In our book, The Bible and Mental Health, we called attention to how spiritually and morally bankrupt so-called “modern psychology” is. Thousands are mesmerized by it, but it’s mostly junk—largely an anti-God ideology that attempts, in a futile fashion, to deal with emotional problems on the basis of humanistic presuppositions.
Here’s an example of what I mean. In July of 1998, the American Psychological Association published an article that shocked those who became privy to it (which was not all that many, since the general public never hears of much of the technical ideology advocated by these people).
Three researchers combined their dubious talents to produce an article which attempted to argue the case that sexual activity between adults and children should not be classified as “abuse.” They contended that if children are “willing” to be involved in such activity, there probably is no lasting harm to them.
Incredible! Young children, who are just in the process of learning to make decisions, are willing to do most anything, when led by adults who exert powerful influence over their lives.
The notion that child seduction is not detrimental runs counter to multiplied thousands of cases which reflect the fact that youngsters who are sexually abused can and do suffer egregious emotional damage—with heavy baggage frequently borne into adulthood. Some are never able to overcome completely the traumatic effects of this violation.
But this bizarre turn of events actually was quite predictable. In recent years this same conglomeration of perverted thinkers has attempted to normalize homosexuality—receiving, incidentally, considerable support from our political leaders. President Clinton proclaimed June as “Gay Pride Month,” and Willie Brown, mayor of San Francisco, has paraded the “homo” flag from city hall for the entire month! There is but a short step from one form of sexual perversion to another.
There may be some indication, however, that public outrage does make a ripple—at least occasionally. When Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the radio pop-psychologist (who is frequently “off the wall” herself), heard about the APA’s attempt to normalize pedophilia, she subjected the organization to a blistering review on her popular radio program.
The public became irate. The APA was bombarded with thousands of protesting letters. Raymond Fowler, the APA’s chief executive officer, lamented: “We’ve never, ever had a reaction like this.”
The defense mechanism employed by the embarassed APA was this: the results of their study were intended for the scientific community only—as if they did not intend for the message to trickle on down to the general public. Now, though, in order to save face, APA officials are conceding they made a mistake. They confess that they should have published at least a companion piece providing an alternatiave viewpoint. How does that change their basic stance?
Aside from the psychological considerations, what are the moral aspects of this issue? According to a well-known principle of humanistic psychology, morality does not enter into this picture. In his book, Client-centered therapy, Carl Rogers, one of the pioneers of “client-centered” psychology, argued that folks, in order to be emotionally healthy, must be free to pursue any direction in life—“moral or immoral.” How would Rogers know the difference?
In his book, Peace of Mind, Dr. Joshua Liebman contended that the psychologist must be “neutral” in moral matters. He affirmed that “value judgments” are out of bounds for professional therapists.
That is an irrational premise. Moral problems can only be solved in the light of a moral code. And that from him who is the Author of the human soul.
It’s about time the men and women of America, who still have a residue of conscience, wake up and speak to the vileness that is consuming this nation. When good people simply “stew” in silence, nothing is accomplished.
Thank God some are calling the purveyors of this “psychostupidity” to accountability.