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.
If the court new the counselor was going to do that and that Holly would object to it and they made her go anyway that would be an issue but I really doubt that’'s the case.
Fear is the mind killer.
I’m reading a collection called “Essential Papers On Masochism” which is very relevant because codependency is basically what’s called “moral masochism.” There’s omnipotent fantasies, a dose of narcissism, self-defeating behavior, and pretty much every author uses the word “provoke” to describe their interactions with others. A perfect companion book for that next lost weekend spent under the volcano.
This is a nice, respectful, thoughtful discussion.
However…
This ‘Christian Counselor’ - is she a real counselor - a licensed counselor? Is she Licensed?
Not anyone can be a mental health provider liturgical or otherwise - and getting referrals from the legal system can be sticky. So- wtf? She lacks a permanent office. Most cities - even the expensive ones - have some sort of space that even mediocre counselors with a so-so client base can afford. Asking clients to reserve a study room in a library in the client’s name? Oy yoy yoy.
In my former profession (for now…ugh), my university degrees, and in interfaith activities & friendships, I have gotten to know liturgical counselors belonging to various faiths. They are professionals. Of course these folks are informed by their faith - but they also are professionals who have standards & practices that are customary to mental health professions. Professional detachment the best you can & all of that.
If a client shares their faith - that’s one thing. But proselytizing - especially the blatant bully-sell we’re discussing here - and in the very first session - is unprofessional and bizarre. We all have our biases - but the alleged counselor here - is she the judge’s niece, lover or both or something?
What I mean is that most liturgical counselors I - of whatever faith - I have gotten to know - try to help the client first & try to suppress their personal biases the best they can - like the ideal for chaplains.
What I’m trying to say -
This alleged counselor sounds like an uneducated quack-job & what is her relationship to this judge?
You are correct. You draft or have drafted a new complaint or some other claim or request for adjustment to the current judgment. You don’t just quit and hope the law goes away. It won’t.
A good, hard workin atheist should always have the Jew card in the back pocket. It’ll shut em up faster than, “I don’t believe in God.” When they hear I don’t believe in God, it makes them go harder. They already have a hardon for Jeebus, and they get an even bigger hardon for an atheist. Just flash the Star of David or a mezuzah or the chai and they’ll be all, ok, we can’t talk about this.
the counselor is demanding that someone believe in god as part of a court-ordered counseling, clearly unconstitutional (imagine if the reverse were going on, that the counselor demanded a religious person renounce god as part of the program), I’m not sure what having a parent write an essay on “What God is to me” is except very obvious (court ordered) proselytising.
she is illegally using a public library to do her job on the cheap, plus apparently taking cash literally under-the-table,
you’re taking the side of “the letter of the law” here, fair enough, but now that this has gone public in a big way the mother will probably get her kids back, the counselor will be facing charges, and the judge will be under some serious scrutiny too, and if it plays out that way, then the court is basically admitting they were wrong.
Here’s a spoof facebook page that fake-supports keeping prayer at graduation ceremonies (and more, it look like) at a PUBLIC school. The real comments are scary. The fake ones are pretty funny.
One of the themes, though, is “We here in this county are god fearing people who have been for ages, and we should be able to pray to Jesus in our public schools because that’s what we here in this god fearing county want to do things – anyone coming to live here should know where they are moving. Did I mention this is how we’ve been doing things? Oh yes, and screw outsiders who don’t agree. They are not wanted here.” It’s a lovely theme.
Stuff like this applies to judges too. They should know better, but the “we love jesus here” mentality is pervasive.
Like what - do you mean tossing a cup hot tea is effective? OOOOO…watch out, hot tea.
Me. I just smack ‘em with the steaming hot samovar & if necessary, scald ‘em with its real hot contents. A coal heated samovar - well, lots o’ fun. Ouchies Ouchies -woooooo… Electric samovar - whole lota shakin’ goin’ on.
I don’t think anyone would blame the woman if she had decided to accept the indignity of being preached to for ten weeks. On the other hand, I don’t think you should blame her for not accepting Christianity as the dominant paradigm as a condition to having her kids, or accepting an obviously unprofessional counselling service. It’s never a great time to exercise your rights; much like paying a bribe, the costs of not complying are much higher.
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say this has gone public “in a big way”. Here’s what will most likely happen, the court MAY release some kind of statement saying they had no knowledge etc etc. The counselor will probably stop getting court referred cases and that’s about it.
Also where is the idea coming from that you can’t conduct business in a public library? I saw people do it all the time when I was in school.
Well, she didn’t have to take baptism or become a priest. The cost of not complying…no one needed to know, unless of course she was required to write an encyclical treaty while under the lie detector. That fight, could have been postponed.
Looks like she just lost custody to her ex-husband, so that lowers the bar considerably. It’s not as if Social Services snatched her children (I hope). And if she can’t deal constructively with the court, maybe it’s for the best.
And in other news, the Silver Spring free-range parents had a second tussle with the county over letting their kids walk to the playground, but last I hear it sounded like a judge had quashed the whole thing. Otherwise the county would have soon been in the awkward position of ordering the kids indoors when they were 14 or even old enough to drive. It would be hard to keep harassing the parents indefinitely.
Perhaps that’s exactly why she’s using public libraries. Rent money goes straight to the judge, and she keeps the totality of the fee.
But yeah, some connection to the two I’d wager.
I cracked a matzo on a baptist’s skull once. He stopped his proselytizing in a hail of crumbs. There was this Methodist in my face with the methods, and I told her to gefilte. She swam away.
