinations, and even when for very good reasons we determine we must not act on our internally-driven desires, it is healthier and more realistic to seek out effective coping mechanisms than to pin our hopes on somehow, someway simply not being interested anymore.

Just not interested anymore is appealing in theory, but in practice I’m not convinced it’s really a thing. I’m very not convinced that one can successfully create a new, replacement attraction as a substitute for the unwanted attraction.

–> I think it’s disastrous to, say, enter into a marriage with a person you previously would have found categorically sexually unattractive, but now somehow you’ve hyped yourself up into a series of positive affirmations that will make that person someone you want to engage in the marital act with for the next fifty years?

I could, here, be completely wrong. But I wanted to state my opinion before continuing, so you know where I’m coming from.

***

Even though I firmly believe this, and therefore would not advise someone to pursue “conversion therapy,” I was alarmed this morning to see that the City of Columbia, SC (the state capital) passed an ordinance banning conversion therapy.

Why alarmed?

Because it is the banning of thought. In the case of “conversion therapy,” it’s the banning of just wanting and trying to think something. Conversion therapy bans make it illegal to try to think about what it is you wish to think about.

When on further reading I saw that the ban only applied to minors, for a moment I was relieved. I am strongly opposed to allowing minors to pursue elective procedures that permanently remove or disable major organ systems. Anyone who isn’t old enough to know whether it’s okay to have a beer or a cigarette is not old enough to know whether it’s okay to remove a healthy, fully-functioning body part.

So I thought to myself: Maybe the ordinance is okay. Maybe it’s a broader protection-of-minors thing.

Nope. Not so. The text of the ordinance can be found by downloading the June 15, 2021 meeting agenda packet, found here.

And reading the text of the ordinance (you’ll have to dig a bit into the agenda packet to get to it) you can see that some people don’t understand civil rights.

The ordinance struggles, mightily, because it wants to ban “any practice that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity” but without banning “counseling that provides support to a person undergoing gender transition”. (Section 14-171 of Ordinance 2021-021)

Alas, gender transition just means changing one’s gender identity, soo . . . you aren’t allowed help someone try to change their gender identity except when you’re trying to help them change their gender identity?

The intent of the council is unequivocal, but the text of the ordinance ends up being meaningless, because the council wants to protect some kinds of gender-identity changes, but not all.

(Also, amusing note: They explicitly define “sexual orientation” as referring to practices and preferences “between consenting adults” and explicitly exclude preferences or practices “between an adult and a minor” but make no mention of preferences between consenting minors, which means that . . . the ordinance defines itself into non-existence. –> If you’re under-18, you are too young to be experiencing the ordinance’s definition of “sexual attraction”. Again, clearly what the council meant to do was say it’s okay to treat someone for pedophilia. But instead they accidentally made a definition that categorically excludes the subjects of the ordinance from the definition. Sigh.)

What could the council do instead?

You could decide that the care of minors is something that City Council doesn’t need to legislate. There is already a vast state-run social services edifice in place, but if the city wants to improve community outreach so that vulnerable teens have better access to various support systems, that is within the city’s scope, inasmuch as it involves improving the staffing of various city services (police, recreation centers, etc.).

In contrast, medical decisions, including decisions about psychiatric care, are the cooperative responsibility of the minor and his or her parents, in consultation with physicians or mental health care providers of their choice. It is not the job of the city to dictate what types of care a child or teen might wish to pursue.

Of course city council members care about the well-being of the youth in their jurisdiction. Of course they want parents to feed their children healthy foods, get them outdoors for sunshine and exercise, and please don’t mix alcohol and Tylenol, ever. And yet, it isn’t the job of city council to legislate, item by item, what kinds of care may or may not be sought out by persons living within city limits.

But, even more than the question of subsidiarity, there’s the deeper problem with this ordinance: It’s thought-police, plain and simple.

That the council worked so darn hard to make sure that one type of care was banned while an identical but culturally-opposite type of care was protected, and that they worked so hard to make such a distinction and were unable to write a text that succeeded in doing so, makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of the ordinance is to favor one way of thinking about human sexuality while prohibiting another.

Not a way of acting, mind. A way of thinking. Psychological care is the care of your mental faculties. Your thoughts.

Banning a certain way of thinking is just dumb.

It’s bad civil rights.

The freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly are all built on freedom of thought.

***

Bringing this back to the Catholic: People in power tend to want to suppress the opposition. People out of power tend to want to campaign for absolute freedom of expression.

As Catholics, we believe that our thoughts are so important they can even determine our eternal destiny. Therefore, when the Church has a political majority, it’s tempting to use that political power to enforce right thinking.

That temptation leads to evil. It starts with a good desire, but ends in bloodshed and lying. It ultimately sabotages the faith rather than shoring it up.

Because we care about our fellow men, we should try to encourage and guide others towards the truth. Coercion, however, does no favors.

***

I concede here that I was raised a fervent American patriot and only came into my own as a Catholic much later. My love for the Bill of Rights absolutely colors my thinking. I don’t know that I even could think objectively about a case for abolishing the US Constitution as we know it.

So I guess I plead a case of here-I-stand-can-do-no-other: Freedom of thought is foundational to civil society. Thought-policing is evil.

Please do not support bills and ordinances that dictate what kinds of thinking are legal, regardless of whether you agree with the general goal of the legislation.

Thanks.

Photo of car with the Bill of Rights written out on the driver’s side doors, courtesy of Wikimedia, CC 2.0. Probably going to have to make me one of these.

Previous Post

June 5, 2021

A Case for Exclusively-Singular Gender-Neutral Third-Person Pronouns

Next Post

July 17, 2021 How Can You Say You Love Jesus, and Yet Hate the Mass?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Books Catechesis Catholic Q&A Chastity Church Craziness Come See Me Talk Disability & Chronic Illness Economics Evangelization Facepalm Forgiveness Good Things History Homeschooling Human Rights It's All Catholic Listen to Me Survey Series Liturgical Living Marriage Modesty Not Satire. But almost. Rant-o-Rama Sacred Art & Music Satire South Carolina Spark Clutter Stick that Corner Suffering Thinking Topics Writing Stuff

Select a Month September 2026 July 2026 June 2026 January 2026 December 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 November 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which letter contains a hymn about Christ emptying Himself and being exalted?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ephesians Romans Philippians Titus