Conversion Therapy – Good, Bad Or Indifferent?


What is conversion therapy?  Communists nations over the last century have had “reeducation camps” which is a very formal conversion therapy that makes people 100% compliant with the government’s philosophy and laws.  First, let’s examine what motivates conversion therapy.  If an individual or an organized group of individuals share a particular view of the world and life style, and that shared view does not conform with the views of those in power, then that shared view is seen as being needed to be altered to conform to the shared views of those in power.

Achieving this objective by those in power can be accomplished in a variety of ways.  Propaganda (visual and audio) in the form of entertainment, literature, fashion, education, peer pressure and the like are very effective methods, although they alone are not sufficient to move all people in all areas of thought and action to the desired goals of the powerful.

When the above, more subtle, methods fail, then the only alternative is forced indoctrination, public shaming and punitive measures short of imprisonment and execution.  Here’s where conversion therapy comes in.  Conversion therapy is designed to achieve conformity with those in power who are providing the therapy.

One conversion therapy that has been in place for over 80 years is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).  The object of AA is to help people stop drinking when they have hit rock bottom in their lives, and feel helpless to help themselves.  This is a noble cause not only for the individual in need of help, but it is a benefit to society to restore non-productive (even destructive) people to a productive status.  So, who are the “powerful” people in this scenario?  One would have to conclude, that the powerful people are the sober people who reject drunkenness and the attendant problems that it causes for a sober society in the form of reduced productivity, needless hospitalizations, deaths and injuries from automobile accidents, falls, broken families, wife beatings, lost jobs, bankruptcies, fraudulent activities etc.  One would have to conclude, if they are intellectually honest, and sober, that AA is a good thing if it prevents and/or rectifies the above listed problems.

To some people, drunkenness is a moral issue.  Morality is just a term that designates a form of behavior.  So, it is possible to have both good behavior (morality) and bad behavior (immorality)  Without further definition and clarification, morality is a neutral term with very little significance.  The first qualification, if you will, would be to use the term immorality, and therefore, can we describe drunkenness as “bad” behavior?  If not, then we, as a society and nation, are in very serious decline into the abyss of chaos, death and destruction beyond the imagination of anyone alive.  Consider, if you will, what life would be like if everyone were a drunk.  Do you want a drunk brain surgeon, or a drunk airline pilot, or a drunk cab (Uber) driver – of course not – it would put your life in jeopardy!

So, we have an obvious agreement that drunkenness is “bad” behavior, or immoral behavior.  This particular brand of immorality is immediately and blatantly obvious as a  detriment to society’s well being.  Therefore, it is doubtful that anyone would disagree with the “rightness” and benefits of AA as a form of conversion therapy.  It is important to note at this point that AA was started by a private individual, and that it is applied to those suffering drunkenness strictly on a voluntary basis.  Obviously, those who pursue drunkenness will be held accountable by the civil/criminal authorities when they have a direct and injurious effect on another person.  At this point, the drunk is subject to the laws of the land which include civil suits for damages and prison sentences when a crime is committed.  It is against the law to drive drunk for example.  So, we see that their are legal ramifications against immoral behavior.  Interestingly, some drunks involved in breaking the law have had the option of conversion therapy (AA), in order to reduce the penalty the court would otherwise inflict upon the offending drunk.  This of  course is a voluntary option, if given, and as such, the drunk still has the choice of fines, restitution and imprisonment in lieu of conversion therapy.

What justifies legal sanctions against any immoral behavior?  Obviously it is the result of organized society establishing what is immoral behavior, and then determining what the sanctions and punishments will be when that immoral behavior is exercised.  Less observed is the fact that society also rewards people for good moral behavior – such as new inventions that enhance life for all, heroic actions that save a life, providing entertainment that makes us laugh, think, provide inspiration etc.

So, what is the basis for determining good verses bad morality?  Some would say it is obvious, and so there’s no need to even discuss it.  It just comes to us through osmosis (seeping into our thinking and ways while we are asleep at night).  Well, if that’s true, then why do people murder, lie, cheat, steal, abuse spouses, commit adultery, molest children and so on?  Some people think these behaviors are o.k., and some don’t.  So, how do you, in an orderly and equitable manner,  reconcile these differences of opinion?

Reconciliation of differences can be achieved either by force or acquiescence.  Force requires beating, killing, exiling, or incarcerating those with whom you disagree.  If done in a form of chaos, then you are talking about war.  If done in the form of order, then it is done under the color of law and government.  As America’s first President said; “Government is force, and like fire, it is a fearful master and a dangerous servant.”  There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that government is force.  In America today, who is the government?  You have the EPA, FDA, CIA, I.R.S., F.B.I., NSA, and so on.  These people have police powers, and they carry guns.  They can fine you, shoot you, beat you up, imprison you, take your property, regulate your life, force you to act a certain way etc.

These abilities and/or powers they hold and employ are based upon those in power making a determination of what is good behavior and bad behavior, and those involved in bad behavior must come under the authority of these government agencies and be dealt with as severely as is required to get them to change their ways (behavior).  Now, as we’ve determined earlier, changing your ways is the result of conversion therapy.  Conversion therapy can be voluntary or compulsory.  More than likely, either way is going to have some pain involved.  Under a voluntary system, the pain is acceptable and will bring forth good results in the eyes of the person choosing that path.  Under a compulsory system or therapy solution, the pain will be involuntary; it may lead to serious injuries, death, forced psychotropic drug applications, sensory deprivations, incarceration with all sorts of miserable and maybe even violent people (prison), solitary confinement (isolation), and many other unpleasant things some too awful to describe such as torture which can be very creative sometimes.

If those wielding the power base this power and their interpretation of good and bad behavior strictly on their personal opinion (the way they feel), then how do you get two people to “feel” the same way?  Certainly, a lot of people feel the same way on some issues, but not necessarily all issues.  For example, person “A” may “feel” that a woman’s right to choose an abortion should extend only to the end of the first trimester.  Person “B” may “feel” that a woman’s right to choose an abortion should extend to the very end of the third trimester.  Person “C” may “feel” that a woman’s right to choose an abortion should extend to the actual delivery while in the birth canal.  Person “D” may “feel” that the woman’s right to choose an abortion should extend to right after the actual delivery. See the movie Gosnell which is based upon a true story which had legal ramifications and is a fairly recently released movie with a very credible IMDb rating of 8.2 and which will be available on release for DVD in February of 2019.  And then of course, there is the person “F” (ignored by government today) who is opposed to abortion under any circumstance – some “F’s” make an exception for the life of the mother.

In the above scenarios, who is right – “A”, “B”, “C”, or “D”?  They all “feel” very strongly about their respective positions, but their respective positions are quite different.  How do you reconcile those differences of “feelings” which obviously relate to a moral act.  Terminating the life of a beating heart (medical science will reflect the validity of this statement).  There are even those (we’ll call them “E”) who “feel” that abortion should be available for a woman to “choose” and abortion as long as the child is not “viable”.  Of course no child is viable at birth, and depending upon how you define “viable”, it could be years before a human becomes viable.  So, who’s right?  Who should have the force of law on their side?Who should be able to employ their “feelings” upon everyone else with the power of imprisonment, death, property confiscation, public humiliation, torture or whatever else they may want to inflict upon those who disagree.  Should “E” be able to silence “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, and/or force them to agree with “E”?  Remember, that Adolf Hitler was elected by a majority of Germans, and he believed that Jews were not human beings and should be eliminated (aborted at all ages including at and beyond the time of “viability”)!

Maybe, now you are beginning to see the potential problem with non-voluntary conversion therapy, and non-voluntary conversion therapy is the only way to reconcile the differences between “A” – “E”.  We’re are confronted with “FORCE”!  And we haven’t even touched on the “F’s” who don’t “believe” abortion should ever be.  Within that group are Roman Catholic teaching which says under no circumstances, and the rest who believe the mother’s life, if in danger, supersedes the child’s.

The most politically incorrect conversion therapy that is rapidly being made illegal in America is the effort to convert homosexuals (Gays) into becoming “straight”.  Gays have even voluntarily entered into those kinds of therapies such as Exodus and Focus On The Family which is hated by the militantly gay community, the leftists etc. who “feel” it’s wrong or “bad” behavior.  Now homosexuality is behavior, and so is counseling people to not be homosexual.  They would both be behaviors.  So, who will have the “Force” of law to determine which is good morality, and which is bad morality?  What penalties and sanctions will be inflicted upon those who do not wield the power and force?

Currently, the most popular conversion therapy which is very popular with the left, and is enforced to varying extents by government at all levels (municipal, county, state and federal), is converting people from being Christian.  Christianity is very unpopular in its historic context.  Weak, meaningless and impotent Christianity is glorified and tolerated, because there is no judgment in most churches today when it comes to making a determination as to what is good and bad morality.  In traditional and historic Christianity, immorality was characterized under the three letter word “sin”.   Christians and churches avoid discussion of “sin” like the plague today.  So, does that mean that “sin” doesn’t exist?  Does that mean that “sin” has no effect on society?  Is drunkenness a “sin”?  Is homosexuality a “sin”?  What are the effects of “sin” on a society?

We’ve already seen the devastation of alcoholism  back in paragraphs 3 -5.  That’s just one example of what one “sin” (drunkenness) can do to society.  Now it is also clear from previous discussion that society will take action to protect itself as an entity, because individuals want to have a reasonable life with no fear of being murdered, robbed, raped, pillaged, plundered, stifled in their freedoms etc.  This is a desire of all individuals no matter how sinful they may be, and no matter how hostile they may be to Christianity we can here remind ourselves that we cannot, and do not, all “feel” the same way about all things (review “A” – “E’s” differences in paragraph 11 – 13).

So, we’re back to force and acquiescence as a solution to an orderly society.  Under force, we are compelled to do that which we may find repugnant, and in fact, we may find it morally repugnant.  Like it or not, people have determined that there are certain forms of behavior that they are going to pursue and other forms they are going to avoid, and if need be oppose through persuasion  or force.  There are two major camps taking opposing sides in America today.  There are those who want no moral restraints on their behavior, except the ones they want to impose on others, because they “feel” they’re right, and then there are those who seek to follow an objective source of moral authority that goes beyond man’s reason and falls into the category of Divine inspiration which they “believe” is right.  That would be the Bible in a legitimate translation which would include many such as King James, New King James, American Standard Version, New America Standard Version, English Standard Version to name some of the better versions and more credible and accurate.

So, we can say that the opposition comes down to “feelings” verses “beliefs”.  Let’s examine the two.  I “feel” sick.  Does that mean someone else around me “feels” sick?  Not necessarily, but that someone else may have empathy for me because they’ve been sick once.  But what if someone has empathy for the sick person, but doesn’t have empathy for the person who is both sick and “feels” abortion is o.k.?  There is no unanimity of “feelings” in this case.  Now, the sick person may have to take medicine to get well, but the well person who has empathy for the sick person should not be compelled to take the same medicine – should they?  And, the empathetic person who does not “feel” that abortion is right; should they be compelled to facilitate abortion with his/her tax dollars, or by compelling through the force of law a doctor or nurse who also doesn’t “feel” the same way to perform or assist in an abortion or suffer legal penalties and/or consequences for failure to act in away that offends their conscience and beliefs?

One would hope that some empirical evidence would be of use in determining what to “feel” and/or “believe”.  You may feel that Socialism is a great way to govern, but if Socialism has failed every time it was tried throughout history, then maybe there’s a reason for that.  People who learn from that history (be they Christian or not) have gained some wisdom, and those who are still clamoring for Socialism are fools who have not learned from the past.  Human nature never changes, and yet the left thinks they can manipulate and control human nature to their benefit, and to the ultimate goal of a compliant and peaceful society.  Well, there are different kinds of “peace”.  There is “peace” with God which is the most desirable.  Then there is “peace” with you fellow man which is also very desirable, and will logically follow if you have peace with God.  Lastly, there is peace with the devil or evil if you prefer, and that peace you make when you accept “sin” as good.  Leftists et. al. “feel” a preference for this third “peace”.

If you talk to the leftists, “liberals”, progressives (read Communists), Democrats, Neocon Republicans, statists, socialist etc. then they are justified in making you do or pay for what they “feel” is right by using the FORCE of law.  On the other hand, the right, conservatives, Christians, Roman Catholics etc. want to have the force of law on their side to support and enforce their “beliefs”.  So, who’s right.  Who should dominate?  How should differences be reconciled and resolved?  There are basically only two ways; violently or peacefully.

If peacefully, it will be done through persuasion, although government force is always needed as a last resort for those who cannot be persuaded otherwise.  What happens when the core of a person is founded in beliefs for which there is no persuasion or compromise?  Obviously, force is the only solution to convert those people.  Those that are easily persuaded to convert, will require minimal effort and force.  There will be some who cannot be converted.  Those people will have to be incarcerated, exiled or eliminated.  Obviously, some of those people may resist those solutions.  Resistance at that point will require fleeing (resulting in a form of exile and giving victory to those who “feel”, or it will require forceful resistance.

So, when is resistance permissible?   Resistance is something that for Christians can be pursued, but if so, it must be under Biblical Constraints which is not easy, nor can it be taken lightly.  It appears rather clear that there is a high degree of intransigence on the part of those who hate Christianity and the good moral behavior that accompanies it, and therefore, they will resist it to the end, and try to stamp it out if they can so they can perpetuate the bad and/or neutral moral behavior they prefer.  The Bible teaches that Christian believers are to “establish” Christianity in the world.  The world doesn’t like that idea, and we’re talking about core beliefs for which there is no compromise.  Conversion therapy will win out.  It’s just a matter of which therapist will dominate, and this writer’s bet is that the God of Creation, utilizing his therapists (Jesus Christ being the ultimate Therapist) will win.  It may end up being a very bloody and ugly battle.  Read the book of Revelation which portrays a battle of good verses evil that is very intense and all encompassing.  Remember that God fought for the nation of Israel in the taking of the promised land, and the keeping of it.  Israel rejected Him in favor of a King (Saul) at which point God did not directly and overtly fight for Israel.  Today, Christians in large part, have rejected God in favor of material prosperity and peace, and now they are being confronted with the fruits of a bad decision.  Judgment begins first in the house of God.

The following link is not an endorsement of a political candidate or office holder – it is merely an example of the violent battle that is seething beneath the surface and manifesting itself in the public arena:






Many Links Below – Become Informed!

Feel Free To Pass On Any Posts


Pensamiento Peligroso writes the truth as he sees it, and if it upsets you, then it makes you think! Subscribe for free – no ads!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: