E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
Actually looking more into this I am finding it increasingly disturbing.Looking through the 'therapists' manual there seems to be an overt bias in favour of driving even the non practicing (ex)muslim back to religion. And the language used is disturbingly biased. So for example:'For clients using ‘negative religious coping’, who may have ambivalent or hostile views of God, the therapist could explain that positive ways of thinking about one’s relationship with God can help people overcome depression. Depending on whether the therapist thinks it would be useful, the Booklet could be introduced as an alternative way of drawing on religious beliefs and the therapist could explore the client’s response to reading the Booklet as an activation assignment.''The extent to which religious activities are suggested as a resource for dealing with depression will need to match the client’s level of religiosity to avoid inducing guilt at not being able to fulfill assignments. However, the absence of religious activity may be a consequence of feeling depressed and it should not be assumed that clients who do not mention religious activity would not be interested in these. Again, it will be useful to discuss how much clients would value building religious activities into their assignments and an achievable level of religious practice.'So effectively if you aren't interested in religion, or are even hostile toward religion your therapist should foist religion onto you implying either that your depression is linked to your lack of religiosity or that having a particular level of religious practice is necessarily desirable.Why on earth should someone not mentioning religion as being important to them be encouraged to achieve an 'achievable level of religious practice.' Why should anyone be expect to achieve a level of religious practice, unless that it entirely their own choice.
I think the real point is about the manipulation of the vulnerable to become Islamic, don't you think? No doubt this is from the Saudi Pigs!
any indication of this of just your assertion? BTW what are you referring to with the phrase 'Saudi pigs'?
Now, now, NS keep your cool. What assertion?Are you telling me such an erudite fellow as yourself you don't know about the Saudis?
Know what about the 'Saudis'. There is a Saudi bloke that I have known for 30 years. He's been fighting against the Saudi regime all that time - is he a pig?
There you have it, you have answered your own question, well done. Don't take things so literally or perhaps more accurately learn to read the short hand.
So what did you mean? Why would I know your short hand. Another bloke, who isn't my friend, writes Jewish pigs a lot. So what does he mean and how do you know?
Wahhabi-ism.
so not Saudis. You need to learn to write more clearly.
They are the ones promoting this. They are the ones, with others, who are financing ISIS.
'They'! So again you are back at accusing my friend fighting against the regime of supporting ISIS. Learn to write.
NS, what the hell are you going on about??
It is very simple - calling Saudis pigs (which you did) - is a generalization. My friend is Saudi, he isn't promoting Wah-habism. But you find niue to use Saudi as a generalization. Learn to write!
Learn to write? That's a tu quoque. Look at your own posts, mate!!!
Sorry, that makes no sense. Asking you to write clearer in itself cannot be a tu quoque.
Oh dear.
Aw! was it a bit hard for you?
Then demonstrate the basis for your accusation of tu quoque.
Another one who doesn't know what it means.
I do you know: which is why I think your accusation of its use by NS is plain wrong.
Go on then explain it to show you do know what it means.
Nope - you made the accusation so you justify it.
So you don't know then, you're just blowing hard are you?
