Weekly Column
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 Sen. 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 US citizenship.










This is right up there essentially with gender issues and how religious people will use their beliefs and in what way it renders them incompetent or harmful to their clients?
We live in modern and diversified times where religious beliefs or former taboos have been changed by technology, advanced education and integration of the Constitution and Bill of Rights so that a citizen understands their freedoms and rights, and coexists with those who differ in belief or not at all.
Contraception is taboo to almost all religions, the way heterosexuality is, or how women are treated in society.
But people of certain beliefs can’t keep those who don’t share the religion from obtaining it or banning it’s use, nor can they claim it’s a compromise or damage to their religious belief if OTHERS have this option.
And there is NO EVIDENCE harm has come to them for this option being in existence.
Any incidents of a person of faith being restricted or forced to comply with rules they objected to, were found to be a matter of that person breaching a contract regarding public accommodation or public funding and anti discrimination policies.
One’s religion isn’t a license to cheat those standards. Because it might be a matter of life and death and the health of their clients.
Similar to the risks to a client that can occur when a pharmacist who suddenly claims religious convictions when they refuse to dispense birth control pills or RU486.
Considering that such pills ALSO treat severe cramping and other menstrual distress, shrinks tumors and is used for females at risk if they get pregnant, such selective behavior of a pharmacist is very wrong.
And this really has nothing to do with morals or the sort of religious morality that’s doing GOOD for a person.
This is an indulgence of prejudice that in fact is about controlling others, no matter what harm might occur to that person.
That alone is proof that they are NOT concerned for the health and happiness of who is relying on them for help.
What part of the no establishment clause of the Constitution do these s**t-for-brain fundamentalists not understand?
The frightening potential reality is that if enough Americans are persuaded to accept fundamentalist beliefs, they can create, at a minimum, a de facto theocracy if that’s what they want. We already have many millions of fundamentalists.
I think the basic foundational beliefs of Christianity must be relentlessly challenged. It seems to me that once someone accepts those beliefs, it’s not really a giant leap to get into fundamentalism. So I think the coddling of moderate Christians is a mistake. If we didn’t already have the millions of fundamentalists, it would be easy to view moderate Christian beliefs as fairly benign, and I would not be eager to challenge them. But it’s worth noting that a dirty little secret of the so-called liberal mainline denominations is that most of them have fundamentalist factions within them.
Religion turns into poison very easily.
Radical anti-gay activists want to carve our a loop hole that they can use to thwart discrimination laws. They start with gay Americans and push this idea that anyone anywhere should not have to deal with or serve gay taxpayers based on their “conscience.” Once this is accepted, they will continue with their plan to “take American back” (to the 1950′s when discrimination against minorities was legal). Anti-gay activist Rand Paul said last year that retaurants should not have to serve Blacks if they don’t want to. And that is where we are going with this. Once gay Americans can be left homeless to starve based on others’ “consciences,” these same militant conservatives will go after other minorities. How easy it will be! Don’t like Mexicans? Don’t sell them food based on your “conscience.” Don’t like Asians? Don’t sell them gas or rent them an apartment based on your “conscience.” It’s time for all decent Americans to stand up to this wicked plan to turn our nation into a place of segregation, discrimination and misery.
Now who’s asking for special rights?
Michelle Bachmann’s husband is a therapist and does exactly that. I stated before in a post that he should be removed from whatever service he provides based on ethical grounds. Here is the link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/29/bachmanns-husband-on-homosexuality-barbarians-need-to-be-educated-out-of-their-sinful-nature/
At the least, Bachman’s husband’s counseling service should be immediately cut off from any Medicare funds. Sometimes these religious counselors are not licensed nor are they members of professional organizations. So they can skirt ethics codes. But if they receive public funding, the funding should be terminated.
I have to disagree with Richard. My Episcopal church has total inclusion of women and lgbt people. There are no fundamentalists in the congregation as they would high-tail it out of there as soon as they knew what we were all about. Also, fundamentalism is a gross overreaction to the Age of Enlightenment and for about the first 1600 years of Christianity, a ‘fundamentalist’, literalist interpretation of the Bible was considered heresy. People on my side of the aisle see it has a combination of history remembered, combined with allegory, symbol, and myth (in the true meaning of that word–not it’s modern use as an all purpose term for b******t). We also do a lot of good in our community with the Soup Kitchen and the Food Cupboard. If we folded up shop and went home lots of people would go hungry. We don’t need ‘coddling’ as we can take care of ourselves, and lots of other people as well.
I agree with Gary concerning Richard. My church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) (by far the largest of the Presbyterian Denominations in America) and one of the 10 largest Churches in tha nation, has a Majority of Female pastors and elders, and now welcomes GLBT people to the pulpit and eldership. Do the GLBT friendly Denominations have conservatives factions? Yes. But, it is worth noting that the ANTI gay churches, from the Catholics to the Baptists have pro gay factions to.
The mainline Protestant Denominations are actually (with the exception of the Methodists) some of the first groups to support Us. 21 years ago, I met my hubby in the basement of an Episcopal Church. The university (a public one) would not at that time let the “pervert group” as one studend senator put it, have official status. But, the Church opened its doors to us.
Some churches are very bad, but some have been supportive at great cost. We should all, even the non religious, remember that.
As per this proposed law, it is the most unconstitutional thing I have ever read, and even (alito and “justice” ‘I dont like to read’ Thomas aside) this court would not allow that to see the light of day.
Gary (NJ),
If I decided to join a church, Episcopal would be at the top of my list (I grew up mainly Presbyterian (USA), with some Assembly of God thrown in). But there are fundamentalist factions among both the Episcopalians and Presbyterians (USA).
Oddly, one of the problems I see with the moderate denominations is that their members are NOT generally obsessed with religion, whereas the fundamentalists ARE completely obsessed. As a result, the fundies get all the attention because they are relentlessly demanding, loud, intolerant, and willing to pump lots of money into their crusades. And while the fundy churches are blatantly critical of moderate churches, the moderates seem unwilling to return the favor, possibly out of fear of alienating the own fundy factions even more.
As far as gays are concerned, it’s all very nice that moderate denominations are becoming accepting of us, but I’m not aware of any moderate denomination mounting an organized well-funded campaign on our behalf, whereas the Mormon and Catholic churches, for examples, are relentless in their campaigns against us. I’m well aware that most straight people helping in the fight for gay equality would likely self-identify as moderate Christians, but that’s not the same as a religious denomination or organization mounting a campaign on our behalf. As a result, the fundamentalists are seen as the only people defining the will of God, and then campaigning relentlessly to enforce it.
Gary,
See my story differs a lot from yours. My brother is a member of the Presbyterian USA congregation here in Towson, MD. He joined 3 years ago and the brother who was always supportive of me turned anti-gay. His congregation is not enlightened and I found that many within the church are not. I have basically severed my relationship with him and have barely spoken to him in 2 years. I don’t see any sign of repentence from him and his religion has poisoned his view of things.
I’m not sure what it means to stop coddling moderate Christians–but I think we do, in this country, coddle Christians (and most religions) too much in general. The idea that someone can say “God told me” and not be looked at skeptically is a little scary.
I don’t go around picking fights with Christians but I do remember once in WeHo there was a group of fundies who would come in and “pray” for the gays. I merely tried to argue that I don’t care what their beliefs are as long as they don’t try to put them into law. It came out that I don’t believe in God–at that point both the fundie and a nearby gay Christian ganged up on me.
I also know a lot of good liberal Mormons who believe in gay rights and support gay marriage who still gave money to Prop 8 because the church told them to.
I’m fine with moderate Christians, but I don’t especially trust them. I would never expect them to buck their religion for my rights.
Okay, maybe “coddling” was not the best word-choice, but one dictionary definition is “to treat with excessive indulgence,” which doesn’t seem too far off the mark. Or maybe I should have said, “So I think the deference accorded to moderate Christians is a mistake.”
Richard, I guess I have to agree with you. I think we do give moderate Christians too much credit just for being moderate–including gay Christians. They’re always ready to complain when someone uses “Christian” without some kind of modifier but, with a few exceptions, they don’t especially go out of their way to show they are different. They’re always ready to shame gays (or liberals) when we criticize Christians without giving them a special dispensation, but they’re not willing to stand up to extreme conservatives in a public way.
You probably won’t have to worry about moderate churches if the trends continue.
The mainline churches that are considered “moderate” are steadily losing members.
I’m not worried about the moderate churches–and I bet if they stood up for what they believe they’d start getting more members.
Responding to Regan,
You wrote-
“Contraception is taboo to almost all religions, the way heterosexuality is, or how women are treated in society”
What exactly are you trying to say?
[...] From Truth Wins Out: http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2011/07/17492/ [...]
Just like with the GOP, it’s time moderates within Christian sects took back control and put the radical, perverted, loud, Bible bully minority back in the corner where they belong.
They need to quit being inclusive towards intolerance and tell their fanatical wing to either leave, or to sit down, shut up and learn what it means to be a *real* Christian!
This perversion of both Christianity and conservatism has been going on for *30 years*, ever since Reagan opened up the doors of the insane asylums and allowed these fanatics to take over the GOP! These people will NOT be happy until the US is under thair version of Sharia Law!
Months ago now, I finally just realized that it’s no use in attending “church,” as the extremists rule, all one way, or all the other. Moderates/moderation seem to have been thrown out quite some time ago. What seemingly remains is nothing but political and religious dogma, having nothing to do with faith: Each side is too busy lobbing “charges” across the chasm between the two rather extremists sides, while some if not most of the moderates are left wondering what the heck happened to “the church,” a term I apply quite loosely here, due to the content of the discussion.
Sadly, no one seems to be paying attention to the proverbial hen house, and the fox is stealing the church blind: maybe not in monetary value, rather, in human terms. The Christian church at large cannot afford any more defections to the extreme ends, yet it has yet to establish a voice saying “Enough!” In plain speech, they [the church at large] has – in this instance – no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, as has occurred in the past, out of that may only become more denominations, and more arguments.
To paraphrase the saying used in the 70′s, “Will the last person leaving the church please turn off the lights?”
CAfurrball. I could not agree with you more.
@Daniel
That has certainly worked for some liberal churches and other religious organizations where we are. Those that have an active outreach (not a passive sign that says “we welcome everyone”) are, more often than not, growing. Social justice still sells, as it did in the days that social gospel Christianity was at its height.
On the other hand, I really do think that genuine moderate churches are disappearing. Mainstream increasingly means the liberal churches — accepting of women and gays – racially diverse, and fully embracing the idea that the love of God is not limited, not by God, not by man, and not by an early Iron age book.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn