Why a pastor wants Columbia's ban on ‘conversion therapy' to continue
As a pastor serving the people of Columbia, I write in full support of the city's 2021 ordinance of prohibiting so-called 'conversion therapy' for minors.
It is disappointing to hear that this local law which seeks to protect LGBTQ+ youth from a practice deemed harmful by every major medical and mental health association has recently come under renewed scrutiny.
The South Carolina attorney general has called for its repeal, citing the state's 2022 Medical Ethics and Diversity Act (Act 235), a law that expands conscience protections for medical practitioners and limits the authority of municipalities to regulate health care.
We respect that there are differences of opinion and belief when it comes to matters of human sexuality and gender identity. And yet, these differences cannot get in the way of protecting our children when they are being harmed in the name of care.
Let us be clear: The city of Columbia's ordinance does not criminalize sermons or compel churches to change their doctrine. It does not bar anyone from preaching what they believe.
Rather, it prohibits licensed professionals from practicing a form of therapy on minors that has been widely condemned as ineffective and psychologically damaging.
I am a pastor who does not believe that being LGBTQ+ is something that needs to be 'fixed.'
Reformation Lutheran Church, like many across South Carolina and the country, do not support 'conversion therapy.'
'Conversion therapy' is an afront to the fact that everyone is made in the image of God.
Because we are all created in the image of God, because we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by God, government has a duty to protect each and every single person including LGBTQ+ children, who are some of the most vulnerable persons in our society.
The argument made by Attorney General Alan Wilson — that the ordinance is preempted by Act 235 — misunderstands both the purpose of the city's law and the needs of the communities it serves.
Act 235 protects the right of medical practitioners not to participate in services that violate their conscience.
Columbia's ordinance doesn't compel any provider to offer any particular service; it prohibits one that leading experts agree constitutes a form of psychological harm to minors.
We reject the false narrative that protecting children from trauma violates anyone's religious freedom.
Churches remain free to teach, preach, and counsel according to their traditions.
But when harm is being done under the guise of therapy, the city has not only the right but the responsibility to step in.
We urge the Columbia City Council to stand by this ordinance — unamended, undiluted, and unafraid.
Let it be known that in this city, we do not sacrifice the well-being of children to score political points.
Let it be known that Columbia believes LGBTQ+ youth deserve to be seen, respected, and loved as they are.
The question is, will we see our neighbor on the side of the road and take them to the inn and do whatever it takes to restore them and make them whole.
Or will we cross the street to the other side while harm is intentionally done to our children?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
Nancy Mace Announces Run for Governor of South Carolina
Representative Nancy Mace, once a moderate Republican who made a full-bore turn to Trumpism, announced on Monday that she would enter the crowded 2026 contest for governor of South Carolina. Ms. Mace, 47, is one of the highest-profile Republicans to join the race. Still, the candidate pool is already filled with big names in the state, including Alan Wilson, South Carolina's longtime attorney general; Pamela Evette, the state's lieutenant governor; and Representative Ralph Norman, one of the most conservative members of the U.S. House. The incumbent governor is barred from seeking another term. Ms. Mace has hinted about running for the office for some time. She made her decision public on social media. She has been keeping the White House informed of her plans, though it was not clear whether President Trump would endorse her. Ms. Mace said in an interview Sunday afternoon that she was prepared to be a 'super MAGA governor,' referring to the pro-Trump Make American Great Again movement. 'It'll be Trump in high heels,' she said. South Carolina's electorate is one of the most conservative in the country, so whoever wins the Republican primary next spring will probably win the general election as well. South Carolina gave Mr. Trump his first primary victory in 2016, helping propel him to the presidency. Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican who was lieutenant governor at the time, was one of the first state politicians in the country to endorse Mr. Trump. And Mr. Trump has easily won the state, one of the fastest growing in the country, three times. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace announces bid for SC Governor
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WSPA) – Representative Nancy Mace announced that she will be running for governor of South Carolina. The announcement was released on Nancy mace's personal website, with a video titled 'Huge Maga Announcement.' Mace currently serves as Representative of South Carolina's first congressional district, a position she's held since 2021. Mace joins a growing list of Republicans aiming for the Governor seat, including Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, Attorney General Alan Wilson, Senator Josh Kimbrell, and Congressman Ralph Norman. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Authoritarian threats to campus speech come from both abroad and at home
In 2015, a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School named Teng Biao scheduled a public event with another Chinese dissident that coincided with the visit by Harvard's president, Drew Gilpin Faust, to China. The law school's vice dean for international legal studies convinced Teng to cancel the panel to avoid 'embarrassing' the school and undermining its programs in China. In 2018, the debating union at Georgetown University's Qatar campus planned to discuss whether 'major religions should portray God as a woman.' Accused of 'insulting God,' the university canceled the event because it 'failed to follow the appropriate approval processes and created a risk to safety and security.' Administrators noted that the school encouraged 'civil dialogue that respects the laws of Qatar,' presumably including prohibitions of blasphemy. On March 25, masked federal agents surrounded and handcuffed Rumeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University and a Fulbright scholar from Turkey, on a street near her home outside Boston. They forced her into an unmarked car and shipped her to a detention center in Louisiana. Her apparent offense was co-authoring a pro-Palestinian opinion piece in a student newspaper. The federal judge who ordered her release declared that Öztürk's detention risked chilling 'the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.' These three incidents reflect a disturbing trend in which university administrators seek to accommodate authoritarian regimes eager to silence critics, and the Trump administration works to suppress campus protests and criticism of its policies. In her new book 'Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech,' Sara McLaughlin, a senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, paints a portrait of 'censors without borders' policing speech, while complicit universities, eager to profit from global partnerships and tuition-paying international students, turn a blind eye or, worse, self-censor to avoid alienating China and other authoritarian states. McLaughlin does a commendable job of calling attention to threats to freedom of expression across the globe, though, in our view, suppression of speech by foreign governments on U.S. campuses is not as pervasive a practice as she makes it appear. At least not yet. In 2023, students at George Washington University posted artwork mocking China's fitness to host the Olympics. When two Chinese student groups complained that the artwork 'insulted China,' the university president, Mark Wrighton, declared the postings unacceptable and agreed to investigate those responsible. After a public outcry, Wrighton apologized, terminated the investigation and declared his support for 'freedom of speech — even when it offends people.' McLaughlin finds it 'troubling that Wrighton's first instinct … was to promise censorship.' But she offers no evidence to support her assertion that the instinct to censor was 'shared by many university leaders.' Nor does she demonstrate that 'sensitivity exploitation' — using the desire to create a welcoming environment for all students to suppress criticism of a foreign government — is having a widespread impact on free speech. In a recent Gallup poll, 74 percent of college students said their institution was doing an excellent or good job of protecting unfettered expression, while only 5 percent believe it is doing a poor job. Of much greater concern is the ability of China and other authoritarian states to restrict the speech of their nationals abroad by threatening their families or, when they return home, their livelihoods or freedom. Universities 'want to reap the financial and reputational rewards' of bringing international students to their campuses, McLaughlin contends, but have failed to 'accept the [accompanying] responsibilities to free speech and academic freedom.' McLaughlin suggests as well that U.S. institutions that have relationships with authoritarian foreign partners often feel pressure to self-censor because 'that is how many university administrations operate: not as values-driven institutions, but as global corporations that must protect the bottom line.' Having 'reached the point where brand supersedes all else, and protecting image matters more than protecting values,' they continue operating campuses in countries 'conducting human rights violations their community members are not freely allowed to teach or discuss.' These broad-brush attacks are, alas, not accompanied by practical proposals for what universities can and should do. How might leaders of campuses in the U.S. 'stand by' international students when their families at home are threatened? How can they protect scholars who lose access to research materials or are denied visas for criticizing authoritarian regimes? Should they insist that the host countries of campuses they operate abroad respect American academic norms in their entirety if the cost is sharply limiting opportunities for their faculty and students, including individuals from the countries in which they operate? Or should they warn students and faculty of the likely constraints on expression and do what they can to minimize them, recognizing that their campuses will not be able to operate as freely abroad as they would at home? McLaughlin acknowledges that the extent of self-censorship by students, teachers and administrators 'is difficult to measure.' And that universities should not 'simply cut off engagement with unfree countries.' Instead, campuses established in authoritarian countries should 'carefully and thoughtfully tailor engagement to limit opportunities for rights violations and interference,' advise students and faculty of the challenges they face, make clear they oppose 'transnational repression' and educate students about how to protect themselves. Good advice, as far as it goes, though that is how most universities already operate. Sadly, the greatest threats to free speech and academic freedom on American university campuses may now be home-grown. Shortly after taking office, President Trump promised to deport 'all the resident aliens' who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boasted in March of revoking at least 300 visas of students and others whose activities 'are counter … to our foreign policy.' Last month, the State Department directed consular officials to screen the 'entire online presence' of foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. for 'any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.' Red states, eager to amplify Trump administration policies, have adopted a host of educational gag orders restricting discussion of race, gender, sexual orientation and other 'divisive concepts.' Ohio, for example, limits discussion of ' controversial beliefs or policies,' including 'climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.' And last month, a federal judge temporarily enjoined a Mississippi anti-DEI statute for 'possible widespread suppression of speech.' As McLaughlin recognizes, the 'fight against authoritarian influence' is 'a problem that cannot be 'solved,' only mitigated.' Given the Trump administration's approach to higher education, mitigation efforts should probably begin on American soil and with our own government.
