Lately, it seems Christian fundamentalists have campaigned to pervert the notion of "religious freedom" to mean they have the absolute right to control lives and dictate how other people live. If they are unable to coerce or browbeat non-believers into following their church's rules in the public square, they falsely play the victim card and cry "discrimination."
For normal Americans, religious freedom means the right to worship according to conscience. This most basic tenet of liberty is not enough for America's predatory fundamentalists. They believe they are superior and have the God-given right to force society to play by their rules. This inability to co-exist is a divisive and destabilizing force that must be adequately addressed.
How far will these extremists go to get their way and claim special rights? Consider a new bill proposed by two Michigan state senators, Tupac Hunter (D-Detroit) and Mark Jansen (R-Grand Rapids) that would permit students in counseling programs to refuse helping clients with issues that conflicted with their "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions."
The Michigan Messenger reported this week that this ludicrous legislation was in response to an Eastern Michigan University student, Julea Ward, who was expelled from a counseling program after declining to counsel a gay student. According to the Messenger, Ward refused to offer relationship advice because she thought it was tantamount to cheerleading a "lifestyle" that she rejected.
Ward sued in federal court, but they have so far ruled that Christians are still part of society and not above the rule of law.
"[Ward] was met with I feel an inappropriate response whereby she was penalized for having her own moral conviction," Hunter told the Michigan Messenger. "The legislation was crafted to do exactly what it says. To prohibit an individual who is in one of those programs who has a value conflict from being discriminated against."
First, all respected mental health organizations say that homosexuality is not a disease that can be treated. Any counseling that rejects gay relationships or coming out as an option is by nature inappropriate, unhealthy and damaging to the client. Furthermore, counseling should be about the patient, not the self-serving religious needs of the therapist. If ultra-religious counselors can't do their jobs, they should consider a new career in the clergy, where they can indulge their beliefs.
Second, the counseling profession by nature is one where experts provide advice to people with whom they may personally disagree. It is absolutely preposterous that self-righteous therapists would install purity tests for potential clients and cherry pick the ones who are sanitized by scripture. And what happens midway though weekly therapy if the seemingly wholesome client reveals an unseemly fetish, distasteful action, or insalubrious thought? Does the offended therapist abruptly end further sessions, humiliating the client who is made to feel dirty and unworthy? Might this harsh condemnation and judgment do more damage than the original reason the individual sought help, which would rightfully be considered malpractice?
Third, the bill conveniently caters to anti-gay therapists, but ignores the consciences of counselors with controversial, yet equally sincere beliefs. When the Michigan Messenger asked Senator Hunter about racial exceptions, he replied, "No. That is where I draw the line." He rationalized his comments by making the false claim that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity but does not support racism. Hunter must not be aware that religious groups like the Southern Baptist Convention used the Bible to justify slavery and segregation. Or, maybe he is aware and believes that conscience only counts if it passes his "conservative correctness" test.
Finally, carving out special exemptions for blue-nosed Christian therapists would set a very dangerous precedent. The Religious Right loves to use slippery slope arguments, even if their application of them is often irrational and groundless.
In the case of the Michigan counselor, however, the slippery slope is very real and could tear apart our nation's unity and sense of purpose. If a Christian therapist can reject gay clients, why can't a fundamentalist mail carrier elect not to deliver letters advertising concerts for the Gay Men's Chorus? Or what about an Orthodox Jewish deli manager working in a secular supermarket who won't sell non-Kosher meat to reform Jews? How about a Muslim tollbooth worker of Saudi Arabian descent who refuses to let women drive through his lane because he believes it would offend Allah? (We are already seeing Christian pharmacists who deny birth control based on religious beliefs)
There is no end to the madness if we begin accommodating the supremacist and separatist impulses of fundamentalists. The Michigan bill is morally wrong, harmful to this country and could potentially create a chaotic and divisive situation where members of favored religious sects are exempt from laws that govern the general public.
As the old saying goes, if you don't like America, you can change it or leave it. But we absolutely cannot tolerate the creation of a shadow fundamentalist nation within our borders that confuses liberty with license to run roughshod over legitimate individual rights, professional standards, and the obligations of U.S. citizenship.
Follow Wayne Besen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Truthwinsout
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: The Values Voter Summit and the Idolatry of 'Family Values'
David Briggs: Talk Is Cheap When It Comes to Religious Freedom
Frank Fredericks: Protecting Pastafarians: When Does Religious Freedom Become Ridiculous?
Michael W. Waters: Finding the Spiritual Paths of Rhythm in New Orleans
Religious right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2012 Republican hopefuls court religious right - politics - msnbc.com
It seems you are confusing 'providing advice' with an acceptance of the action itself. If a client were to come to me stating they are starting fires, I wouldn't stop seeing them, but I would try to stop the action from continuing. If the client wanted advice on how to better start fires, I wouldn't be able to give it.
You seem to be stating that counselors are required to give advice to help someone continue acting in a way they believe to be harmful to the patient or others.
=============
Separation of religion and state is not a simple issue and never has been. If the religious kept their religion between themselves and their chosen deity, this problem would never arise--but that's not how most religions work.
Their practitioners feel guided to tell others how to live--beyond the requirements of the laws we must all obey.
Such intrusions into the private space of secular citizens--or those who just disagree--must not be tolerated.
History is full of reasons why this is true.
The difference between this thread and others is that the excesses of those trying to inappropriately from religion in secular environments are engaging in actual, documented actions here in the United States.
I'm not seeing that same situation at all, in the threads where we usually comment back and forth.
And indpendently of that - I simply and sincerely agree with you, here. Good points. Faved.
I pity the fool who ever convinces me that ain't so.
I really do.
No matter what God tells them.
Of course, she wouldn't be paying state university tuition and following graduation the insurance companies (which are already stingy about mental health coverage to begin with...) wouldn't cover her services, but the balkanization of America on the terms stated in the article is pretty much an established fact already. I, personally, have mixed feelings about all this--if people won't get along, cooperate, and play nice with each other, perhaps the best strategy might be to let everyone break off into their own insular communities and leave it to the state to regulate and referee contact. That is, after all, the way the Ottoman Empire maintained a veneer of peace and cooperation between a wide range of social and religious communities for centuries.
'Queer theory' *tends* to be a label put on a lot of theories that go overboard in some ways: (it's pretty notorious for denying the reality of *transsexuals* in particular, falling into the old saw 'You should just be genderqueer and accept your bodies as they are,' when clearly, for transsexuals, their experience of body-incongruity is very real, regardless of gender-expression. Transsexuals *are* treated horribly for being 'queer,' but that doesn't mean there's a 'theory' that can undercut *their* rights to be treated well as they seek to rectify what's actually, I assure you, really painful and very physical issues for them. Never mind equality for all, just because some 'queer theory' may stress fluidity of expression and a deconstruction of specific categories.
If that helps. There's a lot to it. But just cause there's intellectual debate about 'queer theory' doesn't change the nature of the term (or initial) or mean anything about it undermines the need for full civil equality, just cause society's looking for simpler answers.
It gets so that you don't want to patronize businesses that display Christian symbols and such: the Religious Right is turning them into symbols of hate and discrimination.
Maybe it's the haters who should have to say they're haters, so those of us who don't want to support those kinds of businesses will know. The way they're going, they'll be wanting *customers* to wear some kind of sign that you're a Christian Right-approved customer before doing any business with them, anyway.
Does anyone know of such a list?