Last Thursday, at 1:58 p.m. EST, I received an email message from a bi-sexual reverend from West Virginia. In the text following the subject, “You're a con man,” the queer preacher had this to say:
Your recent "Fat Lesbians on Crack" piece is an example of grossly irresponsible rhetoric that serves ideology, not mental health. It is appalling to me that someone with your lack of intelligence and indifference to professional consensus is actively employed in a teaching role.
I am always delighted when I get moral advice – especially on human sexual relationships - from people who reside in West Virginia. As a native of Mississippi, I find it best to climb up the moral latter one rung at a time. If I move up too quickly my fear of heights could be enough to make me forget all about my fear of queer preachers from West Virginia.
(Author’s Note: When I called the bi-sexual reverend from West Virginia, he said he was not gay but “queer” – specifically a bi-sexual who rejects “essentialist notions of gayness.”)
And I’m also glad whenever I’m lectured about “professional consensus” by queer preachers from West Virginia. Those who actually read my “Fat Lesbians on Crack” piece remember that it was about a counselor who was fired from her job because of her objections to homosexuality. That is exactly how this “consensus” that homosexuality is not a mental illness is emerging in the counseling profession. Radical homosexual activists are simply having all the people who hold a contrary view fired.
Read the next line of the queer preacher’s email for a good example:
A counselor who objects to homosexuality per se is an unqualified counselor, one dominated by irrational biases and certain to cause greater harm.
So, what did the queer preacher mean when he said it is “appalling” that one with such “indifference to professional consensus” is “actively employed in a teaching role”? He meant that after the gays fire all of the counselors who do not agree with homosexuality they should commence to fire all the teachers who do not recognize as legitimate the “consensus” they created by firing people.
Of course, before signing off, Reverend Dr. Stewart had a few words to say about theology as well:
Sounds more like the intrusion of false religion--an intrusion whose graver consequence is the substitution of textual authoritarianism for authentic spiritual experience. It is irresponsible in either a clinical or pastoral context.
(Rev) Christopher B. Stewart, PhD Christopher.Stewart@mail.wvu.edu
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich
Can the David of Swiss Human Rights Withstand the Goliath of IRS Extraterritorial Tax Enforcement? | Daniel J. Mitchell