During the past few weeks, NARTH has made quiet changes to their disclaimer concerning the views voiced on their blog. This includes the blog administrators themselves, who are presumably at least connected with NARTH. Members of the NARTH Scientific Advisory Board have also posted there, though with so many fictitious screen names it’s impossible to know if one is debating an article or position with the author of same, a member, just another interested individual.
A history of the changes can be viewed here: revision 1, revision 2, revision 3. Notice that revisions 1 and 2 both have the same date. This is something I have observed, that things on narth.com can change without any evidence to indicate it has happened. Common practice is to note the edit and date in some way.
Now in revision three, notice this comment:
In all other cases, your opinions are welcomed, no matter how diverse (as long as they are stated respectfully and without malice.)
That sounds great, but is it true? Below is a message I attempted to post on the NARTH blog a few days ago. It was in response to an inaccurate post about Ex-Gay Watch (scroll down to “glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks” comment).
Jennifer Andrews said:
If one could sum up the leadership of the Ex Gay crsuaders at the hate blog Ex Gay Watch it would be this “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks”.
Jennifer, you use DL Foster as a source of information at your own peril, however in this case you are partially accurate. Someone who commented a few times on our blog did admit to writing those very hateful comments. He was not, however, a writer for Ex-Gay Watch nor affiliated with us in any way. Dr. Schoenewolf and Dr. Berger are both members of your Scientific Advisory Board and appear prominently on NARTH letterhead.
And then there is our reaction to finding out about this commenter’s actions in contrast to NARTH simply pulling the article silently and later posting a rather odd disclaimer. In our case, we truly weren’t involved but we still took action openly and on the record because we thought it the responsible thing to do.
I don’t see how that post is disrespectful or written with malice, yet it remains unposted. This is why I don’t normally bother posting there. How can truth or open debate occur in a place where posts like this, germane, civil and on topic, are discarded and where archived information is removed or edited in secret? And further, despite their ever growing disclaimer, how can one not associate this intellectual dishonesty with the organization which sponsors it – NARTH?
I love how you’re closely monitoring this. And also how you’re holding their feet to the fire about being honest and forthright. After all, integrity is everything in these debates we have back and forth. ExGay Watch is really hated by these groups because you never attack them maliciously, but always with the plain facts. That’s what gives your site its power.
They asked for submissions about acts of violence or intimidation against LGBTs. I sent them several, with no malicious comments. They never posted them. That tells me all I need to know.
Dishonesty and twisting of the truth is the only way groups like these can operate…just look at the FRC’s latest Daily Update where they blame Mark Foley on the gay rights movement…
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06J01
Not only that — FRC also invented statistics out of thin air to suggest that
a) 86 percent of child abusers are homosexual (same-sex-attracted), and
b) less than 3 percent of the population is same-sex-attracted.
FRC commits an act of hate against exgays (as well as gays) when it lies about same-sex-attracted exgays’ propensity to abuse children, and FRC implicitly rejects the claim that there are hundreds of thousands of exgays when it reduces the entire same-sex-attracted population of the United States to less than 3 percent.