Should "the government" crack down on religious counselors?

[hello_friends]

Wow, it’s so nice to find all of these replies this morning! I have to get ready for two meetings, but I’m going to try to get started on answers . . . .

@miasm

Do you perhaps come from a college class or a reddit thread or something where a bunch of people proposed signing up to boingboing to interrogate the Zeitgeist here? Particularly in relation to the views on religious topics?

No, I wish. I am adjuncting an undergraduate class on the (sociology of) rape in the spring, and I’ve worked for over 20 years on the advocacy and now admin side of gender violence issues. I’ve been a boingboing fan for many years and, after moving to a new town, overcome with the desire to have more conversations about interesting subjects.

@miasm

That’s a far cry from your first question concerning deference isn’t it? Did you mean to imply one would follow naturally from the other? Do we really need more laws limiting freedom when in reality just abiding by the laws that already exist would seem to, ideally, produce the desired effect?

You’re right. I ask partly from traumatized AM radio/Fox News hypervigilance. Generally, any effort to hold fundamentalist institutions to a common standard for, say, raping children or helping to legitimize same may predictably be contested on the grounds of values as government overreach. I think it’s important to have a values-based response.

Catching criminals is a values-based response though — not always trauma-informed or sufficiently distinguished from the fundamentalist rhetoric about “family violence” based more on protecting “the family” than protecting safe, consensual relationships.

@funruly

To be sure, regulatory boards are just as interested in whether a person engages in a regulated practice as whether a person presents themselves to the public as a regulated professional. However, as a practical matter, it’s much easier to catch unlicensed charliatians who claim to be counselors or therapists or analysts than it is to get proper evidence that what they did in a private confidential session can be proven as practicing healthcare without a license.

Yes, I totally missed that in my post. You’re right there’s an interest and authority usually for a licensing board or three to investigate and remedy unauthorized practice of X licensed practice.

The “unauthorized practice” issue is overlapping and also distinct from criminal or civil liability questions.

Emerging or “para” professions like life coaching, fancy personal assistants, notarios, etc. present a socially contested bundle of, OTOH, needed professional practices and/or OTOH, unscrupulous charlatans. They nearly always operating outside the capacity of particular professions to police any but the most egregious abuses.

Plus, there are professions and professional practices which do self-regulate but present sometimes similar issues of commodified, predatory practices that overwhelm the social justice mission of the profession.

Those issues are present with professions like insurance agent or realtor . . . but also medical, legal and (of course) lay clergy pastoral counselors.

@GulliverFoyle

The limit with laws prohibiting this type of abuse is that they rely on someone reporting the abuse. . . .

The only way you make headway on a problem like this is by making it socially normative to report abuse, and not blaming the victim. But most of the time when religious folks report abuse at the hands of other religious folks, they’re greeted with indifference, condescension or even distrust by non-religious folks, while at the same time being ostracized by the very communities they grew up in. This generates a very real incentive for victim silence. So when all non-religious folks have to offer are more laws and harsher penalties for what is already criminal conduct, as opposed to real support for victims, it probably rings pretty hollow with the communities these abusers prey upon.

I think this is really so insightful — both the emphasis on norms (values) which inhibit reporting and the need to create safety for those who want to exit a fundamentalist group or community to consider doing so.

As @LDoBe said:

@LDoBe

Secular humanists at the ready, with a hotline even for people who have been negatively impacted by religion. RFR isn’t out to deconvert people.

There are also 24-hour crisis and/or support lines staffed by advocates to offer a safe harbor and space for people to reflect on what they want and need individually — distinct from their family or church and yet not necessarily in opposition to that group. The person in danger is usually the best judge of how to manage the risks.

@GulliverFoyle

if we’re going to spend taxes on victim services (which I’m in favor of), I’d like to see it go to victim services and not ineffectual law enforcement.

Some victim services are attached to law enforcement and/or the prosecutors’ offices and are not focused on responding to gender violence (i.e. also assist victims of other types of crimes, like theft). They tend to be funded only while the case is pending and when if the criminal investigation/prosecution goes sideways (and most do), they’re not able to continue helping.

On the other hand, there’s a national — international, really — network of coalitions of advocate groups funded to focus on gender violence and help on a trauma-informed basis independently of a criminal investigation/prosecution.

@jsroberts

I’d say more consistent regulation is certainly appropriate as well as working to integrate different groups into the wider society while allowing them to keep their particular identities and some degree of autonomy. Religious freedom is important, but there are many responsibilities that individuals and groups have to promote society in general, regardless of their personal belief and identity.

I think this is true. One would expect that clergy holding themselves out to parishioners as “counselors” would be held to the same standard. Since the 80s, that expectation would be generally mistaken but for exceptional cases.

@OtherMichael

And he’s only been active in threads involving T-Mobile, victimhood, corruption, video games, economics, charter schools, the Fear and Loathing graphic novel, and other primarily religious topics.

I remember that you like to post sarcastically and see that you are kidding . . . still want to add that I’m very interested in how STEM topics intersect with professional, cultural and esp. social justice topics. I have to listen and read more on the STEM topics since I’m way in the learner phase compared to many of the people who post here.

@japhroaig

the phrase “feck off, you dirty fecker” is at all times an appropriate response

Thank you for the kind welcome! I’m still learning to communicate courteously through posting. It’s sadly easy to misunderstand people. I see the grammatical importance of the emoji.

@miasm

Seems to focus on the religious aspects concerning the legality of victim advocacy etc.

As a closing note, I think there’s an embarrassment of riches (or parade of horribles, depending on perspective) in the intersections between multiculturalism (including fundamentalist groups) and gender when considering gender violence.