I think the difference we’re having here is that while I’m okay with a counselor offering religiously-based services as part of a private practice, I’m completely intolerant of the court ordering someone to go see such a counselor who can’t do their job in a secular manner.
Basically I think both the court and the counselor are in hot water, but in this specific case I’d rather focus on the court’s abuse of authority, rather than the counselor’s petty criminality of conducting business in a library where it isn’t legal. They’re both wrong, but the court is enforcing religious participation on someone by proxy and has the power of the state to back themselves up, and that badly rubs me the wrong way.
Sorry to get all hot under the collar. I don’t think we’re disagreeing in all that big of a way. I just let myself get a little wound up.
